Health Library Prostate Cancer: Treatment - Health Professional Information [NCI PDQ]From Healthwise

This information is produced and provided by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The information in this topic may have changed since it was written. For the most current information, contact the National Cancer Institute via the Internet web site at http://cancer.gov or call 1-800-4-CANCER

Prostate Cancer Treatment (PDQ®)

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the treatment of prostate cancer. This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Adult Treatment Editorial Board.

Information about the following is included in this summary:

• Prognostic factors.
• Diagnostic variables.
• Cellular classification.
• Staging.
• Treatment options by cancer stage.

This summary is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians who care for cancer patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

Some of the reference citations in the summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Adult Treatment Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations. Based on the strength of the available evidence, treatment options are described as either “standard” or “under clinical evaluation.” These classifications should not be used as a basis for reimbursement determinations.

This summary is available in a patient version, written in less technical language, and in Spanish.

Note: Separate PDQ summaries on Prostate Cancer Prevention and Prostate Cancer Screening are also available.

Note: Estimated new cases and deaths from prostate cancer in the United States in 2008:[1]

• New cases: 186,320.
• Deaths: 28,660.

Note: Some citations in the text of this section are followed by a level of evidence. The PDQ editorial boards use a formal ranking system to help the reader judge the strength of evidence linked to the reported results of a therapeutic strategy. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Levels of Evidence for more information.)

Carcinoma of the prostate is predominantly a tumor of older men, which frequently responds to treatment when widespread and may be cured when localized. The rate of tumor growth varies from very slow to moderately rapid, and some patients may have prolonged survival even after the cancer has metastasized to distant sites such as bone. Because the median age at diagnosis is 72 years, many patients—especially those with localized tumors—may die of other illnesses without ever having suffered significant disability from the cancer. The approach to treatment is influenced by age and coexisting medical problems. Side effects of various forms of treatment should be considered in selecting appropriate management. Controversy exists in regard to the value of screening, the most appropriate staging evaluation, and the optimal treatment of each stage of the disease.[2]

A complicating feature of any analysis of survival after treatment of prostate cancer and comparison of the various treatment strategies is the evidence of increasing diagnosis of nonlethal tumors as diagnostic methods have changed over time. Nonrandomized comparisons of treatments may therefore be confounded not only by patient-selection factors but also by time trends. For example, a population-based study in Sweden showed that from 1960 to the late 1980s, before the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for screening purposes, long-term relative survival rates after the diagnosis of prostate cancer improved substantially as more sensitive methods of diagnosis were introduced. This occurred despite the use of watchful waiting or palliative hormonal treatment as the most common treatment strategies for localized prostate cancer during the entire era (<150 radical prostatectomies per year were performed in Sweden during the late 1980s). The investigators estimated that if all cancers diagnosed between 1960 and 1964 were of the lethal variety, then at least 33% of cancers diagnosed between 1980 and 1984 were of the nonlethal variety.[3][Level of evidence: 3iB] With the advent of PSA screening, the ability to diagnose nonlethal prostate cancers may increase further. Another issue complicating comparisons of outcomes among nonconcurrent series of patients is the possibility of changes in criteria for histologic diagnosis of prostate cancer.[ 4] This phenomenon creates a statistical artifact that can produce a false sense of therapeutic accomplishment and may also lead to more aggressive therapy. For example, prostate biopsies from a population-based cohort of 1,858 men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 1990 through 1992 were re-read in 2002 to 2004.[ 5, 6] The contemporary Gleason score readings were an average of 0.85 points higher (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79–0.91; P < .001) than the same slides read in 1990 to 1992. As a result, Gleason score-standardized prostate cancer mortality for these men was artifactually improved from 2.08 to 1.50 deaths per 100 person years—a 28% decrease even though overall outcomes were unchanged.

The issue of screening asymptomatic men for prostate cancer with digital rectal examination (DRE), PSA, and/or ultrasound is controversial.[7, 8] Serum PSA and transrectal ultrasound are more sensitive and will increase the diagnostic yield of prostate cancer when used in combination with rectal examination; however, these screening methods are also associated with high false-positive rates and may identify some tumors that will not threaten the patient’s health.[ 9, 10, 11] The issue is further complicated by the morbidity associated with work-up and treatment of such tumors and the considerable cost beyond a routine DRE. Furthermore, because a high percentage of tumors identified by PSA screening alone have spread outside the prostate, PSA screening may not improve life expectancy. In any case, the clinician who uses PSA for the detection of prostate cancer should be aware that no uniform standard exists; if a laboratory changes to a different assay kit, serial assays may yield nonequivalent PSA values.[ 12] In addition, the upper limit of the normal range of PSA, and therefore the threshold at which to biopsy, is not well-defined.[ 13] A multicenter trial (PLCO-1) sponsored by the National Cancer Institute is under way to test the value of early detection in reducing mortality. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Prostate Cancer Screening for more information.)

Survival of the patient with prostatic carcinoma is related to the extent of the tumor. When the cancer is confined to the prostate gland, median survival in excess of 5 years can be anticipated. Patients with locally advanced cancer are not usually curable, and a substantial fraction will eventually die of the tumor, though median survival may be as long as 5 years. If prostate cancer has spread to distant organs, current therapy will not cure it. Median survival is usually 1 to 3 years, and most such patients will die of prostate cancer. Even in this group of patients, however, indolent clinical courses lasting for many years may be observed.

Other factors affecting the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer that may be useful in making therapeutic decisions include histologic grade of the tumor, patient’s age, other medical illnesses, and level of PSA.[14, 15, 16, 17, 18] Poorly differentiated tumors are more likely to have already metastasized by the time of diagnosis and are associated with a poorer prognosis. For patients treated with radiation therapy, the combination of clinical tumor stage, Gleason score, and pretreatment PSA level can be used to more accurately estimate the risk of relapse.[ 19][Level of evidence: 3iDii] In most studies, flow cytometry has shown that nuclear DNA ploidy is an independent prognostic indicator for progression and for cause-specific survival in patients with pathologic stages III and IV prostate cancer without metastases (Jewett stages C and D1). Diploid tumors have a more favorable outcome than either tetraploid or aneuploid tumors. The use of flow cytometry techniques and histogram analysis to determine prognosis will require standardization.[ 20, 21, 22, 23]

Often, baseline rates of PSA changes are thought to be markers of tumor progression. Even though a tumor marker or characteristic may be consistently associated with a high risk of prostate cancer progression or death, it may be a very poor predictor and therefore of very limited utility in making therapeutic decisions. For example, baseline PSA and rate of PSA change were associated with subsequent metastasis or prostate cancer death in a cohort of 267 men with clinically localized prostate cancer who were managed by watchful waiting in the control arm of a randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting.[24, 25] Nevertheless, the accuracy of classifying men into groups whose cancer remained indolent versus those whose cancer progressed was poor at all examined cut points of PSA or PSA rate of change.

Several nomograms have been developed to predict outcomes either prior to [26, 27, 28, 29] or after [ 30, 31] radical prostatectomy with intent to cure. Preoperative nomograms are based on clinical stage, PSA, Gleason score, and the number of positive and negative prostate biopsy cores. Postoperative nomograms add pathologic findings, such as capsular invasion, surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node involvement. The nomograms, however, were developed at academic centers and may not be as accurate when generalized to nonacademic hospitals, where the majority of patients are treated.[ 32, 33] In addition, the nomograms use nonhealth (intermediate) outcomes such as PSA rise or pathologic surgical findings and subjective endpoints such as the physician's perceived need for additional therapy. In addition, the nomograms may be affected by changing methods of diagnosis or neoadjuvant therapy.[ 27]

Definitive treatment is usually considered for younger men with prostate cancer and no major comorbid medical illnesses because younger men are more likely to die of prostate cancer than older men or men with major comorbid medical illness. Elevations of serum acid phosphatase are associated with poor prognosis in both localized and disseminated disease. PSA, an organ-specific marker with greater sensitivity and high specificity for prostate tissue, is often used as a tumor marker.[16, 17, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39] After radical prostatectomy, detectable PSA levels identify patients at elevated risk of local treatment failure or metastatic disease;[ 36] however, a substantial proportion of patients with elevated or rising PSA levels after surgery may remain clinically free of symptoms for extended periods of time.[ 40] Biochemical evidence of failure on the basis of elevated or slowly rising PSA alone therefore may not be sufficient to alter treatment. For example, in a retrospective analysis of nearly 2,000 men who had undergone radical prostatectomy with curative intent and who were followed for a mean of 5.3 years, 315 men (15%) demonstrated an abnormal PSA of 0.2 ng/mL or higher, which is evidence of biochemical recurrence. Of these 315 men, 103 men (34%) developed clinical evidence of recurrence. The median time to development of clinical metastasis after biochemical recurrence was 8 years. After the men developed metastatic disease, the median time to death was an additional 5 years.[ 41]

After radiation therapy with curative intent, persistently elevated or rising PSA may be a prognostic factor for clinical disease recurrence; however, reported case series have used a variety of definitions of PSA failure. Criteria have been developed by the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel.[42, 43] It is difficult to base decisions about instituting additional therapy on biochemical failure. The implication of the various definitions of PSA failure for overall survival (OS) is not known, and as in the surgical series, many biochemical relapses (rising PSA alone) may not be clinically manifested in patients treated with radiation therapy.[ 44, 45]

Using surrogate endpoints for clinical decision making is controversial. Preliminary data from a retrospective cohort of 8,669 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with either radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy suggested that short posttreatment PSA doubling time (<3 months in this study) fulfills some criteria as a surrogate endpoint for all-cause mortality and prostate cancer mortality after surgery or radiation therapy.[46] Likewise, a retrospective analysis has shown that PSA declines of 20% to 40% (but not 50%) at 3 months and 30% or more at 2 months after initiation of chemotherapy for hormone independent prostate cancer, fulfilled several criteria of surrogacy for OS.[ 47] These observations should be independently confirmed in prospective study designs and may not apply to patients treated with hormonal therapy. In addition, there are no standardized criteria of surrogacy or standardized cutpoints for adequacy of surrogate endpoints, even in prospective trials.[ 48]

After hormonal therapy, reduction of PSA to undetectable levels provides information regarding the duration of progression-free status;[16] however, decreases in PSA of less than 80% may not be very predictive.[ 16] Yet, because PSA expression itself is under hormonal control, androgen deprivation therapy can decrease the serum level of PSA independent of tumor response. Clinicians, therefore, cannot rely solely on the serum PSA level to monitor a patient’s response to hormone therapy; they must also follow clinical criteria.[ 49]

References:

