CancerNetwork Members: Login | Register
 
CancerNetwork SearchMedica Medline Drugs

Powered by SearchMedica

 
PUBLICATIONS
NEWS
PODCASTS
TOPICS
BLOGS
PATIENTS
NURSES
JOBS
CONFERENCES
CME
SUPPLEMENTS
 

ONCOLOGY. Vol. 23 No. 11
Pages: 1  2  3  
Next
Controversies in the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer 

Brachytherapy or Surgery? A Composite View

By Jay P. Ciezki, MD
Staff Member, Department of Radiation Oncology

Eric A. Klein, MD
Chairman, Glickman Urologic and Kidney Institute
Cleveland Clinic
Cleveland, Ohio | October 13, 2009

Financial Disclosure: The authors have no significant financial interest or other relationship with the manufacturers of any products or providers of any service mentioned in this article.

Editor’s Note: This article is part of a special series, Controversies in the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer, which began in the September issue of ONCOLOGY. Guest edited by Dr. Derek Raghavan, each article in the series takes a particular position on optimal patterns of care for early-stage prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT:
The treatment of prostate cancer presents the patient and clinician with several options. The choice of modality is often the most difficult. For low- and intermediate-risk disease, the choice is often between surgery and brachytherapy because the other major option, external-beam radiotherapy, has toxicity that generally only makes sense in the risk/benefit analysis for high-risk prostate cancer. The comparison of brachytherapy and surgery may be done on several levels. This review will focus the comparison on toxicity, the “soft” endpoints of biochemical relapse-free survival and clinical relapse-free survival, and the “hard” endpoint of prostate cancer–specific mortality.

As treatments for prostate cancer, brachytherapy and surgery share logistics in that they both involve a procedure that may be performed in one intervention. Beyond that, one sees similarities and differences depending on the point of comparison being examined. The ideal dataset to use for such a comparison would be from a well-done randomized trial.

Unfortunately, no such trial exists. Some trials along these lines have randomized patients to either surgery or external-beam radiotherapy, but they yielded results that are not widely accepted because of small sample sizes, significant imbalances in pretreatment characteristics between groups, and randomization artifacts.[1,2] An attempt to compare brachytherapy and surgery in a randomized setting was closed due to poor accrual.[3] Also, none of these trials made sufficient plans to assess toxicity beyond simple investigator-reported grading systems. As a result, one must appeal to less robust data for analysis.

Despite the lack of randomized data, it is possible to sift through the literature for good quality research that will provide a basis for analysis. If one limits the inclusion of such research to prospective trials as well as retrospective trials with adequate follow-up and sufficient numbers of patients, a solid comparison of brachytherapy and surgery for prostate cancer may be made. This report will focus the comparison on toxicity, biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), clinical relapse-free survival (cRFS), and prostate cancer–specific mortality.

Toxicity

Most major cooperative groups have toxicity grading systems that tend to suffer from the same flaw: they are physician/investigator-reported. One recently completed prospective trial—the Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Satisfaction with Treatment Quality Assessment (PROST-QA)—used a validated, patient-reported questionnaire on toxicity. The 2-year data from this trial were first reported in 2008.[4] A careful review of its findings will disclose the early toxicity profiles of each of the major modalities.

The Prost-QA trial is an inception cohort study in which the patient and partner were asked to answer a validated questionnaire that measured the change from baseline of various quality-of-life domains. The five specific domains were: sexual, urinary incontinence, urinary irritation or obstruction, bowel or rectal, and vitality or hormonal. Patients with localized prostate cancer were offered their choice of therapy and the option to participate in the trial at one of six major cancer centers nationwide. The questionnaire was given at baseline and then at months 2, 6, 12, and 24 after therapy. While the trial included patients treated with external-beam radiotherapy as well as brachytherapy and surgery, we will focus on just the results for the brachytherapy and surgery patients.

The common finding in assessing the brachytherapy and surgery patients is the consistent nadir in quality-of-life score at the 2-month point for each of the affected domains. Generally, the quality-of-life score rebounded in subsequent months. In the sexual domain a major difference was seen in the quality-of-life score between brachytherapy and surgery patients. The surgery patients had a higher baseline sexual score (70–80), while the brachytherapy patients had a baseline of 60–70. At the 2-month assessment, the surgery patients’ sexual score fell to ~20, and at 2 years it was 20–40 (with the lower number being for those who did not receive a nerve-sparing operation). In contrast, the brachytherapy patients’ score fell to 45–50 at 2 months and was about the same at 2 years. While both modalities suffered a loss in this domain, the surgery patients took a greater loss relative to baseline. At 2 years, both modalities had essentially the same sexual score.

