Wilt Timothy J, Ullman Kristen E, Linskens Eric J, MacDonald Roderick, Brasure Michelle, Ester Elizabeth, Nelson Victoria A, Saha Jayati, Sultan Shahnaz, Dahm Philipp
Minneapolis VA Healthcare System, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
J Urol. 2021 Apr;205(4):967-976. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001578. Epub 2020 Dec 22.
We sought to identify new information evaluating clinically localized prostate cancer therapies.
Bibliographic databases (2013-January 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov and systematic reviews were searched for controlled studies of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer with duration ≥5 years for mortality and metastases, and ≥1 year for harms.
We identified 67 eligible references. Among patients with clinically, rather than prostate specific antigen, detected localized prostate cancer, watchful waiting may increase mortality and metastases but decreases urinary and erectile dysfunction vs radical prostatectomy. Comparative mortality effect may vary by tumor risk and age but not by race, health status, comorbidities or prostate specific antigen. Active monitoring probably results in little to no mortality difference in prostate specific antigen detected localized prostate cancer vs radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation plus androgen deprivation regardless of tumor risk. Metastases were slightly higher with active monitoring. Harms were greater with radical prostatectomy than active monitoring and mixed between external beam radiation plus androgen deprivation vs active monitoring. 3-Dimensional conformal radiation and androgen deprivation plus low dose rate brachytherapy provided small mortality reductions vs 3-dimensional conformal radiation and androgen deprivation but little to no difference on metastases. External beam radiation plus androgen deprivation vs external beam radiation alone may result in small mortality and metastasis reductions in higher risk disease but may increase sexual harms. Few new data exist on other treatments.
Radical prostatectomy reduces mortality vs watchful waiting in clinically detected localized prostate cancer but causes more harms. Effectiveness may be limited to younger men and those with intermediate risk disease. Active monitoring results in little to no mortality difference vs radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation plus androgen deprivation. Few new data exist on other treatments.
我们试图确定评估临床局限性前列腺癌治疗方法的新信息。
检索文献数据库(2013年1月至2020年)、ClinicalTrials.gov以及系统评价,以查找关于临床局限性前列腺癌治疗的对照研究,这些研究的死亡率和转移随访时间≥5年,危害随访时间≥1年。
我们确定了67篇符合条件的参考文献。在临床检测而非前列腺特异性抗原检测出局限性前列腺癌的患者中,与根治性前列腺切除术相比,观察等待可能会增加死亡率和转移,但可降低泌尿和勃起功能障碍。比较死亡率的影响可能因肿瘤风险和年龄而异,但不受种族、健康状况、合并症或前列腺特异性抗原的影响。对于前列腺特异性抗原检测出的局限性前列腺癌,无论肿瘤风险如何,主动监测与根治性前列腺切除术或外照射加雄激素剥夺相比,可能导致的死亡率差异很小或没有差异。主动监测的转移率略高。根治性前列腺切除术的危害大于主动监测,外照射加雄激素剥夺与主动监测之间的危害情况不一。与三维适形放疗加雄激素剥夺相比,三维适形放疗、雄激素剥夺加低剂量率近距离放疗可小幅降低死亡率,但转移方面差异很小或没有差异。对于高风险疾病,外照射加雄激素剥夺与单纯外照射相比,可能会小幅降低死亡率和转移率,但可能会增加性方面的危害。关于其他治疗方法的新数据很少。
在临床检测出的局限性前列腺癌中,根治性前列腺切除术与观察等待相比可降低死亡率,但危害更大。其有效性可能仅限于年轻男性和中度风险疾病患者。主动监测与根治性前列腺切除术或外照射加雄激素剥夺相比,导致的死亡率差异很小或没有差异。关于其他治疗方法的新数据很少。