1. American Cancer Society.: Cancer Facts and Figures 2008. Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society, 2008. Also available online. Last accessed July 24, 2008.
2. Garnick MB: Prostate cancer: screening, diagnosis, and management. Ann Intern Med 118 (10): 804-18, 1993.
3. Helgesen F, Holmberg L, Johansson JE, et al.: Trends in prostate cancer survival in Sweden, 1960 through 1988: evidence of increasing diagnosis of nonlethal tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 88 (17): 1216-21, 1996.
4. Berner A, Harvei S, Skjorten FJ: Follow-up of localized prostate cancer, with emphasis on previous undiagnosed incidental cancer. BJU Int 83 (1): 47-52, 1999.
5. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH, et al.: Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst 97 (17): 1248-53, 2005.
6. Thompson IM, Canby-Hagino E, Lucia MS: Stage migration and grade inflation in prostate cancer: Will Rogers meets Garrison Keillor. J Natl Cancer Inst 97 (17): 1236-7, 2005.
7. Krahn MD, Mahoney JE, Eckman MH, et al.: Screening for prostate cancer. A decision analytic view. JAMA 272 (10): 773-80, 1994.
8. Kramer BS, Brown ML, Prorok PC, et al.: Prostate cancer screening: what we know and what we need to know. Ann Intern Med 119 (9): 914-23, 1993.
9. Hinman F Jr: Screening for prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 145 (1): 126-9; discussion 129-30, 1991.
10. Gerber GS, Chodak GW: Routine screening for cancer of the prostate. J Natl Cancer Inst 83 (5): 329-35, 1991.
11. Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL, et al.: Measurement of prostate-specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 324 (17): 1156-61, 1991.
12. Takayama TK, Vessella RL, Lange PH: Newer applications of serum prostate-specific antigen in the management of prostate cancer. Semin Oncol 21 (5): 542-53, 1994.
13. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, et al.: Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 350 (22): 2239-46, 2004.
14. Gittes RF: Carcinoma of the prostate. N Engl J Med 324 (4): 236-45, 1991.
15. Paulson DF, Moul JW, Walther PJ: Radical prostatectomy for clinical stage T1-2N0M0 prostatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results. J Urol 144 (5): 1180-4, 1990.
16. Matzkin H, Eber P, Todd B, et al.: Prognostic significance of changes in prostate-specific markers after endocrine treatment of stage D2 prostatic cancer. Cancer 70 (9): 2302-9, 1992.
17. Pisansky TM, Cha SS, Earle JD, et al.: Prostate-specific antigen as a pretherapy prognostic factor in patients treated with radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 11 (11): 2158-66, 1993.
18. Chodak GW, Thisted RA, Gerber GS, et al.: Results of conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 330 (4): 242-8, 1994.
19. Pisansky TM, Kahn MJ, Rasp GM, et al.: A multiple prognostic index predictive of disease outcome after irradiation for clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 79 (2): 337-44, 1997.
20. Nativ O, Winkler HZ, Raz Y, et al.: Stage C prostatic adenocarcinoma: flow cytometric nuclear DNA ploidy analysis. Mayo Clin Proc 64 (8): 911-9, 1989.
21. Lee SE, Currin SM, Paulson DF, et al.: Flow cytometric determination of ploidy in prostatic adenocarcinoma: a comparison with seminal vesicle involvement and histopathological grading as a predictor of clinical recurrence. J Urol 140 (4): 769-74, 1988.
22. Ritchie AW, Dorey F, Layfield LJ, et al.: Relationship of DNA content to conventional prognostic factors in clinically localised carcinoma of the prostate. Br J Urol 62 (3): 245-60, 1988.
23. Lieber MM: Pathological stage C (pT3) prostate cancer treated by radical prostatectomy: clinical implications of DNA ploidy analysis. Semin Urol 8 (4): 219-24, 1990.
24. Fall K, Garmo H, Andrén O, et al.: Prostate-specific antigen levels as a predictor of lethal prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 99 (7): 526-32, 2007.
25. Parekh DJ, Ankerst DP, Thompson IM: Prostate-specific antigen levels, prostate-specific antigen kinetics, and prostate cancer prognosis: a tocsin calling for prospective studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 99 (7): 496-7, 2007.
26. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, et al.: Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 277 (18): 1445-51, 1997.
27. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, et al.: Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 58 (6): 843-8, 2001.
28. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM, et al.: A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 90 (10): 766-71, 1998.
29. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, et al.: Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 98 (10): 715-7, 2006.
30. Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT: Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 17 (5): 1499-507, 1999.
31. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, et al.: Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 23 (28): 7005-12, 2005.
32. Penson DF, Grossfeld GD, Li YP, et al.: How well does the Partin nomogram predict pathological stage after radical prostatectomy in a community based population? Results of the cancer of the prostate strategic urological research endeavor. J Urol 167 (4): 1653-7; discussion 1657-8, 2002.
33. Greene KL, Meng MV, Elkin EP, et al.: Validation of the Kattan preoperative nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence using a community based cohort: results from cancer of the prostate strategic urological research endeavor (capsure). J Urol 171 (6 Pt 1): 2255-9, 2004.
34. Carlton JC, Zagars GK, Oswald MJ: The role of serum prostatic acid phosphatase in the management of adenocarcinoma of the prostate with radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 19 (6): 1383-8, 1990.
35. Stamey TA, Yang N, Hay AR, et al.: Prostate-specific antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. N Engl J Med 317 (15): 909-16, 1987.
36. Stamey TA, Kabalin JN: Prostate specific antigen in the diagnosis and treatment of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. I. Untreated patients. J Urol 141 (5): 1070-5, 1989.
37. Stamey TA, Kabalin JN, McNeal JE, et al.: Prostate specific antigen in the diagnosis and treatment of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. II. Radical prostatectomy treated patients. J Urol 141 (5): 1076-83, 1989.
38. Stamey TA, Kabalin JN, Ferrari M: Prostate specific antigen in the diagnosis and treatment of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. III. Radiation treated patients. J Urol 141 (5): 1084-7, 1989.
39. Andriole GL: Serum prostate-specific antigen: the most useful tumor marker. J Clin Oncol 10 (8): 1205-7, 1992.
40. Frazier HA, Robertson JE, Humphrey PA, et al.: Is prostate specific antigen of clinical importance in evaluating outcome after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 149 (3): 516-8, 1993.
41. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, et al.: Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 281 (17): 1591-7, 1999.
42. Consensus statement: guidelines for PSA following radiation therapy. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37 (5): 1035-41, 1997.
43. Roach M 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H Jr, et al.: Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65 (4): 965-74, 2006.
44. Kuban DA, el-Mahdi AM, Schellhammer PF: Prostate-specific antigen for pretreatment prediction and posttreatment evaluation of outcome after definitive irradiation for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 32 (2): 307-16, 1995.
45. Sandler HM, Dunn RL, McLaughlin PW, et al.: Overall survival after prostate-specific-antigen-detected recurrence following conformal radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48 (3): 629-33, 2000.
46. D'Amico AV, Moul JW, Carroll PR, et al.: Surrogate end point for prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 95 (18): 1376-83, 2003.
47. Petrylak DP, Ankerst DP, Jiang CS, et al.: Evaluation of prostate-specific antigen declines for surrogacy in patients treated on SWOG 99-16. J Natl Cancer Inst 98 (8): 516-21, 2006.
48. Baker SG: Surrogate endpoints: wishful thinking or reality? J Natl Cancer Inst 98 (8): 502-3, 2006.
49. Ruckle HC, Klee GG, Oesterling JE: Prostate-specific antigen: concepts for staging prostate cancer and monitoring response to therapy. Mayo Clin Proc 69 (1): 69-79, 1994.

More than 95% of primary prostate cancers are adenocarcinomas, and this discussion is confined to patients with this diagnosis. In general, the degree of tumor differentiation and abnormality of histologic growth pattern directly correlate with the likelihood of metastases and with death. Because of marked variability in tumor differentiation from one microscopic field to another, many pathologists will report the range of differentiation among the malignant cells that are present in a biopsy (Gleason grade).[1, 2]

When the cytopathologist is experienced in the technique, and the specimen is adequate for analysis, fine-needle aspiration of the prostate (usually performed transrectally) has been shown to have an accuracy of diagnosis equal to that of traditional core-needle biopsy.[3] Fine-needle aspiration is less painful than core biopsy and, therefore, can be performed as an outpatient procedure and at periodic intervals for serial follow-up. Controversy exists as to whether it is as reliable for grading purposes, particularly with grade range apparent in different fields.[ 4] Many urologists now use a bioptic gun with ultrasound guidance, which is relatively painless. The risk of complications with this technique is low. A transperineal, ultrasound-guided approach can be used in those patients who may be at increased risk of complications through a transrectal approach.[ 5] In a series of 670 men undergoing biopsy with an 18-gauge needle, the complication rate was 2% with only 4 patients requiring hospitalization.[ 6]

References:

1. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT: Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 111 (1): 58-64, 1974.
2. Gleason DF: Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma. In: Tannenbaum M: Urologic Pathology: The Prostate. Philadelphia, Pa: Lea and Febiger, 1977, pp 171-197.
3. Ljung BM, Cherrie R, Kaufman JJ: Fine needle aspiration biopsy of the prostate gland: a study of 103 cases with histological followup. J Urol 135 (5): 955-8, 1986.
4. Algaba F, Epstein JI, Aldape HC, et al.: Assessment of prostate carcinoma in core needle biopsy--definition of minimal criteria for the diagnosis of cancer in biopsy material. Cancer 78 (2): 376-81, 1996.
5. Webb JA, Shanmuganathan K, McLean A: Complications of ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy. A prospective study. Br J Urol 72 (5 Pt 2): 775-7, 1993.
6. Desmond PM, Clark J, Thompson IM, et al.: Morbidity with contemporary prostate biopsy. J Urol 150 (5 Pt 1): 1425-6, 1993.

Detection of asymptomatic metastatic disease in prostate cancer is greatly affected by the staging tests performed. Radionuclide bone scans are currently the most widely used tests for metastases to the bone, which is the most common site of distant tumor spread. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is more sensitive than radionuclide bone scans but is impractical for evaluating the entire skeletal system. Some evidence suggests that serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels can predict the results of radionuclide bone scan in newly diagnosed patients. In one series, only 2 of 852 patients (0.23%) with a PSA of less than 20 µg/L had a positive bone scan in the absence of bone pain.[1] In another series of 265 prostate cancer patients, 0 of 23 patients with a PSA of less than 4 µg/L had a positive bone scan, and 2 of 114 patients with a PSA of less than 10 µg/L had a positive bone scan.[ 2] Prognosis is worse in patients with pelvic lymph node involvement.

Whether to subject all patients to a pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is debatable, but in patients undergoing a radical retropubic prostatectomy, the nodal status is ascertained as a matter of course. In patients who are undergoing a radical perineal prostatectomy in whom the PSA value is less than 20 and the Gleason sum is low, however, evidence is mounting that a PLND is probably unnecessary, especially in patients whose malignancy was not palpable but detected on ultrasound.[3, 4] A PLND remains the most accurate method to assess metastases to pelvic nodes, and laparoscopic PLND has been shown to accurately assess pelvic nodes as effectively as an open procedure.[ 5] The exact role of PLND in diagnosis and subsequent treatment is being evaluated, though it has already been determined that the length of hospital stay following laparoscopic PLND is shorter than that following an open procedure. The determining factor when deciding if any type of PLND is indicated is whether definitive therapy may be altered. Likewise, preoperative seminal vesicle biopsy may be useful in patients with palpable nodules who are being considered for radical prostatectomy (unless they have a low Gleason score) because seminal vesicle involvement could affect choice of primary therapy and predicts for pelvic lymph node metastasis.[ 6]

In patients with clinically localized (stage I or stage II) prostate cancer, Gleason pathologic grade and enzymatic serum prostatic acid phosphatase values (even within normal range) predict the likelihood of capsular penetration, seminal vesicle invasion, or regional lymph node involvement.[3] Analysis of a series of 166 patients with clinical stage I and stage II prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy revealed an association between Gleason biopsy score and the risk of lymph node metastasis found at surgery. The risks of node metastasis for patients grouped according to their Gleason biopsy score was 2%, 13%, and 23% for Gleason scores of 5, 6, and 8, respectively.[ 7]

Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) may facilitate diagnosis by directing needle biopsy; however, ultrasound is operator dependent and does not assess lymph node size. Moreover, a prospective multi-institutional study of preoperative TRUS in men with clinically localized prostate cancer felt to be eligible for radical prostatectomy showed that TRUS was no better than digital rectal examination in predicting extracapsular tumor extension or seminal vesicle involvement.[8] Computed tomography (CT) can detect grossly enlarged nodes but poorly defines intraprostatic features;[ 9] therefore, it is not reliable for the staging of pelvic node disease when compared to surgical staging.[ 10] Although MRI has been used to detect extracapsular extension of prostate cancer, a positive-predictive value of about 70% and considerable interobserver variation are problems that make its routine use in staging uncertain.[ 11] Ultrasound and MRI, however, can reduce clinical understaging and thereby improve patient selection for local therapy. Preliminary data with the endorectal MRI coil for prostate imaging report the highest sensitivity and specificity for identification of organ-confined and extracapsular disease.[ 3, 12, 13] MRI is a poor tool for evaluating nodal disease.

