Follow‐up of Prostatectomy versus Observation for Early Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND We previously found no significant differences in mortality between men who underwent surgery for localized prostate cancer and those who were treated with observation only. Uncertainty persists regarding nonfatal health outcomes and long‐term mortality. METHODS From November 1994 through January 2002, we randomly assigned 731 men with localized prostate cancer to radical prostatectomy or observation. We extended follow‐up through August 2014 for our primary outcome, all‐cause mortality, and the main secondary outcome, prostate‐cancer mortality. We describe disease progression, treatments received, and patient‐reported outcomes through January 2010 (original follow‐up). RESULTS During 19.5 years of follow‐up (median, 12.7 years), death occurred in 223 of 364 men (61.3%) assigned to surgery and in 245 of 367 (66.8%) assigned to observation (absolute difference in risk, 5.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], ‐1.5 to 12.4; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.01; P=0.06). Death attributed to prostate cancer or treatment occurred in 27 men (7.4%) assigned to surgery and in 42 men (11.4%) assigned to observation (absolute difference in risk, 4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, ‐0.2 to 8.3; hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.02; P=0.06). Surgery may have been associated with lower all‐cause mortality than observation among men with intermediate‐risk disease (absolute difference, 14.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.8 to 25.6) but not among those with low‐risk disease (absolute difference, 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, ‐10.5 to 11.8) or high‐risk disease (absolute difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, ‐11.5 to 16.1) (P=0.08 for interaction). Treatment for disease progression was less frequent with surgery than with observation (absolute difference, 26.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 19.0 to 32.9); treatment was primarily for asymptomatic, local, or biochemical (prostate‐specific antigen) progression. Urinary incontinence and erectile and sexual dysfunction were each greater with surgery than with observation through 10 years. Disease‐related or treatment‐related limitations in activities of daily living were greater with surgery than with observation through 2 years. CONCLUSIONS After nearly 20 years of follow‐up among men with localized prostate cancer, surgery was not associated with significantly lower all‐cause or prostate‐cancer mortality than observation. Surgery was associated with a higher frequency of adverse events than observation but a lower frequency of treatment for disease progression, mostly for asymptomatic, local, or biochemical progression. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and others; PIVOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007644.)

[1]  David Gillatt,et al.  10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  David Gillatt,et al.  Patient-Reported Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Primary Outcome Is Positive - Is That Good Enough? , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  Stuart J Pocock,et al.  The Primary Outcome Fails - What Next? , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  Liying Zhang,et al.  Metastatic Prostate Cancer in Men Initially Treated with Active Surveillance. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[6]  S. Chevalier,et al.  Management of localized and advanced prostate cancer in Canada: A lifetime cost and quality‐adjusted life‐year analysis , 2016, Cancer.

[7]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Evolution of Reporting P Values in the Biomedical Literature, 1990-2015. , 2016, JAMA.

[8]  Simon P. Kim,et al.  Contemporary Nationwide Patterns of Active Surveillance Use for Prostate Cancer. , 2015, JAMA internal medicine.

[9]  Mufaddal Mamawala,et al.  Intermediate and Longer-Term Outcomes From a Prospective Active-Surveillance Program for Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Trends in Management for Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer, 1990-2013. , 2015, JAMA.

[11]  R. Abouassaly,et al.  A hospital-based study of initial observation for low-risk prostate cancer and its predictors in the United States. , 2015, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.

[12]  Danny Vesprini,et al.  Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  Robert J Volk,et al.  Physician variation in management of low-risk prostate cancer: a population-based cohort study. , 2014, JAMA internal medicine.

[14]  Hans Garmo,et al.  Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  T. Wilt,et al.  Ascertaining cause of death among men in the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial , 2013, Clinical trials.

[16]  Philip W. Kantoff,et al.  Observation Versus Initial Treatment for Men With Localized, Low-Risk Prostate Cancer , 2013, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[17]  J. Hugosson,et al.  Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. , 2013, European urology.

[18]  T. Wilt The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial: VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program #407 (PIVOT): design and baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2012, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[19]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. , 2012, European urology.

[20]  Timothy J Wilt,et al.  Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  J.,et al.  The New England Journal of Medicine , 2012 .

[22]  Cary Nc,et al.  Analyzing Survival Data with Competing Risks Using SAS ® Software , 2012 .

[23]  L. Holmberg,et al.  Long-term quality-of-life outcomes after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 randomised trial. , 2011, The Lancet. Oncology.

[24]  J. Epstein An update of the Gleason grading system. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[25]  Stephen W Lagakos,et al.  Statistics in medicine--reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  L. Egevad,et al.  The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens , 2006, Virchows Archiv.

[27]  James A Hanley,et al.  Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. , 2005, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[28]  C. Newschaffer,et al.  Causes of death in elderly prostate cancer patients and in a comparison nonprostate cancer cohort. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[29]  J. Hanley,et al.  Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. , 1999, JAMA.

[30]  A. Renshaw,et al.  Biochemical Outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam Radiation Therapy, or interstitial Radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer , 1998 .

[31]  P. Allison Survival analysis using the SAS system : a practical guide , 1995 .

[32]  D. Corle,et al.  Radical prostatectomy versus expectant treatment for early carcinoma of the prostate. Twenty-three year follow-up of a prospective randomized study. , 1995, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology. Supplementum.

[33]  R. Gray A Class of $K$-Sample Tests for Comparing the Cumulative Incidence of a Competing Risk , 1988 .

[34]  C. Mackenzie,et al.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[35]  S Kamen,et al.  The task force. , 1976, Journal of hospital dental practice.