Meta-analysis of studies comparing oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy and brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. (November 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cozzi, Gabriele; Musi, Gennaro; Bianchi, Roberto; Bottero, Danilo; Brescia, Antonio; Cioffi, Antonio; Cordima, Giovanni; Delor, Maurizio; Di Trapani, Ettore; Ferro, Matteo; Matei, Deliu Victor; Russo, Andrea; Mistretta, Francesco Alessandro; De Cobelli, Ottavio
• Is Part Of: Therapeutic advances in urology. Volume 9:Number 11(2017:Nov.)
• Page Start: 241
• Page End: 250
• Publication Date: 2017-11
• Subjects: biochemical recurrence -- brachytherapy -- cancer control -- oncologic outcome -- prostate cancer -- radical prostatectomy; Urology -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- therapy -- Periodicals; Genital Diseases, Male -- therapy -- Periodicals; Urologie -- Périodiques; 616.6005
• DOI: 10.1177/1756287217731449
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1756-2872

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) with brachytherapy (BT). Methods: A literature review was conducted according to the 'Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses' (PRISMA) statement. We included studies reporting comparative oncologic outcomes of RP versus BT for localized prostate cancer (PCa). From each comparative study, we extracted the study design, the number and features of the included patients, and the oncologic outcomes expressed as all-cause mortality (ACM), PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) or, when the former were unavailable, as biochemical recurrence (BCR). All of the data retrieved from the selected studies were recorded in an electronic database. Cumulative analysis was conducted using the Review Manager version 5.3 software, designed for composing Cochrane Reviews (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Statistical heterogeneity was tested using the Chi-square test. Results: Our cumulative analysis did not show any significant difference in terms of BCR, ACM or PCSM rates between the RP and BT cohorts. Only three studies reported risk-stratified outcomes of intermediate- and high-risk patients, which are the most prone to treatment failure. Conclusions: our analysis suggested that RP and BT may have similar oncologic outcomes. However, the analysis included a limited number of studies, and most of them were retrospective, making it impossible to derive any definitive conclusion, especially for intermediate- and high-risk patients. In this scenario, appropriate urologic counseling remains of utmost importance.