Six-year outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

Michio Noda,Satoru Taguchi,Kenshiro Shiraishi,Tetsuya Fujimura,Akihiro Naito,Taketo Kawai,Jun Kamei,Yoshiyuki Akiyama,Yuta Yamada,Yusuke Sato,Daisuke Yamada,Tohru Nakagawa,Hideomi Yamashita,Keiichi Nakagawa,Osamu Abe,Hiroshi Fukuhara,Haruki Kume
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-023-02192-5
2024-01-06
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie
Abstract:Background Although robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy are the leading respective techniques of prostatectomy and radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer, almost no study has directly compared their outcomes; none have compared mortality outcomes. Methods We compared 6‐year outcomes of RARP ( n = 500) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT, a rotational intensity-modulated radiotherapy, n = 360) in patients with cT1-4N0M0 prostate cancer. We assessed oncological outcomes, namely overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), radiological recurrence-free survival (rRFS), and biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), using propensity score matching (PSM). We also assessed treatment-related complication outcomes of prostatectomy and radiotherapy. Results The median follow-up duration was 79 months (> 6 years). PSM generated a matched cohort of 260 patients (130 per treatment group). In the matched cohort, RARP and VMAT showed equivalent results for OS, CSS, and rRFS: both achieved excellent 6‐year outcomes for OS (> 96%), CSS (> 98%), and rRFS (> 91%). VMAT had significantly longer bRFS than RARP, albeit based on different definitions of biochemical recurrence. Regarding complication outcomes, patients who underwent RARP had minimal (2.6%) severe perioperative complications and achieved excellent continence recovery (91.6 and 68.8% of the patients achieved ≤ 1 pad/day and pad-free, respectively). Patients who underwent VMAT had an acceptable rate (20.0%) of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary complications and a very low rate (4.4%) of grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal complications. Conclusion On the basis of PSM after a 6-year follow-up, RARP and VMAT showed equivalent and excellent oncological outcomes, as well as acceptable complication profiles.
oncology,radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
This paper aims to compare the 6-year efficacy of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT, a type of rotational intensity-modulated radiotherapy) in the treatment of localized prostate cancer, and to evaluate the associated complications of both treatment methods. Specifically, the study used the propensity score matching (PSM) method to compare RARP and VMAT in terms of overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), radiographic recurrence-free survival (rRFS), and biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS). Additionally, the study assessed the complications caused by both treatment methods. The results showed that in the matched cohort, RARP and VMAT had comparable excellent outcomes in OS, CSS, and rRFS. However, VMAT demonstrated a significant advantage in bRFS, but this result should be interpreted with caution as the definition of biochemical recurrence differed between the two groups. In terms of complications, RARP had fewer severe postoperative complications and good recovery of urinary incontinence; whereas, in patients receiving VMAT, the incidence of urinary system complications was acceptable, and the incidence of gastrointestinal complications was low. Overall, both RARP and VMAT showed good tumor control and acceptable complication profiles after 6 years of follow-up.