D'Amico Anthony V, Whittington Richard, Malkowicz S Bruce, Cote Kerri, Loffredo Marian, Schultz Delray, Chen Ming-Hui, Tomaszewski John E, Renshaw Andrew A, Wein Alan, Richie Jerome P
Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Cancer. 2002 Jul 15;95(2):281-6. doi: 10.1002/cncr.10657.
To the authors' knowledge, consensus is lacking regarding the relative long-term efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) versus conventional-dose external beam radiation therapy (RT) in the treatment of patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma.
A retrospective cohort study of 2635 men treated with RP (n = 2254) or conventional-dose RT (n = 381) between 1988-2000 was performed. The primary endpoint was prostate specific antigen (PSA) survival stratified by treatment received and high-risk, intermediate-risk, or low-risk group based on the serum PSA level, biopsy Gleason score, 1992 American Joint Commission on Cancer clinical tumor category, and percent positive prostate biopsies.
Estimates of 8-year PSA survival (95% confidence interval [95% CI]) for low-risk patients (T1c,T2a, a PSA level < or = 10 ng/mL, and a Gleason score < or = 6) were 88% (95% CI, 85, 90) versus 78% (95% CI, 72, 83) for RP versus patients treated with RT, respectively. Eight-year estimates of PSA survival also favored RP for intermediate-risk patients (T2b or Gleason score 7 or a PSA level > 10 and < or = 20 ng/mL) with < 34% positive prostate biopsies, being 79% (95% CI, 73, 85) versus 65% (95% CI, 58, 72), respectively. Estimates of PSA survival in high-risk (T2c or PSA level > 20 ng/mL or Gleason score > or = 8) and intermediate-risk patients with at least 34% positive prostate biopsies initially favored RT, but were not significantly different after 8 years.
Intermediate-risk and low-risk patients with a low biopsy tumor volume who were treated with RP appeared to fare significantly better compared with patients who were treated using conventional-dose RT. Intermediate-risk and high-risk patients with a high biopsy tumor volume who were treated with RP or RT had long-term estimates of PSA survival that were not found to be significantly different.
据作者所知,对于根治性前列腺切除术(RP)与传统剂量外照射放疗(RT)在治疗临床局限性前列腺癌患者中的相对长期疗效,目前尚无共识。
对1988年至2000年间接受RP治疗的2254例男性和接受传统剂量RT治疗的381例男性进行了一项回顾性队列研究。主要终点是根据接受的治疗以及基于血清前列腺特异抗原(PSA)水平、活检Gleason评分、1992年美国癌症联合委员会临床肿瘤分类和前列腺活检阳性百分比划分的高风险、中风险或低风险组进行分层的PSA生存率。
低风险患者(T1c、T2a,PSA水平≤10 ng/mL,Gleason评分≤6)的8年PSA生存率(95%置信区间[95%CI]),RP组为88%(95%CI,85, 90),而RT组为78%(95%CI,72, 83)。对于前列腺活检阳性率<34%的中风险患者(T2b或Gleason评分为7或PSA水平>10且≤20 ng/mL),8年PSA生存率估计也有利于RP组,分别为79%(95%CI,73, 85)和65%(95%CI,58, 72)。高风险患者(T2c或PSA水平>20 ng/mL或Gleason评分≥8)以及前列腺活检阳性率至少为34%的中风险患者的PSA生存率估计最初有利于RT组,但8年后无显著差异。
与接受传统剂量RT治疗的患者相比,接受RP治疗的活检肿瘤体积较小的中风险和低风险患者的预后似乎明显更好。接受RP或RT治疗的活检肿瘤体积较大的中风险和高风险患者的长期PSA生存率估计无显著差异。