| 1. |
- Adam, Meike, et al.
(författare)
-
Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life After Radical Prostatectomy Only Versus a Combination of Prostatectomy with Radiation and Hormonal Therapy
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 71:3, s. 330-336
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: While the optimal use and timing of secondary therapy after radical prostatectomy (RP) remain controversial, there are limited data on patient-reported outcomes following multimodal therapy.Objective: To assess the impact of additional radiation therapy (RT) and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on urinary continence, potency, and quality of life (QoL) after RP.Design, setting, and participants: Among 13 150 men who underwent RP from 1992 to 2013, 905 received RP + RT, 407 RP + ADT and 688 RP + RT + ADT.Outcome measurements and statistical analyses: Urinary function, sexual function, and overall QoL were evaluated annually using self-administered validated questionnaires. Propensity score-matched and bootstrap analyses were performed, and the distributions for all functional outcomes were analyzed as a function of time after RP.Results and limitations: Patients who received RP + RT had a 4% higher overall incontinence rate 3 yr after surgery, and 1% higher rate for severe incontinence (> 3 pads/24 h) compared to matched RP-only patients. ADT further increased the overall and severe incontinence rates by 4% and 3%, respectively, compared to matched RP + RT patients. RP + RT was associated with an 18% lower rate of potency compared to RP alone, while RP + RT + ADT was associated with a further 17% reduction compared to RP + RT. Additional RT reduced QoL by 10% and additional ADT by a further 12% compared to RP only and RP + RT, respectively. The timing of RT after RP had no influence on continence, but adjuvant compared to salvage RT was associated with significantly lower potency (37% vs 45%), but higher QoL (60% vs 56%). Limitations of our study include the observational study design and potential for selection bias in the treatments received.Conclusions: Secondary RT and ADT after RP have an additive negative influence on urinary function, potency, and QoL. Patients with high-risk disease should be counseled before RP on the potential net impairment of functional outcomes due to multimodal treatment.Patient summary: Men with high-risk disease choosing surgery upfront should be counseled on the potential need for additional radiation and or androgen deprivation, and the potential net impairment of functional outcomes arising from multimodal treatment.
|
|
| 2. |
- Azzouzi, Abdel Rahmène, et al.
(författare)
-
Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy versus active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer (CLIN1001 PCM301) : An open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045. ; 18:2, s. 181-191
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy, a novel tissue-preserving treatment for low-risk prostate cancer, has shown favourable safety and efficacy results in single-arm phase 1 and 2 studies. We compared this treatment with the standard of care, active surveillance, in men with low-risk prostate cancer in a phase 3 trial. Methods: This randomised controlled trial was done in 47 European university centres and community hospitals. Men with low-risk, localised prostate cancer (Gleason pattern 3) who had received no previous treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (4 mg/kg padeliporfin intravenously over 10 min and optical fibres inserted into the prostate to cover the desired treatment zone and subsequent activation by laser light 753 nm with a fixed power of 150 mW/cm for 22 min 15 s) or active surveillance. Randomisation was done by a web-based allocation system stratified by centre with balanced blocks of two or four patients. Best practice for active surveillance at the time of study design was followed (ie, biopsy at 12-month intervals and prostate-specific antigen measurement and digital rectal examination at 3-month intervals). The co-primary endpoints were treatment failure (histological progression of cancer from low to moderate or high risk or death during 24 months' follow-up) and absence of definite cancer (absence of any histology result definitely positive for cancer at month 24). Analysis was by intention to treat. Treatment was open-label, but investigators assessing primary efficacy outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. This trial is registered with . ClinicalTrials.gov, number . NCT01310894. Findings: Between March 8, 2011, and April 30, 2013, we randomly assigned 206 patients to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy and 207 patients to active surveillance. Median follow-up was 24 months (IQR 24-25). The proportion of participants who had disease progression at month 24 was 58 (28%) of 206 in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group compared with 120 (58%) of 207 in the active surveillance group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·34, 95% CI 0·24-0·46; p<0·0001). 101 (49%) men in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group had a negative prostate biopsy result at 24 months post treatment compared with 28 (14%) men in the active surveillance group (adjusted risk ratio 3·67, 95% CI 2·53-5·33; p<0·0001). Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy was well tolerated. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were prostatitis (three [2%] in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group . vs one [<1%] in the active surveillance group), acute urinary retention (three [2%] . vs one [<1%]) and erectile dysfunction (two [1%] . vs three [1%]). The most common serious adverse event in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group was retention of urine (15 patients; severe in three); this event resolved within 2 months in all patients. The most common serious adverse event in the active surveillance group was myocardial infarction (three patients). Interpretation: Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy is a safe, effective treatment for low-risk, localised prostate cancer. This treatment might allow more men to consider a tissue-preserving approach and defer or avoid radical therapy. Funding: Steba Biotech.
|
|