Two systems are in common use for the staging of prostate cancer. The Jewett system (stages A through D) was described in 1975 and has since been modified.[14] In 1997, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) and the International Union Against Cancer adopted a revised tumor, nodes, metastasis (TNM) system that employs the same broad T stage categories as the Jewett system but includes subcategories of T stage, such as a stage to describe patients diagnosed through PSA screening. This revised TNM system is clinically useful and more precisely stratifies newly diagnosed patients. In 2002, the AJCC further revised the TNM classification system.[ 15] Both staging systems are shown below, and both are used in this summary to discuss treatment options. A thorough review of the controversies of staging in prostate cancer has been published.[ 16]

TNM Definitions

Primary tumor (T)

• TX: Primary tumor cannot be assessed
• T0: No evidence of primary tumor
• T1: Clinically inapparent tumor not palpable nor visible by imaging
  • T1a: Tumor incidental histologic finding in 5% or less of tissue resected
  • T1b: Tumor incidental histologic finding in more than 5% of tissue resected
  • T1c: Tumor identified by needle biopsy (e.g., because of elevated PSA)
• T2: Tumor confined within prostate*
  • T2a: Tumor involves 50% or less of one lobe
  • T2b: Tumor involves more than 50% of one lobe but not both lobes
  • T2c: Tumor involves both lobes
• T3: Tumor extends through the prostate capsule**
  • T3a: Extracapsular extension (unilateral or bilateral)
  • T3b: Tumor invades seminal vesicle(s)
• T4: Tumor is fixed or invades adjacent structures other than seminal vesicles: bladder neck, external sphincter, rectum, levator muscles, and/or pelvic wall

*Tumor that is found in one or both lobes by needle biopsy but is not palpable or reliably visible by imaging is classified as T1c.

**Invasion into the prostatic apex or into (but not beyond) the prostatic capsule is classified as T2 not T3.

Regional lymph nodes (N)

• Regional lymph nodes are the nodes of the true pelvis, which essentially are the pelvic nodes below the bifurcation of the common iliac arteries. They include the following groups (laterality does not affect the N classification): pelvic (not otherwise specified [NOS]), hypogastric, obturator, iliac (i.e., internal, external, or NOS), and sacral (lateral, presacral, promontory [e.g., Gerota], or NOS). Distant lymph nodes are outside the confines of the true pelvis. They can be imaged using ultrasound, CT, MRI, or lymphangiography and include: aortic (para-aortic, periaortic, or lumbar), common iliac, inguinal (deep), superficial inguinal (femoral), supraclavicular, cervical, scalene, and retroperitoneal (NOS) nodes. Although enlarged lymph nodes can occasionally be visualized, because of a stage migration associated with PSA screening, very few patients will be found to have nodal disease, so false-positive and false-negative results are common when imaging tests are employed. In lieu of imaging, risk tables are generally used to determine individual patient risk of nodal involvement. Involvement of distant lymph nodes is classified as M1a.
  • NX: Regional lymph nodes were not assessed
  • N0: No regional lymph node metastasis
  • N1: Metastasis in regional lymph node(s)

Distant metastasis (M)*

• MX: Distant metastasis cannot be assessed (not evaluated by any modality)
• M0: No distant metastasis
• M1: Distant metastasis
  • M1a: Nonregional lymph node(s)
  • M1b: Bone(s)
  • M1c: Other site(s) with or without bone disease

* When more than one site of metastasis is present, the most advanced category (pM1c) is used.

Histopathologic grade (G)

• GX: Grade cannot be assessed
• G1: Well differentiated (slight anaplasia) (Gleason score of 2–4)
• G2: Moderately differentiated (moderate anaplasia) (Gleason score of 5–6)
• G3-4: Poorly differentiated or undifferentiated (marked anaplasia) (Gleason score of 7–10)

AJCC Stage Groupings

Stage I

• T1a, N0, M0, G1

Stage II

• T1a, N0, M0, G2–4
• T1b, N0, M0, any G
• T1c, N0, M0, any G
• T1, N0, M0, any G
• T2, N0, M0, any G

Stage III

• T3, N0, M0, any G

Stage IV

• T4, N0, M0, any G
• Any T, N1, M0, any G
• Any T, any N, M1, any G

Jewett Staging System

STAGE A

Stage A is clinically undetectable tumor confined to the prostate gland and is an incidental finding at prostatic surgery.

• Substage A1: well differentiated with focal involvement and usually left untreated
• Substage A2: moderately or poorly differentiated or involves multiple foci in the gland

STAGE B

Stage B is tumor confined to the prostate gland.

• Substage B0: nonpalpable and PSA detected [17]
• Substage B1: single nodule in one lobe of the prostate
• Substage B2: more extensive involvement of one lobe or involvement of both lobes

STAGE C

Stage C is tumor clinically localized to the periprostatic area but extending through the prostatic capsule; seminal vesicles may be involved.

• Substage C1: clinical extracapsular extension
• Substage C2: extracapsular tumor producing bladder outlet or ureteral obstruction

STAGE D

Stage D is metastatic disease.

• Substage D0: clinically localized disease (prostate only) but persistently elevated enzymatic serum acid phosphatase titers
• Substage D1: regional lymph nodes only
• Substage D2: distant lymph nodes and metastases to bone or visceral organs
• Substage D3: D2 prostate cancer patients who relapsed after adequate endocrine therapy

References:

1. Oesterling JE, Martin SK, Bergstralh EJ, et al.: The use of prostate-specific antigen in staging patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. JAMA 269 (1): 57-60, 1993.
2. Huncharek M, Muscat J: Serum prostate-specific antigen as a predictor of radiographic staging studies in newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Cancer Invest 13 (1): 31-5, 1995.
3. Oesterling JE, Brendler CB, Epstein JI, et al.: Correlation of clinical stage, serum prostatic acid phosphatase and preoperative Gleason grade with final pathological stage in 275 patients with clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 138 (1): 92-8, 1987.
4. Daniels GF Jr, McNeal JE, Stamey TA: Predictive value of contralateral biopsies in unilaterally palpable prostate cancer. J Urol 147 (3 Pt 2): 870-4, 1992.
5. Schuessler WW, Pharand D, Vancaillie TG: Laparoscopic standard pelvic node dissection for carcinoma of the prostate: is it accurate? J Urol 150 (3): 898-901, 1993.
6. Stone NN, Stock RG, Unger P: Indications for seminal vesicle biopsy and laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection in men with localized carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 154 (4): 1392-6, 1995.
7. Fournier GR Jr, Narayan P: Re-evaluation of the need for pelvic lymphadenectomy in low grade prostate cancer. Br J Urol 72 (4): 484-8, 1993.
8. Smith JA Jr, Scardino PT, Resnick MI, et al.: Transrectal ultrasound versus digital rectal examination for the staging of carcinoma of the prostate: results of a prospective, multi-institutional trial. J Urol 157 (3): 902-6, 1997.
9. Gerber GS, Goldberg R, Chodak GW: Local staging of prostate cancer by tumor volume, prostate-specific antigen, and transrectal ultrasound. Urology 40 (4): 311-6, 1992.
10. Hanks GE, Krall JM, Pilepich MV, et al.: Comparison of pathologic and clinical evaluation of lymph nodes in prostate cancer: implications of RTOG data for patient management and trial design and stratification. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 23 (2): 293-8, 1992.
11. Schiebler ML, Yankaskas BC, Tempany C, et al.: MR imaging in adenocarcinoma of the prostate: interobserver variation and efficacy for determining stage C disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 158 (3): 559-62; discussion 563-4, 1992.
12. Consensus conference. The management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 258 (19): 2727-30, 1987.
13. Schiebler ML, Schnall MD, Pollack HM, et al.: Current role of MR imaging in the staging of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Radiology 189 (2): 339-52, 1993.
14. Jewett HJ: The present status of radical prostatectomy for stages A and B prostatic cancer. Urol Clin North Am 2 (1): 105-24, 1975.
15. Prostate. In: American Joint Committee on Cancer.: AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2002, pp 309-316.
16. Montie JE: Staging of prostate cancer: current TNM classification and future prospects for prognostic factors. Cancer 75 (7 Suppl): 1814-1818, 1995.
17. Bostwick DG, Myers RP, Oesterling JE: Staging of prostate cancer. Semin Surg Oncol 10 (1): 60-72, 1994 Jan-Feb.

Note: Some citations in the text of this section are followed by a level of evidence. The PDQ editorial boards use a formal ranking system to help the reader judge the strength of evidence linked to the reported results of a therapeutic strategy. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Levels of Evidence for more information.)

State-of-the-art treatment in prostate cancer provides prolonged disease-free survival for many patients with localized disease but is rarely curative in patients with locally extensive tumor. Even when the cancer appears clinically localized to the prostate gland, a substantial fraction of patients will develop disseminated tumor after local therapy with surgery or radiation therapy. This development is the result of the high incidence of clinical understaging, even with current diagnostic techniques. Metastatic tumor is currently not curable.

Surgery is usually reserved for patients in good health who elect surgical intervention.[1, 2, 3] Tumors in these patients should be confined to the prostate gland (stage I and stage II). Prostatectomy can be performed by the perineal or retropubic approach. The perineal approach requires a separate incision for lymph node dissection. Laparoscopic lymphadenectomy is technically possible and accomplished with much less patient morbidity.[ 4] For small, well-differentiated nodules, the incidence of positive pelvic nodes is less than 20%, and pelvic node dissection may be omitted.[ 5] With larger, less differentiated tumors, a pelvic lymph node dissection is more important. The value of pelvic node dissection (i.e., open surgical or laparoscopic) is not therapeutic but spares patients with positive nodes the morbidity of prostatectomy. Radical prostatectomy is not usually performed if frozen section evaluation of pelvic nodes reveals metastases; such patients should be considered for entry into existing clinical trials or receive radiation therapy to control local symptoms. The role of preoperative (neoadjuvant) hormonal therapy is not established.[ 6, 7]

Following radical prostatectomy, pathological evaluation stratifies tumor extent into organ-confined, specimen-confined, and margin-positive disease. The incidence of disease recurrence increases when the tumor is not specimen-confined (extracapsular) and/or the margins are positive.[8, 9, 10] Results of the outcome of patients with positive surgical margins have not been reported. Patients with extraprostatic disease are suitable candidates for clinical trials such as RTOG-9601, for example. These trials include evaluation of postoperative radiation delivery, cytotoxic agents, and hormonal treatment using luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists and/or antiandrogens.

