A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials Comparing Radiation Therapy Versus Radical Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer

• Published in: Clinical genitourinary cancer 2024-10, Vol.22 (5), p.102157, Article 102157
• Main Authors: Hekman, Lauren, Barrett, Athena, Ross, Dylan, Palaganas, Eli, Giridhar, Prashanth, Elumalai, Thiraviyam, V, Pragathee, Block, Alec M., Welsh, James S., Harkenrider, Matthew M., Saini, Sashank, Roy, Soumyajit, Farooq, Ahmer, Gupta, Gopal, Hsieh, Cheng En, Venkatesulu, BhanuPrasad, Solanki, Abhishek A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Brachytherapy; Comparative effectiveness; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Localized disease; Male; Prostatectomy - adverse effects; Prostatectomy - methods; Prostatic Neoplasms - mortality; Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology; Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery; Quality of life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Toxicity; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1558-7673; 1938-0682; 1938-0682
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102157

•Studies comparing RP to RT show conflicting results due to methodological flaws.•Flaws: nonrandomized, selection bias, unmeasured confounding, physician-reported outcomes.•This review appraises RCTs and summarizes ongoing trials comparing RP to RT.•10-year cancer-free and survival rates are equal for RP and RT.•RP: more urine leakage, ED. RT: more bowel issues, like blood in stools, fecal leakage. The treatment landscape for localized and regional prostate cancer includes active surveillance, radiation therapy (RT), and radical prostatectomy (RP). Population-based studies comparing RP to radiation reveal conflicting results due to methodological flaws. This systematic review and pooled analysis of studies aim to compare cause-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and toxicity outcomes, comparing RP to RT in the management of prostate cancer. This systematic review search included the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries according to the PRISMA statement with the inception of each database up to June 24, 2023. Randomized phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that compared RP to RT in prostate cancer were included. The forest plot for the Odds ratio (OR) was plotted using the Mantel–Haenszel method, and the Z test was used to assess significance. A fixed effects model was used for meta-analysis. The search yielded seven completed randomized clinical trials and four ongoing trials. The majority of complete trials had low to intermediate-risk patient populations. OR for OS was 1.00 with 95% CI, 0.71-1.41 (P-value: 0.98), CSS OR was 0.99 with 95% CI, 0.45-2.18 (P-value 0.11), OR for DFS was 1.26 with 95% CI, 0.89-1.78 (P-value 0.19) when comparing RP to RT. The rate of distant metastatic disease was 2.3% in the RP versus 2.9% in the RT at 10 years. The rate of second malignant neoplasms was 4.5% in the RP compared to 4.2% in the RT arm at 10 years. RP caused more urinary symptoms, with a predominance of the need for urinary pads and a higher incidence of sexual dysfunction, and RT caused a higher incidence of bowel symptoms, such as blood in stools and fecal incontinence. This study provides evidence that the treatment-related outcomes are similar in patients with low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer when comparing RP to RT. Multidisciplinary treatment approaches and factoring patients' values and preferences should form the cornerstone of the ideal treatment option for each patient with localized prostate cancer. Patients wi