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
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).
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.
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.
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.
- Or read more about da Vinci Prostatectomy
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
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).
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).
Survival of men with high grade prostate cancer can be improved by radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy.
- Or read more about da Vinci Prostatectomy
All surgery presents risk, including da Vinci Surgery. Results, including cosmetic results, may vary. Serious complications may occur in any surgery, up to and including death. Examples of serious and life-threatening complications, which may require hospitalization, include injury to tissues or organs; bleeding; infection, and internal scarring that can cause long-lasting dysfunction or pain. Temporary pain or nerve injury has been linked to the inverted position often used during abdominal and pelvic surgery. Patients should understand that risks of surgery include potential for human error and potential for equipment failure. Risks specific to minimally invasive surgery may include: a longer operative time; the need to convert the procedure to other surgical techniques; the need for additional or larger incision sites; a longer operation or longer time under anesthesia than your surgeon originally predicts. Converting the procedure to open could mean a longer operative time, long time under anesthesia, and could lead to increased complications. Research suggests that there may be an increased risk of incision-site hernia with single-incision surgery. Patients who bleed easily, have abnormal blood clotting, are pregnant or morbidly obese are typically not candidates for minimally invasive surgery, including da Vinci Surgery. Other surgical approaches are available. Patients should review the risks associated with all surgical approaches. They should talk to their doctors about their surgical experience and to decide if da Vinci is right for them. For more complete information on surgical risks, safety and indications for use, please refer to www.davincisurgery.com/da-vinci-surgery/safety-information.php.
All people depicted unless otherwise noted are models. © 2013 Intuitive Surgical. All rights reserved. All product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders.