An Editorial Update: Should Benefits of Radical Prostatectomy Affect the Decision To Screen for Early Prostate Cancer?
H. Sox,C. Mulrow
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-143-3-200508020-00011
IF: 39.2
2005-08-02
Annals of Internal Medicine
Abstract:In 2002, Annals published a systematic review that addressed several issues relevant to prostate cancer screening (1). Based on the review, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force gave prostate cancer screening a grade I recommendation, which means that the members thought that the evidence about the balance of benefits and harms of screening was insufficient to make a stronger recommendation (2). The Task Force had the following concerns: 1) There was only mixed and inconclusive evidence that early treatment of prostate cancer could prevent adverse outcomes and 2) treatment was associated with a high risk for substantial harm, principally urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. The Task Force suggested that physicians inform men older than 50 years of age about the uncertainty of the evidence for net benefit and that they help men reach individual, informed decisions about screening. In the 2002 systematic review, Harris and Lohr cited radical prostatectomy as the most common treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. Yet they found only 1 well-conducted randomized trial that compared radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting for men with clinically detected prostate cancer (1, 3). After a mean follow-up time of 6.2 years, this trial from Sweden had shown no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between groups. However, 7.1% of the men assigned to radical prostatectomy had died of prostate cancer compared with 13.6% of those assigned to watchful waiting. As the follow-up time was relatively short in light of the often prolonged natural history of prostate cancer, many people looked forward to the publication of longer-term follow-up data, expecting that the findings might clarify possible survival benefits. The New England Journal of Medicine recently published these longer-term results (4). Here's our take on how they clarify treatment of early prostate cancer and the case for screening. What Did the Longer-Term Follow-up of This Landmark Trial Show? The trial involved 695 Scandinavian men with early-stage cancer that was confined within the prostate (stages T1b, T1c, or T2). Most tumors were palpable. At trial entry, participants were healthy older men: Their average age was 65 years, they did not have manifestly life-threatening illnesses, and their estimated life expectancy was more than 10 years. Most received their randomly allocated treatment assignments, though 6% of men assigned to prostatectomy never had the surgery and 12% of those assigned to watchful waiting eventually had surgery. The primary end point, assessed by investigators blinded to treatment assignment, was death from prostate cancer. Important secondary end points were metastasis, local progression, and death from any cause. The newly published longer-term findings showed that, after a median follow-up of 8.2 years, 8.6% of the 347 men assigned to surgery had died of prostate cancer compared with 14.4% of the 348 men assigned to watchful waiting. Overall mortality, which had been about 8% to 10% in both groups at 5 years, clearly differed; 23.9% of those in the surgery group died versus 30.4% of those assigned to watchful waiting. About 8% to 10% of both groups had had distant metastasis at 5 years; with longer follow-up, 14.4% of the surgery group and 22.7% of the watchful-waiting group had distant metastasis. Differences in rates of local progression, which had favored the surgery group over the watchful-waiting group at 5 years, increased over time. Finally, fewer men in the surgery group received hormonal treatments and palliative radiation. How Does the Longer Follow-up Advance Knowledge? Longer follow-up along with greater numbers of observed deaths illuminated 2 important issues. First, radical prostatectomy clearly reduced all-cause mortality. Second, preplanned stratified analyses suggested that age was associated with mortality benefits. Specifically, radical prostatectomy seemingly reduced deaths from prostate cancer only among men younger than age 65 years. Among men younger than age 65 years, the cumulative incidence of death from prostate cancer at 10 years was 8.5% among those assigned to surgery compared with 19.2% among those assigned to watchful waiting. Of note, for men older than age 65 years, the 10-year cumulative incidence of death from prostate cancer was approximately 10% in both the surgery and the watchful-waiting groups. These subgroup observations were preliminary; they lack an underpinning biological explanation, and their precision is limited because the number of deaths in the subgroups is relatively small. Nonetheless, they do support what many had suspected: that older men benefit less from aggressive treatment for prostate cancer. They also suggest that the threshold age above which surgical treatment benefit starts to decline is around 65 years of age, not in the mid-70s, as many had believed. What Should Men with Early Prostate Cancer Do? Men now have additional valuable evidence to inform their choices about prostatectomy for early prostate cancer. If they are younger than age 65 years and do not suffer other life-threatening illnesses, radical prostatectomy decreases their long-term risk for dying and decreases the need for other therapies, such as radiation. For many men, these possible benefits will outweigh concern about operative mortality (which, on average, is less than 1%) and increased incidence of erectile dysfunction (about 80% with surgery vs. about 45% with watchful waiting) and urinary incontinence (about 50% with surgery vs. about 20% with watchful waiting) (5). Some men older than age 65 years, on the other hand, may have a higher risk for dying from causes other than prostate cancer in their immediate future and may gain little or nothing from surgery and yet risk operative death or complications. An important unanswered question is how much of the reduced benefit of prostate cancer surgery in older men is due to reduced effectiveness of surgery itself and how much is due to dying of other causes before realizing the benefit of surgery. This point is important because it will influence how much a 70-year-old man's risk for death from other diseases should weigh in the balance when deciding to screen or pursue prostate cancer surgery. If early death from other causes is blunting the effect of surgery, some healthy older men may benefit. If surgery is simply less curative in older men, good health may play a lesser role in deciding about screening or surgery. What Will the Future Bring? We hope that the future brings a better understanding of the effect of age on the outcome of prostate cancer surgery. Age 65 years is an arbitrary cut-point used by the Scandinavian investigators. Nature is never so precise; risk probably changes more gradually with advancing age and is sometimes tied more closely to particular comorbid illnesses than to age. Learning what clinical features in older men predict benefit from surgery would be a further advance. Perhaps the Prostate cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT), in which patients with prostate cancer discovered by screening were randomly assigned to radical prostatectomy or usual care, will provide some of these answers (6). Meanwhile, we suspect that screening policy will tilt toward a stronger inclination to screen younger men and, perhaps, toward a stronger inclination against screening in older men. We urge caution. It's always risky to formulate policy on the basis of one trial, and only 5% of the tumors in the Scandinavian trial were detected by screening, in contrast to the situation in contemporary practice. Moreover, the lead time from when a tumor is first detectable to the onset of symptoms (or until treatment is needed) is probably longer in men who have prostate cancer detected primarily through screening than in men with palpable tumors. With several large ongoing trials of prostate cancer screening in progress, we are poised, however, to learn the secrets of when to screen for this common disease (6-8).