Widespread use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a screening tool has led to an increased incidence of biopsy-proven prostate cancer, as well as a shift toward more cases with clinically confined disease (stage T1 to T2). The two traditional therapeutic modalities, radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiation therapy, have undergone technical refinements. Other modalities, such as brachytherapy and cryosurgery, are also being used to treat early-stage disease. Comparisons between treatment results are difficult. Biochemical failure, based on PSA findings, is currently used to measure treatment efficacy, but the precise definition and clinical relevance of biochemical failure have yet to be established. The author presents current analyses of biochemical failure, cause-specific survival, distant metastasis, and morbidity rates following various treatment modalities.
Use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a screening tool has increased the incidence of biopsy-proven prostate cancer, as well as shifted the stage of presentation increasingly to early-stage disease. Of the estimated 244,00 patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in 1995 , approximately 75% will have disease clinically confined to the prostate gland (stage T1 to T2). The treatment of these patients with early-stage prostate cancer is highly controversial. The controversy centers around two general issues: (1) Which patients require treatment for their prostate cancer and which only need to be observed? (2) Once the decision for treatment has been made, which therapeutic modality is optimal?
Traditionally, the two modalities used to treat early-stage prostate cancer have been radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiation therapy. Recent technical advances in both modalities have led to decreased morbidity with the promise of improved results. In addition, new treatment approaches, such as brachytherapy and cryosurgery, are now being used for early-stage prostate cancer.
This review describes the various treatment options for early-stage prostate cancer and their technical refinements. It also analyzes treatment end points, compares results, and explores treatment-related morbidity.
Radical prostatectomy is the standard surgical treatment for prostate cancer. Using a retropubic or perineal approach, the prostate and seminal vesicles are removed and the bladder is reanastomosed with the urethra. In addition, a bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection is usually performed to identify patients who have lymph node metastases.
In 1982, Walsh and Donker introduced a modification of the standard retropubic prostatectomy, the nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy . The major change came from a more precise anatomic identification of the prostate gland, which permitted excision of the prostate without injuring the neurovascular bundles containing the cavernous nerves and vessels that preserve sexual potency. In addition, Walsh demonstrated that, in patients with extracapsular tumor extension, these bundles could be sacrificed to obtain wider margins than are usually achieved with a standard retropubic or perineal prostatectomy .
External-Beam Radiation Therapy
Beginning in the 1970s, external-beam radiation techniques for treating prostate cancer were refined. These refinements included irradiation of the pelvis to treat the prostate, seminal vesicles, and primary draining lymph nodes, accomplished with the use of a four-field pelvic box technique. Following pelvic irradiation, a radiation boost to the prostate alone or prostate and seminal vesicles was delivered via a four-field technique or arcing beams.
Over time, the concept of treating the whole pelvis for early-stage prostate cancer fell out of favor. A Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) randomized trial failed to show any benefit of irradiation of the whole pelvis plus prostate over irradiation of the prostate alone for stages A and B disease . In addition, data from surgical series helped distinguish patients at low risk for pelvic lymph node metastases from those at high risk . High-risk patients could then be selected for less invasive surgical procedures, such as laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection, to identify those with negative nodes for curative therapy.
These findings supported the concept of radiation treatment of the prostate and seminal vesicles alone. With advances in CT imaging and computer programming technology, three-dimensional conformal external-beam therapy was developed . This new technique enables the prostate and seminal vesicles to be treated with a high degree of accuracy while greatly decreasing the dose delivered to surrounding normal structures, such as the bladder and rectum.
The use of brachytherapy with permanent radioactive seed implants to treat early-stage prostate cancer gained popularity in the 1970s and '80s. Based on work done by Whitemore and Hilaris, an open laparotomy exposed the prostate gland, calipers measured the prostate volume, and freehand placement of needles guided seed placement into the gland . Improved dosimetric evaluation and long-term follow-up often revealed a poor distribution of seeds with a corresponding inadequate radiation dose coverage. Also, patients with inadequate im- plants had high local recurrence rates based on digital rectal examination . Due to these findings, brachytherapy fell out of favor as a treatment for prostate cancer.
Recent refinements in ultrasound and CT imaging led to the development of a transperineal implantation technique and spurred a renewed interest in this procedure [9-11]. The new technique achieves accurate seed placement within the gland and improved dose coverage.
