Key Comparative Studies

1. Long-term survival probability in men with clinically localized prostate cancer treated either conservatively or with definitive treatment (radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy)

Ashutosh Tewaria, Jay D. Ramana, Peter Changa, Sandhya Raoa, George Divineb and Mani Menon
Urology, Volume 68, Issue 6, December 2006, Pages 1268-1274

Objectives:
To report the long-term survival probability in more than 3000 men with localized prostate cancer treated either conservatively or by definitive treatment (radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy).

Methods:
We studied 3159 men with biopsy-confirmed, clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 1980 to 1997. We restricted our analysis to men 75 years of age or younger. The extent of comorbid disease was measured using the Charlson score. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to compare long-term survival in patients who were treated conservatively versus survival in patients treated with either radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy.

Results:
After adjusting for age, race, tumor grade, comorbid disease, income status, and year of diagnosis, the overall survival rate at 15 years was 35% for conservative management, 50% for radiotherapy, and 65% for radical prostatectomy. The corresponding prostate cancer-specific survival rates were 79%, 87%, and 92%. Patients undergoing radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy had lower overall mortality than patients undergoing conservative management (adjusted relative risk 0.67 for radiotherapy and 0.41 for prostatectomy; P <0.001). The increase in the survival duration was 4.6 years with radiotherapy and 8.6 years with radical prostatectomy.

Conclusions:
The results of this study have shown that compared with conservative management, both radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy increase survival for men with localized prostate cancer.

Get Full paper

 

2. Long-Term Survival in Men With High Grade Prostate Cancer: A Comparison Between Conservative Treatment, Radiation Therapy and Radical Prostatectomy—A Propensity Scoring Approach

Ashutosh Tewarin, George Divine, Peter Chang, M. Mendel Shemtov, Matthew Milowsky, David Nanus and Mani Menon
The Journal of Urology, Volume 177, Issue 3, March 2007, Pages 911-915

Purpose:
We performed a retrospective cohort study using propensity score analysis to calculate long-term survival in patients with prostate cancer with Gleason score 8 or greater who were treated with conservative therapy, radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy.

Materials and Methods:
Between January 1, 1980 and December 31, 1997, 3,159 patients in the Henry Ford Health System were diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Of these patients 453 had a Gleason score of 8 or greater in the biopsy specimen and they were the cohort. The end points were overall and prostate cancer specific survival. Propensity score analysis was used to more precisely compare the 3 treatments of observation, radiation and radical prostatectomy. Median patient followup was longer in the radical prostatectomy arm than in the conservative treatment and radiation therapy arms (68 months vs 52 and 54, respectively).

Results:
Of the 453 patients 197 (44%) were treated conservatively, 137 (30%) received radiation therapy and 119 (26%) underwent radical prostatectomy. Using propensity scoring analysis median overall survival for conservative therapy, radiation and radical prostatectomy was 5.2, 6.7 and 9.7 years, respectively. Median cancer specific survival was 7.8 years for conservative therapy and more than 14 years for radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy. The risk of cancer specific death following radical prostatectomy was 68% lower than for conservative treatment and 49% lower than for radiation therapy (p <0.001 and 0.053, respectively).

Conclusions:
Survival of men with high grade prostate cancer can be improved by radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy.

Get Full Paper

Serious complications may occur in any surgery, including da Vinci® Surgery, up to and including death. Examples of serious or life-threatening complications, which may require prolonged and/or unexpected hospitalization and/or reoperation, include but are not limited to, one or more of the following: injury to tissues/organs, bleeding, infection and internal scarring that can cause long-lasting dysfunction/pain. Risks of surgery also include the potential for equipment failure and/or human error. Individual surgical results may vary.

Risks specific to minimally invasive surgery, including da Vinci Surgery, include but are not limited to, one or more of the following: temporary pain/nerve injury associated with positioning; temporary pain/discomfort from the use of air or gas in the procedure; a longer operation and time under anesthesia and conversion to another surgical technique. If your doctor needs to convert the surgery to another surgical technique, this could result in a longer operative time, additional time under anesthesia, additional or larger incisions and/or increased complications.

Patients who are not candidates for non-robotic minimally invasive surgery are also not candidates for da Vinci® Surgery. Patients should talk to their doctor to decide if da Vinci Surgery is right for them. Patients and doctors should review all available information on non-surgical and surgical options in order to make an informed decision. For Important Safety Information, including surgical risks, indications, and considerations and contraindications for use, please also refer to www.davincisurgery.com/safety and www.intuitivesurgical.com/safety. Unless otherwise noted, all people depicted are models.

© 2014 Intuitive Surgical. All rights reserved. All product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders.

Patient Testimonial

Facing Prostate Cancer?

"Surgery Found Best for Survival in Localized Prostate Cancer"

Read the article on MedPageToday.com.