Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Division of Urologic Surgery, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA; Division of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Eur Urol. 2015 Feb;67(2):204-9. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.017. Epub 2014 Oct 5.
Due to the protracted natural history of the clinical progression of prostate cancer, biochemical recurrence (BCR) is often used to compare treatment modalities. However, BCR definitions and posttreatment prostate-specific antigen kinetics vary considerably among treatments, calling into the question the validity of such comparisons.
To analyze prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) according to treatment-specific nomogram-predicted risk of BCR for men treated by radical prostatectomy (RP), external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT), and brachytherapy.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 13 803 men who underwent RP, EBRT, or brachytherapy at two US high-volume hospitals between 1995 and 2008.
RP, EBRT, and brachytherapy.
The 5-yr progression-free probability (5Y-PFP) was calculated for each patient based on the treatment received using a validated treatment-specific nomogram. Fine and Gray competing risk analysis was then used to estimate PCSM by a patient's predicted 5Y-PFP. Multivariable competing risk regression analysis was used to determine the association of treatment with PCSM after adjusting for nomogram-predicted 5Y-PFP.
Men receiving EBRT had higher 10-yr PCSM compared with those treated by RP across the range of nomogram-predicted risks of BCR: 5Y-PFP >75%, 3% versus 0.9%; 5Y-PFP 51-75%, 6.8% versus 5.9%; 5Y-PFP 26-50%, 12.2% versus 10.6%; and 5Y-PFP ≤25%, 26.6% versus 21.2%. After adjusting for nomogram-predicted 5Y-PFP, EBRT was associated with a significantly increased PCSM risk compared with RP (hazard ratio: 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.0; p=0.006). No statistically significant difference in PCSM was observed between patients treated by brachytherapy and RP, although patient selection factors and lack of statistical power limited this analysis.
EBRT patients with similar nomogram-predicted 5Y-PFP appear to have a significantly increased risk of PCSM compared with those treated by RP. Comparison of treatments using nomogram-predicted BCR end points may not be valid.
Biochemical recurrence (BCR) outcomes after external-beam radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy are associated with different risks of subsequent prostate cancer-specific mortality. Physicians and patients should cautiously interpret BCR end points when comparing treatments to make treatment decisions.
由于前列腺癌临床进展的自然病史漫长,生化复发(BCR)常被用于比较治疗方法。然而,不同治疗方法的 BCR 定义和治疗后前列腺特异抗原动力学变化差异很大,这使得这些比较的有效性受到质疑。
根据接受根治性前列腺切除术(RP)、外照射放疗(EBRT)和近距离放疗的患者的治疗特异性列线图预测的 BCR 风险,分析前列腺癌特异性死亡率(PCSM)。
设计、地点和参与者:共纳入 13803 名 1995 年至 2008 年在美国两家高容量医院接受 RP、EBRT 或近距离放疗的患者。
RP、EBRT 和近距离放疗。
根据患者接受的治疗方法,使用经过验证的治疗特异性列线图计算每位患者的 5 年无进展生存率(5Y-PFP)。然后,采用 Fine 和 Gray 竞争风险分析,根据患者预测的 5Y-PFP 估计 PCSM。多变量竞争风险回归分析用于调整列线图预测的 5Y-PFP 后,确定治疗与 PCSM 的相关性。
在列线图预测的 BCR 风险范围内,接受 EBRT 的患者与接受 RP 的患者相比,10 年 PCSM 更高:5Y-PFP>75%,3%比 0.9%;5Y-PFP 51-75%,6.8%比 5.9%;5Y-PFP 26-50%,12.2%比 10.6%;5Y-PFP≤25%,26.6%比 21.2%。在调整列线图预测的 5Y-PFP 后,EBRT 与 RP 相比,PCSM 风险显著增加(风险比:1.5;95%置信区间:1.1-2.0;p=0.006)。虽然患者选择因素和缺乏统计学效力限制了这项分析,但接受近距离放疗和 RP 治疗的患者之间的 PCSM 无统计学差异。
具有相似列线图预测 5Y-PFP 的 EBRT 患者似乎与接受 RP 治疗的患者相比,PCSM 风险显著增加。使用列线图预测的 BCR 终点比较治疗方法可能是无效的。
EBRT 和 RP 治疗后的生化复发(BCR)结果与随后前列腺癌特异性死亡率的风险相关。在比较治疗方法以做出治疗决策时,医生和患者应谨慎解释 BCR 终点。