Another quality-of-life domain in which there was a significant difference between surgery and brachytherapy is that of urinary incontinence. Both modalities started with the same baseline of ~95. The expected drop in the domain score was seen in both groups; however, the surgery patients’ score fell the furthest (~50 for surgery vs ~82 for brachytherapy). Recovery occurred for both groups, but the surgery patients were at ~75 at 2 years, whereas at the same point, the brachytherapy patients were at ~90.

In contrast to the two previously discussed domains, brachytherapy fared worse in both urinary irritation or obstruction and bowel or rectal symptoms. Specifically, while both modalities started at the same baseline of ~90 for the urinary irritation or obstruction domain, the surgery patients were still at baseline at 2 years whereas the brachytherapy patients fell to ~80 by 2 years. In the bowel or rectal domain, both modalities again began at ~97, but the brachytherapy patients’ score fell to ~90 at 2 years and the surgery patients maintained their baseline function.

Pages: 1  2  3  
Next
 

Join the Conversation

Want to join the conversation? If you're a healthcare professional, we'd like to hear your comments. Just sign in or register today to become part of our growing, online community.

Controversies in the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer

Controversies in the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer: After the Rhetoric

Radical Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer Is the ‘Only Way To Go’

Optimal Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: An Unfolding Story

Radical Prostatectomy Reigns Supreme

Localized Prostate Cancer: The Battle of Treatment Options Enters the Larger Arena

Brachytherapy or Surgery? A Composite View

Further Perspectives on Treating Localized Prostate Cancer

Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer

Active Surveillance: Not Your Father’s Watchful Waiting

This article reviewed

Further Perspectives on Treating Localized Prostate Cancer





 
TOPIC INDEX

  • Bladder Cancer
  • Bone Metastases
  • Breast Cancer
  • CML
  • Colorectal Cancer
  • End-of-Life
  • GIST
  • Genetics Genomics
  • Gynecologic Cancers
  • Head & Neck Cancer
  • Integrative Oncology
  • Leukemia
  • Lung Cancer
  • Lymphoma
  • Melanoma
  • Multiple Myeloma
  • Nausea & Vomiting
  • Palliative Care
  • Pancreatic Cancer
  • Practice Management
  • Practice & Policy
  • Prostate Cancer
  • RCC
  • Skin Cancer
  • Triple-Negative Breast
  • Testicular Cancer


More Topics 

 
MOST POPULAR
  • Most Popular
  • Most Emailed
  • Most Recent
  • Management of Brain Metastases: Neurosurgical Considerations
  • Head and Neck Tumors
  • Optimizing Outcomes of Advanced Prostate Cancer: Drug Sequencing and Novel Therapeutic Approaches
  • A 28-Year-Old Woman Presents With a Long-Standing History of Intermittently Painful “Bumps” on Both Her Shoulders and Upper Back
  • Controversies in Oncologist-Patient Communication: A Nuanced Approach to Autonomy, Culture, and Paternalism
  • Ending the Shortage of Generic Oncology Drugs
  • Processed and Red Meat Consumption Linked to Slight Increase in Risk of Pancreatic Cancer
  • Younger Breast Cancer Patients Have More Adverse Quality of Life Issues
  • Controversies in Oncologist-Patient Communication: A Nuanced Approach to Autonomy, Culture, and Paternalism
  • Could Aspirin Be a Viable Adjuvant Treatment for Cancer?
  • AL Amyloidosis: Who, What, When, Why, and Where
  • The Maze of PARP Inhibitors in Ovarian Cancer
  • The Circuitous Path of PARP Inhibitor Development in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
  • Podcast: Dr. David Ahlquist on Advances in Colorectal Cancer Screening
  • Lung Cancer Screening: A New Era
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
 
CME ACTIVITIES

Optimal Care for HER2+ Breast Cancer

An interactive case challenge activity.

 

The goal of this activity is to clarify challenging treatment issues of HER2+ breast cancer including incorporation of predictive and prognostic biomarker tests and evidence-based data into practice when determining individualized strategies that improve patient survival and quality of life.

 

 Go to Activity

 
CONNECT WITH US
Become a fan on
Facebook
Add us on
Google Plus
Follow us on
Twitter
Sign up for our
Newsletters
Subscribe to our
RSS Feed
CancerNetwork | CME LLC | ConsultantLive | Diagnostic Imaging | Musculoskeletal Network | OBGYN.net | PediatricsConsultantLive |
Physicians Practice | Psychiatric Times | SearchMedica | Medical Resources

© 1996 - 2012 UBM Medica LLC, a UBM company
Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Advertising Information - Editorial Policy Statement - UBM Medica Network Privacy Policy