Cryosurgery was pioneered as a treatment for prostate cancer in the early 1960s but was abandoned due to a high rate of complications stemming from an inability to adequately control the freezing technique . Transrectal ultrasound and percutaneous tissue accessing techniques subsequently enabled the accurate placement of cryoprobes and, thus, an enhanced ability to control freezing.
Radical cryosurgical ablation is currently defined as the freezing of the entire prostate gland, periprostatic tissue, neurovascular pedicles, and proximal seminal vesicles . Current cryosurgery involves a transperineal technique with placement of cryoprobes into the gland under ultrasound guidance. A urethral warming device is used to prevent freezing of the urethra, and formation of an ice ball is monitored by ultrasound imaging.
It is difficult to compare results of the two most common treatment modalities, external-beam radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy. In a randomized trial comparing the two modalities conducted by the Uro-Oncology Research Group , radical prostatectomy was superior in terms of time to treatment failure, but the trial was faulty in many respects, including small numbers of patients and inherent methodologic problems. In addition, outcomes in the radiation therapy arm were inferior to results reported in other large single- and multi-institutional radiation oncology studies for T1 to T2 cancers, and were more consistent with results for stage T3 to T4 cancers reported by the same group . Further attempts to run a comparison trial failed due to poor patient accrual .
Difficulties in comparing the results of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy stem, in part, from biases in selecting patients for the two modalities. In general, patients with higher PSA levels, grade, and stage are referred for radiation therapy. Emerging data suggest that pretreatment PSA is one of the most important determinants of outcome [17-19].
Recent radiation oncology series from both Massachusetts General Hospital and the Mayo Clinic show the typical PSA ranges of patients referred for radiation therapy. In the series by Zeitman et al, 53% of patients had PSA levels 10 ng/mL or less. The series by Pisansky et al revealed that 50% of patients receiving radiation therapy had PSA levels < 13 ng/mL . Of the patients selected for radical prostatectomy by Catalona and Smith  and Partin et al , 67% and 75%, respectively, had PSA levels 10 ng/mL or less. Within one institution, a selection bias has been demonstrated, with a larger percentage of patients with advanced-stage and higher PSA being selected for radiation therapy than for surgery .
In addition, patients with positive pelvic lymph nodes are thought by many to be destined to develop distant metastases [23,24].Radical prostatectomy is often abandoned if positive nodes are found, and therefore, prostatectomy series often do not include node-positive patients in treatment reports. In contrast, since patients receiving radiation do not benefit from surgical staging of their lymph nodes, radiation therapy series more often include node-positive patients. In a Stanford study, patients undergoing radiation therapy were staged surgically; 19% of patients with T1 or T2 disease had positive nodes .
Different End Points
Another obstacle to comparing studies stems from the different end points used to define outcome. There are methodologic differences in the detection of local recurrence following radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy. Some reports require biopsy-proven recurrence to signify local failure, whereas others use only the digital rectal examination.
Historically, most radiation therapy series have reported local failure based on digital rectal findings, which can be unreliable, rather than the more accurate method of post-treatment ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies. Post-treatment prostate biopsies have only recently been used routinely to assess local control .
In addition, local failure following radical prostatectomy is often difficult to detect by digital rectal examination, and prostate bed biopsies are not routinely performed. In a series by Lightner et al, 42% of patients with an elevated PSA and a normal digital rectal examination had biopsy-proven local recurrence at the site of anastomosis .For this reason, disease-free survival, which is also affected by local recurrence, is not the optimal end point for use in comparing treatment modalities.
1. Wingo P, Tong T, Bolden S: Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 45:12, 1995.
2. Walsh PC, Donker PJ: Impotence following radical prostatectomy: Insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 128:492-497, 1982.
3. Eggleston JC, Walsh PC: Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: Pathological findings in the first 100 cases. J Urol 134:1146, 1985.
4. Asbel SO, Krall JM, Pilepich MV, et al: Elective pelvic irradiation in stage A2, B carcinoma of the prostate: Analysis of RTOG 77-06. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 15:1307, 1988.
5. Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, et al: The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 150:110-114, 1993.
6. Leibel SA, Zelefsky MJ, Kutcher GJ, et al: Three dimensional conformal radiation therapy in localized carcinoma of the prostate: Interim report of a phase I dose escalation study. J Urol 152:1792-1798, 1994.
7. Deblasio DS, Hilaris BS, Nori D, et al: Permanent interstitial implantation of prostatic cancer in the 1980s. Endocur/Hypertherm Oncol 4:193-201, 1988.