Cryosurgery is a surgical technique under development that involves destruction of prostate cancer cells by intermittent freezing of the prostate tissue with cryoprobes, followed by thawing.[11][Level of evidence: 3iiiC];[ 12, 13][Level of evidence: 3iiiDiv] Cryosurgery is less well established than standard prostatectomy, and long-term outcomes are not as well established as with prostatectomy or radiation therapy. Serious toxic effects include bladder outlet injury, urinary incontinence, sexual impotence, and rectal injury. Impotence is common. The frequency of other side effects and the probability of cancer control at 5 years' follow-up have varied among reporting centers, and series are small compared with surgery and radiation therapy.[ 12, 13]

Candidates for definitive radiation therapy must have a confirmed pathological diagnosis of cancer that is clinically confined to the prostate and/or surrounding tissues (stage I, stage II, and stage III). Patients should have a computed tomographic scan negative for metastases, but staging laparotomy and lymph node dissection are not required. Prophylactic radiation therapy to clinically or pathologically uninvolved pelvic lymph nodes does not appear to improve overall survival (OS) or prostate cancer-specific survival as seen in the RTOG-7706trial, for example.[14][Level of evidence: 1iiA] In addition, patients considered poor medical candidates for radical prostatectomy can be treated with an acceptably low complication rate if care is given to the delivery technique.[ 15] Long-term results with radiation therapy are dependent on stage. A retrospective review of 999 patients treated with megavoltage radiation therapy showed cause-specific survival rates to be significantly different at 10 years by T-stage: T1 (79%), T2 (66%), T3 (55%), and T4 (22%).[ 16] An initial serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level higher than 15 ng/mL is a predictor of probable failure with conventional radiation therapy.[ 17] Several randomized studies have demonstrated an improvement in freedom from biochemical (PSA-based) recurrence with higher doses of radiation therapy (78 Gy–79 Gy) as compared to conventional doses (68 Gy–70 Gy).[ 18, 19, 20][Level of evidence: 1iiDiii] The higher doses were delivered using conformal techniques. None of the studies demonstrated a cause-specific survival benefit to higher doses; however, an ongoing study through the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group will be powered for OS.

Interstitial brachytherapy has been employed in several centers, generally for patients with T1 and T2 tumors. Patients are selected for favorable characteristics, including low Gleason score, low PSA level, and stage T1 to T2 tumors. Information and further study are required to better define the effects of modern interstitial brachytherapy on disease control and quality of life and to determine the contribution of favorable patient selection to outcomes.[21][Level of evidence: 3iiiDiv] Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI Web site.

Asymptomatic patients of advanced age or with concomitant illness may warrant consideration of careful observation without immediate active treatment.[22, 23] One population-based study with 15 years of follow-up (mean observation time = 12.5 years) has shown excellent survival without any treatment in patients with well-differentiated or moderately well-differentiated tumors clinically confined to the prostate, irrespective of age.[ 8] None of these men were detected by PSA screening, since PSA was not available at the time. The patient cohort was followed for a mean of 21 years after initial diagnosis.[ 24] The risk of prostate cancer progression and prostate cancer death persisted throughout the follow-up period. By the end of follow-up, 91% of the cohort had died; 16% had died of prostate cancer. A second, smaller population-based study of 94 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer managed by a watch and wait strategy gave very similar results at 4 to 9 years of follow-up.[ 25] In a selected series of 50 stage C patients, 48 of whom had well-differentiated or moderately well-differentiated tumors, the prostate cancer-specific survival rates at 5 and 9 years were 88% and 70%, respectively.[ 9]

Long-term follow-up of a population-based cohort of 767 men with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed in the pre-PSA era and managed with either watchful waiting or androgen withdrawal has also been reported in the United States.[26][Level of evidence: 3iiiA] After a follow-up of 20 years, prostate cancer-specific mortality was 6 per 1,000 person-years in men with Gleason scores of 2 to 4. Men with Gleason scores of 8 to 10, however, had a prostate cancer-specific mortality of 121 per 1,000 person years, and men with Gleason scores of 5 to 7 had intermediate prostate cancer mortality (i.e., 12, 30, and 65 deaths per 1,000 person years for Gleason scores 5, 6, and 7, respectively).

Since the early 1980s, a dramatic increase has occurred in the rates of radical prostatectomy in the United States for men aged 65 to 79 years (5.75-fold rise from 1984 to 1990). Wide geographic variation is seen with these rates.[27] A structured literature review of 144 papers has been done in an attempt to compare the 3 primary treatment strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer:[ 28]

• Radical prostatectomy.
• Definitive radiation therapy.
• Watchful waiting.

The authors concluded that poor reporting and selection factors within all series precluded a valid comparison of efficacy for the three management strategies. In another literature review of a case series of patients with palpable, clinically localized disease, the authors found that 10-year prostate cancer-specific survival rates were best in radical prostatectomy series (about 93%), worst in radiation therapy series (about 75%), and intermediate with deferred treatment (about 85%).[29] Because it is highly unlikely that radiation therapy would worsen disease-specific survival, the most likely explanation is that selection factors affect choice of treatment. Such selection factors make comparisons of therapeutic strategies imprecise.[ 30] A retrospective analysis of outcomes of men demonstrated a 10-year disease-specific survival rate of 94% for expectant management for Gleason score 2 to 4 tumors and 75% for Gleason score 5 to 7 tumors;[ 31] this is similar to a previous study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database with survival rates of 93% and 77%, respectively.[ 32]

A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting in men with early-stage disease in the pre-PSA screening era (clinical stages T1b, T1c, or T2) showed a statistically significant difference in OS at 10 years.[33][Level of evidence: 1iiA] After 10 years, the difference in OS was approximately 73% versus 68%; absolute difference 5.0%; relative risk of death 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.56–0.99). This benefit was restricted to men younger than 65 years at the time of surgery (P = .01 in a planned subset analysis of the effect of age on treatment efficacy).[ 34] Results from the Prostate Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) in the United States, an ongoing randomized trial (VA-CSP-407) that compared radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting, have not been reported. The PIVOT uses overall mortality as its primary endpoint. (Refer to the Stage II Prostate Cancer treatment section of this summary for more information.)

Cryotherapy is also under evaluation for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. There is limited evidence on its efficacy and safety compared to the more commonly used local therapies, and the technique is evolving in an attempt to reduce local toxicity and normal tissue damage (see below). The quality of evidence on efficacy is low, currently limited to case series of relatively small size, short follow-up, and surrogate outcomes of efficacy.[35]

Surgical Complications

Complications of radical prostatectomy can include urinary incontinence, urethral stricture, impotence, and the morbidity associated with general anesthesia and a major surgical procedure. An analysis of Medicare records on 101,604 radical prostatectomies performed from 1991 to 1994 showed a 30-day operative mortality rate of 0.5%, a rehospitalization rate of 4.5%, and a major complication rate of 28.6%; over the study period, these rates decreased by 30%, 8%, and 12%, respectively.[36] Prostatectomies done at hospitals where fewer prostatectomies were performed were associated with higher rates of 30-day postoperative mortality, major acute surgical complications, longer hospital stays, and higher rates of rehospitalization than those done at hospitals where more prostatectomies were performed. Morbidity and mortality rates increase with age.[ 27, 37] Comorbidity, especially underlying cardiovascular disease and a history of stroke, accounts for a portion of the age-related increase in 30-day mortality. In a cohort of all men with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy from 1990 to 1999 in Ontario, 75-year-old men with no comorbidities had a predicted 30-day mortality of 0.74%.[ 37] Thirty-day surgical complication rates also depended more on comorbidity than age (i.e., about 5% vs. 40% for 0 vs. 4 or more underlying comorbid conditions).

In one large case series of men undergoing the anatomic (nerve-sparing) technique of radical prostatectomy, approximately 6% of the men required the use of pads for urinary incontinence, but an unknown additional proportion of men had occasional urinary dribbling. About 40% to 65% of the men who were sexually potent before surgery retained potency adequate for vaginal penetration and sexual intercourse.[38] Preservation of potency with this technique is dependent on tumor stage and patient age, but the operation probably induces at least a partial deficit in nearly all patients.[ 38]

A national survey of Medicare patients who underwent radical prostatectomy in 1988 to 1990 reported more morbidity than in the case series.[39] In that survey, more than 30% of the men reported the need for pads or clamps for urinary wetness, and 63% of all patients reported a current problem with wetness. About 60% of the men reported having no erections since surgery; about 90% of the men had no erections sufficient for intercourse during the month before the survey. About 28% of the patients reported follow-up treatment of cancer with radiation therapy and/or hormonal therapy within 4 years after their prostatectomy.

In a population-based longitudinal cohort (Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study) of 901 men aged 55 to 74 years who had recently undergone radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, 15.4% of the men had either frequent urinary incontinence or no urinary control at 5 years after surgery, and 20.4% of those studied wore pads to stay dry.[40] Inability to have an erection sufficient for intercourse was reported by 79.3% of men. Reasons for the difference in outcomes between the population-based surveys and previous case series could include:

• Age difference among the populations.
• Surgical expertise at the major reporting centers.
• Selection factors.
• Publication bias of favorable series.
• Different methods of collecting information from patients.

Case series of 93, 459, and 89 men who had undergone radical prostatectomy by experienced surgeons showed rates of impotence as high as those in the national Medicare survey when men were carefully questioned about sexual potency, though the men in the case series were on average younger than those in the Medicare survey.[41, 42, 43] One of the case series used the same questionnaire as that used in the Medicare survey.[ 41] The urinary incontinence rate in that series was also similar to that in the Medicare survey.

A cross-sectional survey of prostate cancer patients who were treated in a managed care setting by radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or watchful waiting showed substantial sexual and urinary dysfunction in the prostatectomy group.[44] Results reported by the patients were consistent with those from the national Medicare survey. In addition, though statistical power was limited, differences in sexual and urinary dysfunction between men who had undergone either nerve-sparing or standard radical prostatectomy were not statistically significant. This issue requires more study.

Radical prostatectomy may also cause fecal incontinence, and the incidence may vary with surgical method.[45] In a national survey sample of 907 men who had undergone radical prostatectomy at least 1 year before the survey, 32% of the men who had undergone perineal (nerve-sparing) radical prostatectomy and 17% of the men who had undergone retropubic radical prostatectomy reported accidents of fecal leakage. Ten percent and 4% of the respondents reported moderate and large amounts of fecal leakage, respectively. Fewer than 15% of men with fecal incontinence had reported it to a physician or health care provider.

Radiation Therapy Complications

Definitive external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can result in acute cystitis, proctitis, and sometimes enteritis.[1, 43, 46, 47, 48] These conditions are generally reversible but may be chronic and rarely require surgical intervention. Potency, in the short term, is preserved with radiation therapy in most cases but may diminish over time.[ 48] A cross-sectional survey of prostate cancer patients who had been treated in a managed care setting by radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or watchful waiting showed substantial sexual and urinary dysfunction in the radiation therapy group.[ 44]

Morbidity may be reduced with the employment of sophisticated radiation therapy techniques—such as the use of linear accelerators—and careful simulation and treatment planning.[49] Radiation side effects of three-dimensional conformal versus conventional radiation therapy using similar doses (total dose of 60–64 Gy) have been compared in a randomized nonblinded study.[ 50][Level of evidence: 1iiC] No differences were observed in acute morbidity, and late side effects serious enough to require hospitalization were infrequent with both techniques; however, the cumulative incidence of mild or greater proctitis was lower in the conformal arm than in the standard therapy arm (37% vs. 56%; P = .004). Urinary symptoms were similar in the two groups as were local tumor control and OS rates at 5 years’ follow-up.

