966 ONCOLOGIC OUTCOMES FOLLOWING ROBOTIC-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC VS. OPEN RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY FOR INTERMEDIATE AND HIGH-RISK PROSTATE CANCER

2013 ◽  
Vol 189 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chad Ritch ◽  
Daniel Barocas ◽  
Chaochen You ◽  
Alexandra May ◽  
S. Duke Herrell ◽  
...  
2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 153-153
Author(s):  
Jonathan L Silberstein ◽  
Stephen A Poon ◽  
Daniel Sjoberg ◽  
Andrew J. Vickers ◽  
Aaron Bernie ◽  
...  

153 Background: To determine long-term oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) after neoadjuvant chemo-hormonal therapy for clinically localized, high-risk prostate cancer. Methods: In this phase II multicenter trial of patients with high-risk prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen greater than 20ng/ml, Gleason greater than or equal to 8, or clinical stage greater than or equal to T3), androgen deprivation therapy (goserelin acetate depot) and paclitaxel, carboplatin and estramustine were administered prior to RP. We report the long-term oncologic outcomes of these patients and compared them to a contemporary cohort who met oncologic inclusion criteria but received RP only. Results: Thirty four patients were enrolled in this study and followed for a median of 13.1 years. Within 10 years most patients experienced biochemical recurrence (BCR-free probability= 22%; 95% CI 10%, 37%). However the probability of disease-specific survival at 10 years was 84% (95% CI 66%, 93%) and overall survival was 78% (95% CI 60%, 89%). The chemohormonal therapy group had higher-risk features than the comparison group (N=123 patients) with an almost doubled risk of calculated preoperative 5-year BCR (69% vs 36%, p<0.0001). After adjusting for these imbalances the CHT group had trends toward improvement in BCR (0.76, 95% CI 0.43, 1.34; p=0.3) and metastasis free survival (0.55, 95% CI 0.24, 1.29; p=.2) although these were not significant. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy followed by RP was associated with lower observed rates of BCR and metastasis compared to a prostatectomy only group; however these results were not significant. Because this treatment strategy has known harms and unproven benefit, this strategy should only be instituted in the setting of a clinical trial.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document