8. Morton JD, Peschel RE: Iodine-125 implants versus external beam therapy for stages A2, B, and C prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 14:1153-1157, 1988.
9. Blasko JC, Grimm PD, Ragde H: Brachytherapy and organ preservation in the management of carcinoma of the prostate. Semin Radiat Oncol 3:240-249, 1993.
10. Stock RG, Stone NN, Wesson MF, et al: A modified technique allowing interactive ultrasound guided three dimensional transperineal prostate implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 32:219-225, 1995.
11. Wallner K, Chiu-Tsao S, Roy J, et al: An improved method for computerized tomography-planned transperineal iodine-125 implants. J Urol 146:90-95, 1991.
12. Gonder M, Soanes W, Shulman S: Cryosurgical treatment of the prostate. Invest Urol 3:372-378, 1966.
13. Onik GM, Cohen JK, Reyes GD, et al: Transrectal ultrasound-guided percutaneous radical cryosurgical ablation of the prostate. Cancer 15:1291-1299, 1993.
14. Paulson DF, Lin GH, Hinshaw W, et al: Radical surgery versus radiotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 128:502-504, 1982.
15. Hanks GE: More on the Uro-Oncology Research Group report of radical surgery vs radiotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 14:1053, 1988.
16. Zeitman AL, Shipley WU, Coen JJ: Radical prostatectomy and radical radiation therapy for clinical stages T1 to 2 adenocarcinoma of the prostate: New insights into outcome from repeat biopsy and prostate specific antigen follow-up. J Urol 152:1806-1812, 1994.
17. Kaplan ID, Cox RS, Bagshaw MA: Prostate specific antigen after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Follow-up. J Urol 149:519-522, 1993.
18. Zagars GK: Prostate specific antigen as an outcome variable for T1 and T2 prostate cancer treated by radiation therapy. J Urol 152:1786-1791, 1994.
19. Zeitman AI, Coen JJ, Shipley WU, et al: Radical radiation therapy in the management of prostatic adenocarcinoma: The initial prostate specific antigen value as a predictor of treatment outcome. J Urol 151:640-645, 1994.
20. Pisansky TM, Cha SS, Earle JD, et al: Prostate-specific antigen as a pretherapy prognostic factor in patients treated with radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 11:2158-2166, 1993.
21. Catalona WJ, Smith DS: 5-Year tumor recurrence rates after anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 152:1837-1842, 1994.
22. Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, et al: The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 150:110-114, 1993.
23. Gervasi L, Mata J, Easley J, et al: Prognostic significance of lymph nodal metastases in prostate cancer. J Urol 134:332, 1989.
24. Leibel S, Fuks Z, Zelefsky M, et al: The effect of local and regional treatment on the metastatic outcome in prostatic carcinoma with pelvic lymph node involvement. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 28:7-16, 1993.
25. Pistenmaa DA, Bagshaw MA, Freiha FS: Extended field radiation therapy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: Status report of a limited prospective trial, in Johnson DE, Samuels ML (eds). Cancer of the Genitourinary Tract, pp 229-247. New York, Raven Press, 1979.
26. Crook J, Robertson S, Esche B: Proliferative cell nuclear antigen in postradiotherapy prostate biopsies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 30:303-308, 1994.
27. Lightner DJ, Lange PH, Reddy PK, et al: Prostate specific antigen and local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 144:921-926, 1990.
28. Ohori M, Goad JR, Wheeler TM, et al: Can radical prostatectomy alter the progression of poorly differentiated prostate cancer. J Urol 152:1843-1849, 1994.
29. Partin AW, Pound CR, Pearson JD, et al: Evaluation of serum prostate-specific antigen velocity after radical prostatectomy to distinguish local recurrence from distant metastases. Urology 43:649-659, 1994.
30. Zeitman AL, Edelstein RA, Coen JJ, et al: Radical prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate: The influence of preoperative and pathologic findings on biochemical disease-free outcome. Urology 43:828-833, 1994.
31. Frazier HA, Robertson JE, Humphrey PA, et al: Is prostate specific antigen of clinical importance in evaluating outcome after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 149:516-518, 1993.
32. Trapasso JG, deKernion JB, Smith RB, et al: The incidence and significance of detectable levels of serum prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 152:1821-1825, 1994.