Radiation therapy can be delivered after an extraperitoneal lymph node dissection without an increase in complications if careful attention is paid to radiation technique. The treatment field should not include the dissected pelvic nodes. Previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) increases the risk of stricture above that seen with radiation therapy alone, but if radiation therapy is delayed 4 to 6 weeks after the TURP, the risk of stricture can be minimized.[51, 52, 53] Pretreatment TURP to relieve obstructive symptoms has been associated with tumor dissemination; however, multivariate analysis in pathologically staged cases indicates that this is the result of a worse underlying prognosis of the cases that require TURP rather than the result of the procedure itself.[ 54]

A population-based survey of Medicare recipients who had received radiation therapy as primary treatment of prostate cancer (similar in design to the survey of Medicare patients who underwent radical prostatectomy,[39] described above) has been reported, showing substantial differences in posttreatment morbidity profiles between surgery and radiation therapy.[ 55] Although the men who had undergone radiation therapy were older at the time of initial therapy, they were less likely to report the need for pads or clamps to control urinary wetness (7% vs. more than 30%). A larger proportion of patients treated with radiation therapy before surgery reported the ability to have an erection sufficient for intercourse in the month before the survey (men <70 years, 33% who received radiation therapy vs. 11% who underwent surgery alone; men =70 years, 27% who received radiation therapy vs. 12% who underwent surgery alone). Men receiving radiation therapy, however, were more likely to report problems with bowel function, especially frequent bowel movements (10% vs. 3%). As in the results of the surgical patient survey, about 24% of radiation patients reported additional subsequent treatment of known or suspected cancer persistence or recurrence within 3 years of primary therapy.

Sildenafil citrate may be effective in the management of sexual dysfunction after radiation therapy in some men. In a randomized placebo-controlled crossover design study (RTOG-0215) of 60 men who had undergone radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer, and who reported erectile dysfunction that began after their radiation therapy, 55% reported successful intercourse after sildenafil versus 18% after placebo (P <.001).[56][Level of evidence: 1iC]

A prospective community-based cohort of men aged 55 to 74 years treated with radical prostatectomy (n = 1156) or EBRT (n = 435) attempted to compare acute and chronic complications of the two treatment strategies after adjusting for baseline differences in patient characteristics and underlying health.[57] Regarding acute treatment-related morbidity, radical prostatectomy was associated with higher rates of cardiopulmonary complications (5.5% vs. 1.9%) and the need for treatment of urinary strictures (17.4% vs. 7.2%). Radiation therapy was associated with more acute rectal proctitis (18.7% vs. 1.6%). With regard to chronic treatment-related morbidity, radical prostatectomy was associated with more urinary incontinence (9.6% vs. 3.5%) and impotence (80% vs. 62%). Radiation therapy was associated with slightly greater declines in bowel function.

Cryotherapy Complications

Impotence is common in the reported case series, ranging from about 47% to 100%. Other major complications include incontinence, urethral sloughing, urinary fistula or stricture, and bladder neck obstruction.[35]

Hormone Therapy Complications

Several different hormonal approaches can benefit men in various stages of prostate cancer. These approaches include bilateral orchiectomy, estrogen therapy, LHRH agonists, antiandrogens, ketoconazole, and aminoglutethimide.

Benefits of bilateral orchiectomy include ease of the procedure, compliance, its immediacy in lowering testosterone levels, and low cost. Disadvantages include psychologic effects, loss of libido, impotence, hot flashes, and osteoporosis.[58]

Estrogens at a dose of 3 mg per day of diethylstilbestrol will achieve castrate levels of testosterone. Like orchiectomy, estrogens may cause loss of libido and impotence. Gynecomastia may be prevented by low-dose radiation therapy to the breasts. Estrogen is seldom used today because of the risk of serious side effects, including myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, and pulmonary embolism.

LHRH agonists such as leuprolide, goserelin, and buserelin will lower testosterone to castrate levels. Like orchiectomy and estrogens, LHRH agonists cause impotence, hot flashes, and loss of libido. Tumor flare reactions may occur transiently but can be prevented by antiandrogens or by short-term estrogens at low dose for several weeks.

The pure antiandrogen flutamide may cause diarrhea, breast tenderness, and nausea. Case reports show fatal and nonfatal liver toxic effects.[59] Bicalutamide may cause nausea, breast tenderness, hot flashes, loss of libido, and impotence.[ 60] The steroidal antiandrogen megestrol acetate suppresses androgen production incompletely and is generally not used as initial therapy.

Long-term use of ketoconazole can result in impotence, pruritus, nail changes, and adrenal insufficiency. Aminoglutethimide commonly causes sedation and skin rashes. A national Medicare survey of men who had undergone radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer showed a decrease in all seven health-related quality-of-life measures (impact of cancer and treatment, concern regarding body image, mental health, general health, activity, worries about cancer and dying, and energy) in men who had received androgen depletion therapy (either medically or surgically induced) versus those who had not.[61][Level of evidence: 3iC] Additional studies that evaluate the effects of various hormone therapies on quality of life are required.[ 62]

Androgen deprivation therapy also can cause osteoporosis and bone fractures. In a population-based sample of 50,613 Medicare patients aged 66 years or older followed for a median of 5.1 years, men who had been treated with either a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) or orchiectomy had a 19.4% bone fracture rate compared to 12.6% in men who had not received hormone deprivation therapy. The effect was similar in men whether or not they had metastatic bone disease.[63] A small nonblinded study with short follow-up suggests that the bisphosphonate pamidronate can prevent bone loss in men receiving a GnRH agonist for prostate cancer.[ 64] Forty-seven prostate cancer patients (41 evaluable) with locally advanced prostate cancer, but with no known bone metastases, were randomly assigned to receive 3-monthly depot leuprolide with or without pamidronate (60 mg intravenously). No bone fractures were reported in either group. The use of surrogate endpoints and unblinded assessment of endpoints makes it difficult to know with certainty whether pamidronate use would prevent fractures.[ 64][Level of evidence: 1iiDiii]

References:

