No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThe objective of this work was to assess the overall survival, cause-specific survival and biochemical failure-free survival of a contemporary cohort of patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or radical prostatectomy (RP).MethodsWe did a retrospective cohort study of our institution’s registry of patients undergoing either IMRT or RP between January 1999 and March 2010, and assessed Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), age at diagnosis, Gleason score, and digital rectal examination. Two groups were separated according to RP or IMRT treatment and these groups were in turn divided into risk groups according to the D’Amico classification. Overall survival (OS), cause-specific survival (CSS), mortality from other causes (MOC), and biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS) were assessed.ResultsTwelve-hundred patients were included: 993 in the RP group and 207 in the IMRT group.The IMRT group had older age, PSA at diagnosis and a significantly higher percentage of cancer on the needle biopsy (p <0.001). Of the 207 patients who underwent IMRT, 54% presented comorbidities. Median follow-up was 91.7 months for the RP group and 76 months for the IMRT group. The OS at 5 and 7 was 96.2, and 93.7 for the RP group respectively and 88.4, and 83.1 for the IMRT group respectively (p <0.001). There were no significant differences in the CSS in relation to treatment received among the low- and high-risk groups, while in the intermediate-risk group, patients who underwent to RP had a higher CSS than patients who underwent IMRT (99.6% vs 94.1%, p = 0.003). The IMRT group had a significantly better BDFS than the RP group (86.4% vs. 74.3%, respectively, p = 0.016).ConclusionsPatients treated with RP were significantly younger and had a better prognosis than patients treated using IMRT, and according to our results, RP had better outcomes in terms of OS while IMRT had greater MOC. Treatment modality did not affect the CSS.

Organ-sparing approaches are currently practiced in urology for many malignancies. Partial orchiectomy of germ cell tumors (GCT) provides potential benefits over radical surgery by reducing the need for androgen substitution, lessening psychological stress, and preserving fertility, with a durable cure rate. Furthermore, many testicular lesions detected clinically or by ultrasonography will be benign, in which case radical orchiectomy represents overtreatment. Partial orchiectomy for benign lesions allows preservation of endocrine and exocrine function, and reduced risk of local recurrence. However, selection criteria are not clear and one must always be suspicious that a GCT might exist. Carcinoma in situ that remains in the salvaged testicle is a challenge to treat. Radiation therapy is an option, although there is a high chance that patients will subsequently require hormonal replacement. Partial orchiectomy should be undertaken only in selected patients--men with bilateral testicular cancer or GCT in a solitary testis--if the size and location of the mass are amenable to surgery. Informed patient consent discussing radical orchiectomy as the gold standard is mandatory, and discussion of the risks associated with CIS and its treatment, as well as the need for androgen supplementation are paramount. Alternative strategies of organ preservation, such as radiotherapy, HIFU and chemotherapy, might be appropriate treatment options in the future. However, the safety and efficacy of these procedures needs to be demonstrated in comparison with partial orchiectomy in larger and prospective studies with longer follow-up.