33. Zincke H, Oesterling JE, Blute ML, et al: Long-term (15 years) results after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized (stage T2c or lower) prostate cancer. J Urol 152:1850-1857, 1994.
34. van den Ouden D, Bentvelsen FM, Boeve ER, et al: Positive margins after radical prostatectomy: Correlation with local recurrence and distant progression. Br J Urol 72:489-494, 1993.
35. Hanks GE, Perez CA, Kozar M, et al: PSA confirmation of cure at 10 years of T1b, T2, N0, M0 prostate cancer patients treated in RTOG Protocol 7706 with external beam irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 30:289-292, 1994.
36. Lee WR, Hanks GE, Schultheiss TE, et al: Localized prostate cancer treated by external beam radiotherapy alone: Serum prostate-specific antigen driven outcome analysis. J Clin Oncol 13:464-469, 1995.
37. Stock RG, Stone NN, Dewyngaert JK: PSA findings and biopsy results following interactive ultrasound guided transperineal brachytherapy for early stage prostate cancer (abstract). Proceedings of the American Radium Society, 78th Annual Meeting, p 30, 1995.
38. Wallner K, Roy J, Zelefsky M, et al: Tumor control and morbidity following transperineal implantation for stage T1/T2 prostatic carcinoma. Personal communication.
39. Priestly JB, Beyer DC: Guided brachytherapy for treatment of confined prostate cancer. Urology 40:27-32, 1992.
40. Dattoli MJ, Wasserman S, Cash J, et al: Prostatic brachytherapy using palladium-103 for localized prostate cancer: A report of PSA response and toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 30(suppl):256, 1994.
41. Blasko JC, Wallner K, Grimm PD, et al: PSA-based disease control following ultrasound guided I-125 implantation for stage T1/T2 prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 154:1096-1099, 1995.
42. Blasko JC, Ragde H, Grimm PD, et al: Transperineal ultrasound guided palladium-103 brachytherapy for prostate carcinoma. J Urol 153(suppl):385, 1995.
43. Bahn DK, Lee F, Solomon MH, et al: Prostate cancer: US-guided percutaneous cryoablation. Radiology 194:551-556, 1995.
44. Cohen JK, Miller RJ, Shuman BA: Cryosurgical ablation of the prostate: Patterns of failure and two year post treatment data as compared to external beam radiation therapy. J Urol 153(suppl):503, 1995.
45. Shinohara K, Carroll PR: Improved results of cryosurgical ablation of the prostate. J Urol 153(suppl):385, 1995.
46. Schmidt JD, Parsons CL, Casola G, et al: Transperineal cryoablation for prostate cancer. J Urol 153(suppl):502, 1995.
47. Hanno P, Brandes S, Stern R, et al: Persistence of histologically viable appearing prostate tissue after cryosurgery. J Urol 153(suppl):503, 1995.
48. Arcangeli G, Micheli A, Arcangeli G, et al: Definitive radiation therapy for localized prostatic adenocarcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 20:439-446, 1991.
49. Duncan W, Warde P, Catton CN, et al: Carcinoma of the prostate: Results of radical radiotherapy (1970-1985). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 26:203-210, 1993.
50. Hanks GE, Asbell S, Krall JM, et al: Outcome for lymph node negative T-1b, T-2(A-2,B) prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy in RTOG 77-06. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21:1099-1103, 1991.
51. Perez CA, Pilepich MV, Garcia D, et al: Definitive radiation therapy in carcinoma of the prostate localized to the pelvis: Experience at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 7:85-94, 1988.
52. Shipley WU, Prout GR, Coachman NM, et al: Radiation therapy for localized prostate carcinoma: Experience at the Massachusetts General Hospital (1973-1981). Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 7:67-73, 1988.
53. Zagars GK, von Eschenbach AC, Ayala AG: Prognostic factors in prostate cancer: Analysis of 874 patients treated with radiation therapy. Cancer 72:1709-1725, 1993.
54. Lepor H, Kimball AW, Walsh PC: Cause-specific actuarial survival analysis: A useful method for reporting survival data in men with clinically localized carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 141:82-84, 1989.
55. Frohmuller H, Theiss M, Wirth MP: Radical prostatectomy for carcinoma of the prostate: Long-term follow-up of 115 patients. Eur Urol 19:279-283, 1991.
56. Bagshaw MA, Cox RS, Hancock SL: Control of prostate cancer with radiotherapy: Long-term results. J Urol 152:1781-1785, 1994.