1. Catalona WJ, Bigg SW: Nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: evaluation of results after 250 patients. J Urol 143 (3): 538-43; discussion 544, 1990.
2. Corral DA, Bahnson RR: Survival of men with clinically localized prostate cancer detected in the eighth decade of life. J Urol 151 (5): 1326-9, 1994.
3. Zincke H, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, et al.: Radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: long-term results of 1,143 patients from a single institution. J Clin Oncol 12 (11): 2254-63, 1994.
4. Schuessler WW, Vancaillie TG, Reich H, et al.: Transperitoneal endosurgical lymphadenectomy in patients with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 145 (5): 988-91, 1991.
5. Fournier GR Jr, Narayan P: Re-evaluation of the need for pelvic lymphadenectomy in low grade prostate cancer. Br J Urol 72 (4): 484-8, 1993.
6. Witjes WP, Schulman CC, Debruyne FM: Preliminary results of a prospective randomized study comparing radical prostatectomy versus radical prostatectomy associated with neoadjuvant hormonal combination therapy in T2-3 N0 M0 prostatic carcinoma. The European Study Group on Neoadjuvant Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Urology 49 (3A Suppl): 65-9, 1997.
7. Fair WR, Cookson MS, Stroumbakis N, et al.: The indications, rationale, and results of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation in the treatment of prostatic cancer: Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center results. Urology 49 (3A Suppl): 46-55, 1997.
8. Johansson JE, Holmberg L, Johansson S, et al.: Fifteen-year survival in prostate cancer. A prospective, population-based study in Sweden. JAMA 277 (6): 467-71, 1997.
9. Adolfsson J, Rönström L, Löwhagen T, et al.: Deferred treatment of clinically localized low grade prostate cancer: the experience from a prospective series at the Karolinska Hospital. J Urol 152 (5 Pt 2): 1757-60, 1994.
10. Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM, et al.: Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer recurrence and the use of secondary cancer treatment: data from the CaPSURE database. J Urol 163 (4): 1171-7; quiz 1295, 2000.
11. Robinson JW, Saliken JC, Donnelly BJ, et al.: Quality-of-life outcomes for men treated with cryosurgery for localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 86 (9): 1793-801, 1999.
12. Donnelly BJ, Saliken JC, Ernst DS, et al.: Prospective trial of cryosurgical ablation of the prostate: five-year results. Urology 60 (4): 645-9, 2002.
13. Aus G, Pileblad E, Hugosson J: Cryosurgical ablation of the prostate: 5-year follow-up of a prospective study. Eur Urol 42 (2): 133-8, 2002.
14. Asbell SO, Martz KL, Shin KH, et al.: Impact of surgical staging in evaluating the radiotherapeutic outcome in RTOG #77-06, a phase III study for T1BN0M0 (A2) and T2N0M0 (B) prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 40 (4): 769-82, 1998.
15. Forman JD, Order SE, Zinreich ES, et al.: Carcinoma of the prostate in the elderly: the therapeutic ratio of definitive radiotherapy. J Urol 136 (6): 1238-41, 1986.
16. Duncan W, Warde P, Catton CN, et al.: Carcinoma of the prostate: results of radical radiotherapy (1970-1985) Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 26 (2): 203-10, 1993.
17. Zietman AL, Coen JJ, Shipley WU, et al.: Radical radiation therapy in the management of prostatic adenocarcinoma: the initial prostate specific antigen value as a predictor of treatment outcome. J Urol 151 (3): 640-5, 1994.
18. Peeters ST, Heemsbergen WD, Koper PC, et al.: Dose-response in radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: results of the Dutch multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing 68 Gy of radiotherapy with 78 Gy. J Clin Oncol 24 (13): 1990-6, 2006.
19. Zietman AL, DeSilvio ML, Slater JD, et al.: Comparison of conventional-dose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 294 (10): 1233-9, 2005.
20. Pollack A, Zagars GK, Starkschall G, et al.: Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the M. D. Anderson phase III randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53 (5): 1097-105, 2002.
21. Ragde H, Blasko JC, Grimm PD, et al.: Interstitial iodine-125 radiation without adjuvant therapy in the treatment of clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 80 (3): 442-53, 1997.
22. Chodak GW, Thisted RA, Gerber GS, et al.: Results of conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 330 (4): 242-8, 1994.
23. Whitmore WF Jr: Expectant management of clinically localized prostatic cancer. Semin Oncol 21 (5): 560-8, 1994.
24. Johansson JE, Andrén O, Andersson SO, et al.: Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA 291 (22): 2713-9, 2004.
25. Waaler G, Stenwig AE: Prognosis of localised prostatic cancer managed by "watch and wait" policy. Br J Urol 72 (2): 214-9, 1993.
26. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J: 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 293 (17): 2095-101, 2005.
27. Lu-Yao GL, McLerran D, Wasson J, et al.: An assessment of radical prostatectomy. Time trends, geographic variation, and outcomes. The Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team. JAMA 269 (20): 2633-6, 1993.
28. Wasson JH, Cushman CC, Bruskewitz RC, et al.: A structured literature review of treatment for localized prostate cancer. Prostate Disease Patient Outcome Research Team. Arch Fam Med 2 (5): 487-93, 1993.
29. Adolfsson J, Steineck G, Whitmore WF Jr: Recent results of management of palpable clinically localized prostate cancer. Cancer 72 (2): 310-22, 1993.
30. Austenfeld MS, Thompson IM Jr, Middleton RG: Meta-analysis of the literature: guideline development for prostate cancer treatment. American Urological Association Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel. J Urol 152 (5 Pt 2): 1866-9, 1994.
31. Barry MJ, Albertsen PC, Bagshaw MA, et al.: Outcomes for men with clinically nonmetastatic prostate carcinoma managed with radical prostactectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or expectant management: a retrospective analysis. Cancer 91 (12): 2302-14, 2001.
32. Lu-Yao GL, Yao SL: Population-based study of long-term survival in patients with clinically localised prostate cancer. Lancet 349 (9056): 906-10, 1997.
33. Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F, et al.: A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 347 (11): 781-9, 2002.
34. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al.: Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 352 (19): 1977-84, 2005.
35. Shelley M, Wilt TJ, Coles B, et al.: Cryotherapy for localised prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD005010, 2007.
36. Yao SL, Lu-Yao G: Population-based study of relationships between hospital volume of prostatectomies, patient outcomes, and length of hospital stay. J Natl Cancer Inst 91 (22): 1950-6, 1999.
37. Alibhai SM, Leach M, Tomlinson G, et al.: 30-day mortality and major complications after radical prostatectomy: influence of age and comorbidity. J Natl Cancer Inst 97 (20): 1525-32, 2005.
38. Catalona WJ, Basler JW: Return of erections and urinary continence following nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 150 (3): 905-7, 1993.
39. Fowler FJ Jr, Barry MJ, Lu-Yao G, et al.: Patient-reported complications and follow-up treatment after radical prostatectomy. The National Medicare Experience: 1988-1990 (updated June 1993). Urology 42 (6): 622-9, 1993.
40. Potosky AL, Davis WW, Hoffman RM, et al.: Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst 96 (18): 1358-67, 2004.
41. Jønler M, Messing EM, Rhodes PR, et al.: Sequelae of radical prostatectomy. Br J Urol 74 (3): 352-8, 1994.
42. Geary ES, Dendinger TE, Freiha FS, et al.: Nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: a different view. J Urol 154 (1): 145-9, 1995.
43. Lim AJ, Brandon AH, Fiedler J, et al.: Quality of life: radical prostatectomy versus radiation therapy for prostate cancer. J Urol 154 (4): 1420-5, 1995.
44. Litwin MS, Hays RD, Fink A, et al.: Quality-of-life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer. JAMA 273 (2): 129-35, 1995.
45. Bishoff JT, Motley G, Optenberg SA, et al.: Incidence of fecal and urinary incontinence following radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy in a national population. J Urol 160 (2): 454-8, 1998.
46. Schellhammer PF, Jordan GH, el-Mahdi AM: Pelvic complications after interstitial and external beam irradiation of urologic and gynecologic malignancy. World J Surg 10 (2): 259-68, 1986.
47. Hanlon AL, Schultheiss TE, Hunt MA, et al.: Chronic rectal bleeding after high-dose conformal treatment of prostate cancer warrants modification of existing morbidity scales. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 38 (1): 59-63, 1997.
48. Hamilton AS, Stanford JL, Gilliland FD, et al.: Health outcomes after external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Clin Oncol 19 (9): 2517-26, 2001.
49. Hanks GE, Hanlon AL, Schultheiss TE, et al.: Dose escalation with 3D conformal treatment: five year outcomes, treatment optimization, and future directions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41 (3): 501-10, 1998.
50. Dearnaley DP, Khoo VS, Norman AR, et al.: Comparison of radiation side-effects of conformal and conventional radiotherapy in prostate cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 353 (9149): 267-72, 1999.
51. Greskovich FJ, Zagars GK, Sherman NE, et al.: Complications following external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer: an analysis of patients treated with and without staging pelvic lymphadenectomy. J Urol 146 (3): 798-802, 1991.
52. Seymore CH, el-Mahdi AM, Schellhammer PF: The effect of prior transurethral resection of the prostate on post radiation urethral strictures and bladder neck contractures. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 12 (9): 1597-600, 1986.
53. Green N, Treible D, Wallack H, et al.: Prostate cancer--the impact of irradiation on urinary outlet obstruction. Br J Urol 70 (3): 310-3, 1992.
54. Zelefsky MJ, Whitmore WF Jr, Leibel SA, et al.: Impact of transurethral resection on the long-term outcome of patients with prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 150 (6): 1860-4, 1993.
55. Fowler FJ Jr, Barry MJ, Lu-Yao G, et al.: Outcomes of external-beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a study of Medicare beneficiaries in three surveillance, epidemiology, and end results areas. J Clin Oncol 14 (8): 2258-65, 1996.
56. Incrocci L, Koper PC, Hop WC, et al.: Sildenafil citrate (Viagra) and erectile dysfunction following external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51 (5): 1190-5, 2001.
57. Potosky AL, Legler J, Albertsen PC, et al.: Health outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 92 (19): 1582-92, 2000.
58. Daniell HW: Osteoporosis after orchiectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 157 (2): 439-44, 1997.
59. Wysowski DK, Freiman JP, Tourtelot JB, et al.: Fatal and nonfatal hepatotoxicity associated with flutamide. Ann Intern Med 118 (11): 860-4, 1993.
60. Soloway MS, Schellhammer PF, Smith JA, et al.: Bicalutamide in the treatment of advanced prostatic carcinoma: a phase II multicenter trial. Urology 47 (1A Suppl): 33-7; discussion 48-53, 1996.
61. Fowler FJ Jr, McNaughton Collins M, Walker Corkery E, et al.: The impact of androgen deprivation on quality of life after radical prostatectomy for prostate carcinoma. Cancer 95 (2): 287-95, 2002.
62. Kirschenbaum A: Management of hormonal treatment effects. Cancer 75 (7 Suppl): 1983-1986, 1995.
63. Shahinian VB, Kuo YF, Freeman JL, et al.: Risk of fracture after androgen deprivation for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 352 (2): 154-64, 2005.
64. Smith MR, McGovern FJ, Zietman AL, et al.: Pamidronate to prevent bone loss during androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 345 (13): 948-55, 2001.

Note: Some citations in the text of this section are followed by a level of evidence. The PDQ editorial boards use a formal ranking system to help the reader judge the strength of evidence linked to the reported results of a therapeutic strategy. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Levels of Evidence for more information.)

Stage I prostate cancer is defined by the following staging systems:

• American Joint Committee on Cancer's (AJCC) TNM classification system: T1a, N0, M0, G1 (Gleason score of 2–4).
• Jewett staging system: stage A1.

Previous versions of the AJCC staging system described a tumor’s grade as well-differentiated, but this term is no longer used. G1 is the equivalent of well-differentiated.

The frequency of clinically silent, nonmetastatic prostate cancer that can be found at autopsy greatly increases with age and may be as high as 50% to 60% in men aged 90 years and older. Undoubtedly, the incidental discovery of these occult cancers at prostatic surgery performed for other reasons accounts for the similar survival of men with stage I prostate cancer, compared with the normal male population, adjusted for age. Many stage I cancers are well-differentiated and only focally involve the gland (T1a, N0, M0); most require no treatment other than careful follow-up.[1]

In a retrospective pooled analysis, 828 men with clinically localized prostate cancer were managed by initial conservative therapy with subsequent hormone therapy given at the time of symptomatic disease progression. This study showed that the patients with grade 1 or grade 2 tumors experienced a disease-specific survival of 87% at 10 years and that their overall survival (OS) closely approximated the expected survival among men of similar ages in the general population.[2]

In younger patients (aged 50–60 years) whose expected survival is long, treatment should be considered.[3] Radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT), and interstitial implantation of radioisotopes and watchful waiting yield apparently similar survival rates in noncontrolled selected series. The decision to treat should be made in the context of the patient’s age, associated medical illnesses, and personal desires.[ 3]

Bicalutamide has not been shown to improve OS in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. The Early Prostate Cancer program is a large, randomized, placebo-controlled, international trial that compared bicalutamide (150 mg orally per day) plus standard care (radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or watchful waiting, depending on local custom) with standard care alone for men with nonmetastatic localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (T1–2, N0, NX; T3–4, any N; or any T, N+).[4] Less than 2% of the 8,113 men had known node disease. At a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there was no difference in OS between the bicalutamide and placebo groups (about 76% in both arms [hazard ratio = 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.91–1.09; P = .89]).[ 4][Level of evidence: 1iA]

STANDARD TREATMENT OPTIONS:

1. Careful observation without further immediate treatment in selected patients[2, 3, 5, 6]
2. Radical prostatectomy, usually with pelvic lymphadenectomy (with or without the nerve-sparing technique designed to preserve potency).[7, 8, 9] Radical prostatectomy may be difficult after a transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Consideration may be given to postoperative radiation therapy for patients who are found to have capsular penetration or seminal vesicle invasion by tumor at the time of prostatectomy or who have a detectable level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) more than 3 weeks after surgery.[ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15] Because duration of follow-up in available studies is still relatively short, the value of postoperative radiation therapy is yet to be determined; however, postoperative radiation therapy does reduce local recurrence.[ 16] Careful treatment planning is necessary to avoid morbidity.[ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15] Clinical trials are in progress.
3. EBRT.[17, 18, 19, 20, 21] Definitive radiation therapy should be delayed 4 to 6 weeks after TURP to reduce incidence of stricture.[ 22]
4. Interstitial implantation of radioisotopes (i.e., iodine I 125, palladium, and iridium) done through a transperineal technique with either ultrasound or computed tomography (CT) guidance is being done in carefully selected patients with T1 or T2a tumors. Short-term results in these patients are similar to those for radical prostatectomy or EBRT.[23, 24, 25][Level of evidence: 3iiiDiv] One advantage is that the implant is performed as outpatient surgery. The rate of maintenance of sexual potency with interstitial implants has been reported to be 86% to 92%,[ 23, 25] which compares with rates of 10% to 40% with radical prostatectomy and 40% to 60% with EBRT; however, urinary tract frequency, urgency, and less commonly, urinary retention are seen in most patients but subside with time. Rectal ulceration may also be seen. In one series, a 10% 2-year actuarial genitourinary grade 2 complication rate and a 12% risk of rectal ulceration were seen. This risk decreased with increased operator experience and modification of implant technique.[ 23] Long-term follow-up of these patients is necessary to assess treatment efficacy and side effects.

   Retropubic freehand implantation with iodine I 125 has been associated with an increased local failure and complication rate [26, 27] and is now rarely done.

