title: Is there always a role for radical prostatectomy in the treatment of localized prostate cancer?
abstract: The efficacy of radical prostatectomy on localized prostate cancer is well documented. However if a high risk for patients suffering from prostate cancer and effectiveness of treatment would be documented, the advantage of the therapy on the natural history of the disease must be demonstrated. Johansson et al. analyzed the natural history of 223 untreated localized prostate cancer with a mean follow up of 123 months. Only 8.5% of the patients died of prostate cancer. The 10 year disease specific survival rate was 86.8%. The progression free survival rate was 53.1%. Zincke et al. reported that the disease specific survival of the T1 T2 submitted to radical prostatectomy at 15 years was 93% and the survival free of disease was 70%. Our data on localized prostate cancer submitted to radical prostatectomy showed that the disease specific survival and the progression free survival after 5 years of follow-up were 99% and 85.7% respectively. Fleming, focusing on life expectancy, demonstrated that radical prostatectomy provides some benefit compared with watchful waiting for patients younger than 70 years. The greatest marginal benefits of treatment arise when we assume higher metastatic rates and higher treatment efficacy. In fact in this case, radical prostatectomy offers 3.5 years of improvement in quality of life adjusted survival in younger patients with moderately or poorly differentiated tumors. Radical prostatectomy can particularly benefit selected groups of patients with localized prostate cancer. The grade of differentiation has been shown to be the most powerful predictor in several series. DNA ploidy and tumor volume may be other reliable prognostic factors. Among all the parameters considered, the two with greatest effect in determining the outcome of treatment compared to watchful waiting were the rate of progression to metastatic disease in untreated patients and the estimated efficacy of treatment in reducing the metastatic rate.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, University of Rome La Sapienza.
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Di Silverio
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: D'Eramo
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Buscarini
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Casale
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Di Nicola
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Colella
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Sciarra
mesh_terms: D000367:Age Factors; D000368:Aged; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D011379:Prognosis; D011468:Prostatectomy / Q000379:methods; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000145:classification / Q000401:mortality / Q000601:surgery*; D012307:Risk Factors; D015996:Survival Rate; D016896:Treatment Outcome