57. Lee RJ, Sause WT: Surgically staged patients with prostatic carcinoma treated with definitive radiotherapy: Fifteen-year results. Urology 43:640-644, 1994.
58. Perez CA, Kirchman E, Lockett MA: Definitive external beam irradiation in stages A(T1) and B(T2) carcinoma of the prostate. Am J Clin Oncol 16:377-388, 1993.
59. Lu-Yao GL, McLerran D, Wasson J, et al: An assessment of radical prostatectomy. JAMA 26:2633-2636, 1993.
60. Fowler FJ, Roman A, Barry MJ, et al: Patient-reported complications and follow-up treatment after radical prostatectomy. Urology 42:622-629, 1993.
61. Hautman RE, Sauter TW, Wenderoth UK: Radical retropubic prostatectomy: Morbidity and urinary continence in 418 consecutive cases. Urology 43:47-51, 1994.
62. Jonler M, Messing EM, Rhodes PR, et al: Sequelae of radical prostatectomy. Br J Urol 74:352-358, 1994.
63. Licht MR, Klein EA, Tuason L, et al: Impact of bladder neck preservation during radical prostatectomy on continence and cancer control. Urology 44:883-887, 1994.
64. Murphy GP, Mettlin C, Menck H, et al: National patterns of prostate cancer treatment by radical prostatectomy: Results of a survey by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. J Urol 152:1817-1819, 1994.
65. Ramon J, Leandri P, Rossignol G, et al: Urinary continence following radical retropubic prostatectomy. Br J Urol 71:47-51, 1993.
66. Steiner MS, Morton RA, Walsh PC: Impact of anatomical radical prostatectomy on urinary continence. J Urol 145:512-515, 1991.
67. Green N, Treible D, Wallack H: Prostate cancer: Post-irradiation incontinence. J Urol 144:307-309, 1990.
68. Bagshaw MA, Cox RS, Ray GR: Status of radiation treatment of prostate cancer at Stanford University. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 7:47-60, 1988.
69. Widmark A, Fransson P, Tavelin B: Self-assessment questionnaire for evaluating urinary and intestinal late side effects after pelvic radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer compared with an age matched control. Cancer 74:2520-2532, 1994.
70. Jonler M, Messing EM, Ritter MA, et al: Sequelae of definitive radiation therapy for prostate cancer localized to the pelvis. Urology 44:876-882, 1994.
71. Lawton CA, Won M, Pilepich MV, et al: Long-term treatment sequelae following external beam irradiation for adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Analysis of RTOG studies 7506-7706. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21:935-939, 1991.
72. Stone NN, Ramin SA, Wesson M, et al: Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection combined with real time interactive transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal radioactive seed implantation of the prostate. J Urol 153:1555-1560, 1995.
73. von Eschenbach AC, Pisters LL, Swanson DA, et al: Results of phase I/II study of cryoablation for recurrent carcinoma of the prostate: The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. J Urol 153(suppl):503, 1995.
74. Perez CA, Lee HK, Georgiou A, et al: Technical factors affecting morbidity in definitive irradiation for localized carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 28:811-819, 1994.
75. Smit WG, Helle PA, Pulten WL, et al: Late radiation damage in prostate cancer patients treated with high dose external radiotherapy in relation to rectal dose. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 18:23-29, 1990.
76. Hanks GE, Schultheiss TE, Hunt MA, et al: Factors influencing incidence of acute grade 2 morbidity in conformal and standard radiation treatment of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31:25-29, 1994.
77. Stock RG, Stone NN, Iannuzzi C: Sexual potency following interactive ultrasound guided brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (in press).
78. Quinlan DM, Epstein JI, Carter BS, et al: Sexual function following radical prostatectomy: Influence of preservation of neurovascular bundles. J Urol 145:998-1002, 1991.
79. Catalona WJ, Bigg SW: Nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: Evaluation of results after 250 patients. J Urol 143:538-544, 1990.
80. Leandrei P, Rossignol G, Gautier JR, et al: Radical retropubic prostatectomy: Morbidity and quality of life: Experience with 620 cases. J Urol 147:883-887, 1992.
81. Geary ES, Dendinger TE, Stamey TA: Impotence, incontinence and vesical neck strictures following nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Urol 151(suppl):488, 1994.
82. Banker FL: The preservation of potency after external beam irradiation for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 15:219-220, 1988.