TREATMENT OPTIONS UNDER CLINICAL EVALUATION:

1. High-intensity focused ultrasound.[28]
2. Other clinical trials.

Current Clinical Trials

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's PDQ Cancer Clinical Trials Registry that are now accepting patients with stage I prostate cancer. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References:

1. Consensus conference. The management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 258 (19): 2727-30, 1987.
2. Chodak GW, Thisted RA, Gerber GS, et al.: Results of conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 330 (4): 242-8, 1994.
3. Epstein JI, Paull G, Eggleston JC, et al.: Prognosis of untreated stage A1 prostatic carcinoma: a study of 94 cases with extended followup. J Urol 136 (4): 837-9, 1986.
4. McLeod DG, Iversen P, See WA, et al.: Bicalutamide 150 mg plus standard care vs standard care alone for early prostate cancer. BJU Int 97 (2): 247-54, 2006.
5. Graversen PH, Nielsen KT, Gasser TC, et al.: Radical prostatectomy versus expectant primary treatment in stages I and II prostatic cancer. A fifteen-year follow-up. Urology 36 (6): 493-8, 1990.
6. Cantrell BB, DeKlerk DP, Eggleston JC, et al.: Pathological factors that influence prognosis in stage A prostatic cancer: the influence of extent versus grade. J Urol 125 (4): 516-20, 1981.
7. Zincke H, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, et al.: Radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: long-term results of 1,143 patients from a single institution. J Clin Oncol 12 (11): 2254-63, 1994.
8. Catalona WJ, Bigg SW: Nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: evaluation of results after 250 patients. J Urol 143 (3): 538-43; discussion 544, 1990.
9. Catalona WJ, Basler JW: Return of erections and urinary continence following nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 150 (3): 905-7, 1993.
10. Lange PH, Reddy PK, Medini E, et al.: Radiation therapy as adjuvant treatment after radical prostatectomy. NCI Monogr (7): 141-9, 1988.
11. Ray GR, Bagshaw MA, Freiha F: External beam radiation salvage for residual or recurrent local tumor following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 132 (5): 926-30, 1984.
12. Carter GE, Lieskovsky G, Skinner DG, et al.: Results of local and/or systemic adjuvant therapy in the management of pathological stage C or D1 prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 142 (5): 1266-70; discussion 1270-1, 1989.
13. Freeman JA, Lieskovsky G, Cook DW, et al.: Radical retropubic prostatectomy and postoperative adjuvant radiation for pathological stage C (PcN0) prostate cancer from 1976 to 1989: intermediate findings. J Urol 149 (5): 1029-34, 1993.
14. Stamey TA, Yang N, Hay AR, et al.: Prostate-specific antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. N Engl J Med 317 (15): 909-16, 1987.
15. Hudson MA, Bahnson RR, Catalona WJ: Clinical use of prostate specific antigen in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 142 (4): 1011-7, 1989.
16. Paulson DF, Moul JW, Walther PJ: Radical prostatectomy for clinical stage T1-2N0M0 prostatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results. J Urol 144 (5): 1180-4, 1990.
17. Bagshaw MA: External radiation therapy of carcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 45 (7 Suppl): 1912-21, 1980.
18. Forman JD, Zinreich E, Lee DJ, et al.: Improving the therapeutic ratio of external beam irradiation for carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 11 (12): 2073-80, 1985.
19. Ploysongsang S, Aron BS, Shehata WM, et al.: Comparison of whole pelvis versus small-field radiation therapy for carcinoma of prostate. Urology 27 (1): 10-6, 1986.
20. Pilepich MV, Bagshaw MA, Asbell SO, et al.: Definitive radiotherapy in resectable (stage A2 and B) carcinoma of the prostate--results of a nationwide overview. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 13 (5): 659-63, 1987.
21. Amdur RJ, Parsons JT, Fitzgerald LT, et al.: The effect of overall treatment time on local control in patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated with radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 19 (6): 1377-82, 1990.
22. Seymore CH, el-Mahdi AM, Schellhammer PF: The effect of prior transurethral resection of the prostate on post radiation urethral strictures and bladder neck contractures. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 12 (9): 1597-600, 1986.
23. Wallner K, Roy J, Harrison L: Tumor control and morbidity following transperineal iodine 125 implantation for stage T1/T2 prostatic carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 14 (2): 449-53, 1996.
24. D'Amico AV, Coleman CN: Role of interstitial radiotherapy in the management of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer: the jury is still out. J Clin Oncol 14 (1): 304-15, 1996.
25. Ragde H, Blasko JC, Grimm PD, et al.: Interstitial iodine-125 radiation without adjuvant therapy in the treatment of clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 80 (3): 442-53, 1997.
26. Kuban DA, el-Mahdi AM, Schellhammer PF: I-125 interstitial implantation for prostate cancer. What have we learned 10 years later? Cancer 63 (12): 2415-20, 1989.
27. Fuks Z, Leibel SA, Wallner KE, et al.: The effect of local control on metastatic dissemination in carcinoma of the prostate: long-term results in patients treated with 125I implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21 (3): 537-47, 1991.
28. Thüroff S, Chaussy C, Vallancien G, et al.: High-intensity focused ultrasound and localized prostate cancer: efficacy results from the European multicentric study. J Endourol 17 (8): 673-7, 2003.

Note: Some citations in the text of this section are followed by a level of evidence. The PDQ editorial boards use a formal ranking system to help the reader judge the strength of evidence linked to the reported results of a therapeutic strategy. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Levels of Evidence for more information.)

Stage II prostate cancer is defined by the following staging systems:

• American Joint Committee on Cancer's (AJCC) TNM classification system:
  • T1a, N0, M0, G2–4.
  • T1b, N0, M0, any G.
  • T1c, N0, M0, any G.
  • T1 (not further specified), N0, M0, any G.
  • T2, N0, M0, any G.
• Jewett staging system: stage A2 or B1 or B2.

Previous versions of the AJCC staging system described a tumor’s grade as moderately differentiated, poorly differentiated, or undifferentiated, but these terms are no longer used. G2 is the equivalent of moderately differentiated, and G3–4 is the equivalent of poorly differentiated and undifferentiated.

Treatment information for patients whose disease has the following TNM classifications:

• T1a, N0, M0, G2–4.
• T1b, N0, M0, any G.
• T1c, N0, M0, any G.
• T1 (not further specified), N0, M0, any G.
• T2, N0, M0, G1–2.

A trial has been reported in which 695 men with newly diagnosed well-differentiated or moderately well-differentiated prostate cancers of clinical stages T1b, T1c, or T2 were randomly assigned to receive radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting.[1] In contrast to prostate cancer patients in the United States, most of the men in this study had been diagnosed clinically, rather than by screening. At a median follow-up of 6.2 years, prostate cancer-specific mortality was 4.6% in the prostatectomy arm of the study versus 8.9% in the watchful waiting arm (P = .02);[ 1][Level of evidence: 1iiB] however, overall mortality in the two groups was similar (P = .31).[ 1][Level of evidence: 1iiA] After 10 years, the difference in overall survival (OS) was approximately 73% versus 68%; absolute difference 5.0%; relative risk of death 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56–0.99). This benefit was restricted to men younger than 65 years at the time of surgery (P = .01 in a planned subset analysis of the effect of age on treatment efficacy).[ 2] A quality-of-life substudy was conducted in 326 of the men in the randomized study.[ 3] Men filled out questionnaires at a median of about 4 years after study entry. The principal differences in symptoms between the two groups were in sexual and urinary function. In the surgery and watchful waiting groups, 80% versus 45% of the men answering the questionnaire said they seldom or never had erections sufficient for sexual intercourse. Forty-nine percent of men in the prostatectomy arm had urinary leakage at least once a week, 43% used protective aids regularly, and 14% used diapers or urine bags compared to 21%, 10%, and 1%, respectively, in the watchful waiting arm; however, the men on the watchful waiting arm had more obstructive symptoms (e.g., severe symptoms on the American Urologic Symptom Index of 7% in the watchful waiting arm vs. 10% in the prostatectomy arm and moderate symptoms of 42% vs. 24%).[ 3][Level of evidence: 1iiC]

An older randomized study comparing radical prostatectomy at diagnosis to expectant therapy (careful observation with therapy as needed) in stage I and stage II cancers did not show a statistically significant difference in survival;[4] however, the trial of 95 patients was not large enough to exclude a small but medically significant difference in OS, nor did it include information to measure time to progression, cancer-specific survival, or quality of life.

Often, baseline rates of PSA changes are thought to be markers of tumor progression. Even though a tumor marker or characteristic may be consistently associated with a high risk of prostate cancer progression or death, it may be a very poor predictor and therefore of very limited utility in making therapeutic decisions. For example, baseline PSA and rate of PSA change were associated with subsequent metastasis or prostate cancer death in a cohort of 267 men with clinically localized prostate cancer who were managed by watchful waiting in the control arm of a randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting.[5, 6] Nevertheless, the accuracy of classifying men into groups whose cancer remained indolent versus those whose cancer progressed was poor at all examined cut points of PSA or PSA rate of change.

Patients with locally advanced nonmetastatic disease (T2–T4, N0–N1, M0) are at risk for developing bone metastases, and bisphosphonates are being studied as a strategy to decrease this risk. However, a placebo-controlled randomized trial (MRC-PRO4) of a 5-year regimen of the first generation bisphosphonate clodronate in high oral doses (2,080 mg per day) had no favorable impact on either time to symptomatic bone metastasis or survival.[7][Level of evidence: 1iA]

STANDARD TREATMENT OPTIONS:

1. Radical prostatectomy, usually with pelvic lymphadenectomy (with or without the nerve-sparing technique designed to preserve potency).[8, 9, 10] Radical prostatectomy may be difficult after a transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Consideration may be given to postoperative radiation therapy for patients who are found to have capsular penetration or seminal vesicle invasion by tumor at the time of prostatectomy or who have a detectable level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) more than 3 weeks after surgery.[ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16] Because duration of follow-up in available studies is still relatively short, the value of postoperative radiation therapy is yet to be determined; however, postoperative radiation therapy does reduce local recurrence.[ 17] Careful treatment planning is necessary to avoid morbidity.[ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16] Clinical trials are in progress.
2. Careful observation without further immediate treatment in selected patients.[4, 18]
3. External-beam radiation therapy (EBRT).[19, 20, 21, 22, 23] Prophylactic radiation therapy to clinically or pathologically uninvolved pelvic lymph nodes does not appear to improve OS or prostate cancer-specific survival as seen in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Trial (RTOG-7706) trial, for example.[ 24][Level of evidence: 1iiA] Although the RTOG-9413 trial showed an increased progression-free survival at 4 years for patients with a 15% estimated risk of lymph node involvement receiving whole-pelvic radiation therapy as compared with prostate-only radiation therapy, OS and PSA failure rates were not significantly different.[ 25, 26][Level of evidence: 1iiDiii] Definitive radiation therapy should be delayed 4 to 6 weeks after TURP to reduce incidence of stricture.[ 27]
4. EBRT plus androgen-suppression therapy.[28, 29] Three-dimensional–conformal radiation therapy (3D–CRT) (70 Gy) with versus without a total of 6 months of androgen-suppression therapy ([AST]: combined-luteinizing hormone–release hormone [LHRH] plus flutamide) have been compared in a randomized trial of men with clinical stage I or stage II cancer who are at elevated risk for disease progression (i.e., PSA =10 mg/ml or Gleason score =7).[ 30] In the trial, 206 patients were randomly assigned and followed for a median of 4.5 years. The estimated 5-year OS rate in the radiation-only arm was 78% (95% CI, 68%–88%) versus 88% (95% CI, 80%–95%) in the radiation-plus AST arm (P = .04).[ 30][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

   Bicalutamide has not been shown to improve OS in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. The Early Prostate Cancer (EPC) program is a large, randomized, placebo-controlled, international trial that compared bicalutamide (150 mg orally per day) plus standard care (radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or watchful waiting, depending on local custom) with standard care alone for men with nonmetastatic localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (T1–2, N0, NX; T3–4, any N; or any T, N+).[31] Less than 2% of the 8,113 men had known node disease. At a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there was no difference in OS between the bicalutamide and placebo groups (about 76% in both arms [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91–1.09; P = .89]).[ 31][Level of evidence: 1iA]

5. Interstitial implantation of radioisotopes (i.e., iodine I 125, palladium, and iridium) done through a transperineal technique with either ultrasound or computed tomography (CT) guidance is being done in carefully selected patients with T1 or T2a tumors. Short-term results in these patients are similar to those for radical prostatectomy or EBRT.[32, 33, 34][Level of evidence: 3iiiDiv] One advantage is that the implant is performed as outpatient surgery. The rate of maintenance of sexual potency with interstitial implants has been reported to be 86% to 92%,[ 32, 34] which compares with rates of 10% to 40% with radical prostatectomy and 40% to 60% with EBRT; however, urinary tract frequency, urgency, and less commonly, urinary retention are seen in most patients but subside with time. Rectal ulceration may also be seen. In one series, a 10% 2-year actuarial genitourinary grade 2 complication rate and a 12% risk of rectal ulceration was seen. This risk decreased with increased operator experience and modification of implant technique.[ 32] Long-term follow-up of these patients is necessary to assess treatment efficacy and side effects.

   Retropubic freehand implantation with iodine I 125 has been associated with an increased local failure and complication rate [35, 36] and is now rarely done.

6. Other clinical trials.

Treatment information for patients whose disease has the following classifications:

• AJCC's TNM classification system: T2, N0, M0, any G.
• Jewett staging system: A2 or B1 or B2.

Radical prostatectomy, EBRT, and interstitial implantation of radioisotopes are each employed in the treatment of stage II prostate cancer with apparently similar therapeutic effects. Radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy yield apparently similar survival rates with as many as 10 years of follow-up. For well-selected patients, radical prostatectomy can achieve 15-year survival comparable to an age-matched population without prostate cancer.[18] Unfortunately, randomized comparative trials of these treatment methods with prolonged follow-up are lacking. Patients with a small palpable cancer (T2a, N0, M0) fare better than patients in whom the disease involves both lobes of the gland (T2c, N0, M0). Patients proven free of node metastases by pelvic lymphadenectomy fare better than patients in whom this staging procedure is not performed; however, this is the result of selection of patients who have a more favorable prognosis. Side effects of the various forms of therapy—including impotence, incontinence, and bowel injury—should be considered in determining the type of treatment to employ.

In a retrospective pooled analysis, 828 men with clinically localized prostate cancer were managed by initial conservative therapy with subsequent hormone therapy given at the time of symptomatic disease progression. This study showed that the patients with grade 1 or grade 2 tumors experienced a disease-specific survival of 87% at 10 years and that their OS closely approximated the expected survival among men of similar ages in the general population.[18] The decision to treat should be made in the context of the patient’s age, associated medical illnesses, and personal desires.

The role of adjuvant hormonal therapy in patients with locally advanced disease has been analyzed by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (now the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). Most patients have more advanced disease, but patients with bulky T2b to T2c tumors were included in the study groups that were re-evaluating the role of adjuvant hormonal therapy in patients with locally advanced disease. Randomized clinical trial evidence comparing radiation therapy to radiation therapy with prolonged androgen suppression has been published. The meta-analysis found a difference in 5-year OS in favor of radiation therapy plus continued androgen suppression (LHRH agonist or orchiectomy) compared to radiation therapy alone (HR = 0.631; 95% CI, 0.479–0.831).[37][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

Likewise, a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled trials comparing early (adjuvant or neoadjuvant) to deferred hormonal treatment (LHRH agonists and/or antiandrogens) in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer, whether treated by prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or watchful waiting, showed improved overall mortality (RR=0.86; 95% CI, 0.82–0.91).[38][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

Bicalutamide has not been shown to improve OS in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. The EPC program is a large, randomized, placebo-controlled, international trial that compared bicalutamide (150 mg orally per day) plus standard care (radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or watchful waiting, depending on local custom) with standard care alone for men with nonmetastatic localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (T1–2, N0, NX; T3–4, any N; or any T, N+).[31] Less than 2% of the 8,113 men had known node disease. At a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there was no difference in OS between the bicalutamide and placebo groups (about 76% in both arms [HR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91–1.09; P = .89]).[ 31][Level of evidence: 1iA]

Patients with locally advanced nonmetastatic disease (T2–T4, N0–N1, M0) are at risk for developing bone metastases, and bisphosphonates are being studied as a strategy to decrease this risk. However, a placebo-controlled randomized trial (MRC-PRO4) of a 5-year regimen of the first generation bisphosphonate clodronate in high oral doses (2,080 mg per day) had no favorable impact on either time to symptomatic bone metastasis or survival.[7][Level of evidence: 1iA]

STANDARD TREATMENT OPTIONS:

1. Radical prostatectomy usually with pelvic lymphadenectomy.[8, 9, 39, 40] If allowed by the extent of tumor, anatomical dissection that preserves nerves necessary for erection may avoid impotence postoperatively in some patients.[ 10, 39] Since about 40% to 50% of men with clinically organ-confined disease are found to have pathologic extension beyond the prostate capsule or surgical margins (i.e., pathologic stage III disease), the role of postprostatectomy adjuvant radiation therapy has been studied. In a randomized trial of 425 men with pathologic T3, N0, M0 disease, postsurgical EBRT (60 Gy–64 Gy to the pelvic fossa over 30–32 fractions) was compared to observation.[ 41] The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival, an endpoint that could be affected by serial PSA monitoring and resulting metastatic work-up for PSA increase. This could have biased the primary endpoint in favor of radiation therapy, which was associated with a lower rate of PSA rise. Nevertheless, metastasis-free survival was not statistically different between the two study arms (P = .06). After a median follow-up of 10.6 years, the median survival was 14.7 years in the radiation therapy group versus 13.8 years in the observation group (P = .16).[ 41][Level of evidence: 1iiA] Although the survival rates were not statistically different, complication rates were substantially higher in the radiation therapy group: overall complications were 23.8% versus 11.9%, rectal complications were 3.3% versus 0%, and urethral stricture was 17.8% versus 9.5%, respectively. Postoperative radiation therapy does reduce local recurrence.[ 17] The role of preoperative (neoadjuvant) hormonal therapy is not established.[ 42, 43] Also, the morphologic changes induced by neoadjuvant androgen ablation may complicate assessment of surgical margins and capsular involvement.[ 44]
2. EBRT.[19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 45] Prophylactic radiation therapy to clinically or pathologically uninvolved pelvic lymph nodes does not appear to improve OS or prostate cancer-specific survival.[ 24][Level of evidence: 1iiA] Definitive radiation therapy should be delayed 4 to 6 weeks after TURP to reduce incidence of stricture.[ 27] For patients with bulky T2b to T2c tumors, adjuvant hormonal therapy should be considered.[ 37]
3. EBRT plus androgen suppression therapy.[28, 29]
4. Careful observation without further immediate treatment (in selected patients).[4, 18]
5. Interstitial implantation of radioisotopes (i.e., iodine I 125, palladium, and iridium) done through a transperineal technique with either ultrasound or CT guidance is being done in carefully selected patients with T1 or T2a tumors. Short-term results in these carefully selected patients are similar to those for radical prostatectomy or EBRT.[32, 33, 34][Level of evidence: 3iiiDiv] One advantage is that the implant is performed as outpatient surgery. The rate of maintenance of sexual potency with interstitial implants has been reported to be 86% to 92%,[ 32, 46] which compares with rates of 10% to 40% with radical prostatectomy and 40% to 60% with EBRT; however, urinary tract frequency, urgency, or less commonly, urinary retention are seen in most patients but subside with time. Rectal ulceration may also be seen. In one series, a 10% 2-year actuarial genitourinary grade 2 complication rate, and a 12% risk of rectal ulceration was seen. This risk decreased with increased operator experience and modification of implant technique.[ 32] Long-term follow-up of these patients is necessary to assess treatment efficacy and side effects.

   Retropubic freehand implantation with iodine I 125 has been associated with an increased local failure and complication rate [35, 36] and is now rarely done.

6. EBRT designed to decrease exposure of normal tissues using methods such as CT-based 3-D conformal treatment planning is under clinical evaluation.[47]
7. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous cryosurgery is under clinical evaluation.

   Cryosurgery is a surgical technique under development that involves destruction of prostate cancer cells by intermittent freezing of the prostate tissue with cryoprobes and is followed by thawing.[48][Level of evidence: 3iiiC][ 49, 50][Level of evidence: 3iiiDiv] Cryosurgery is less well established than standard prostatectomy, and long-term outcomes are not as well established as with prostatectomy or radiation therapy. Serious toxic effects include bladder outlet injury, urinary incontinence, sexual impotence, and rectal injury. The technique of cryosurgery is under development. Impotence is common. The frequency of other side effects and the probability of cancer control at 5 years' follow-up have varied among reporting centers, and series are small compared with surgery and radiation therapy.[ 49, 50]

8. Other clinical trials, including trials of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy followed by radical prostatectomy.[51, 52]

Current Clinical Trials

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's PDQ Cancer Clinical Trials Registry that are now accepting patients with stage II prostate cancer. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References:

1. Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F, et al.: A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 347 (11): 781-9, 2002.
2. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al.: Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 352 (19): 1977-84, 2005.
3. Steineck G, Helgesen F, Adolfsson J, et al.: Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting. N Engl J Med 347 (11): 790-6, 2002.
4. Graversen PH, Nielsen KT, Gasser TC, et al.: Radical prostatectomy versus expectant primary treatment in stages I and II prostatic cancer. A fifteen-year follow-up. Urology 36 (6): 493-8, 1990.
5. Fall K, Garmo H, Andrén O, et al.: Prostate-specific antigen levels as a predictor of lethal prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 99 (7): 526-32, 2007.
6. Parekh DJ, Ankerst DP, Thompson IM: Prostate-specific antigen levels, prostate-specific antigen kinetics, and prostate cancer prognosis: a tocsin calling for prospective studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 99 (7): 496-7, 2007.
7. Mason MD, Sydes MR, Glaholm J, et al.: Oral sodium clodronate for nonmetastatic prostate cancer--results of a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial: Medical Research Council PR04 (ISRCTN61384873). J Natl Cancer Inst 99 (10): 765-76, 2007.
8. Zincke H, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, et al.: Radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: long-term results of 1,143 patients from a single institution. J Clin Oncol 12 (11): 2254-63, 1994.
9. Catalona WJ, Bigg SW: Nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: evaluation of results after 250 patients. J Urol 143 (3): 538-43; discussion 544, 1990.
10. Catalona WJ, Basler JW: Return of erections and urinary continence following nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 150 (3): 905-7, 1993.
11. Lange PH, Reddy PK, Medini E, et al.: Radiation therapy as adjuvant treatment after radical prostatectomy. NCI Monogr (7): 141-9, 1988.
12. Ray GR, Bagshaw MA, Freiha F: External beam radiation salvage for residual or recurrent local tumor following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 132 (5): 926-30, 1984.
13. Carter GE, Lieskovsky G, Skinner DG, et al.: Results of local and/or systemic adjuvant therapy in the management of pathological stage C or D1 prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 142 (5): 1266-70; discussion 1270-1, 1989.
14. Freeman JA, Lieskovsky G, Cook DW, et al.: Radical retropubic prostatectomy and postoperative adjuvant radiation for pathological stage C (PcN0) prostate cancer from 1976 to 1989: intermediate findings. J Urol 149 (5): 1029-34, 1993.
15. Stamey TA, Yang N, Hay AR, et al.: Prostate-specific antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. N Engl J Med 317 (15): 909-16, 1987.
16. Hudson MA, Bahnson RR, Catalona WJ: Clinical use of prostate specific antigen in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 142 (4): 1011-7, 1989.
17. Paulson DF, Moul JW, Walther PJ: Radical prostatectomy for clinical stage T1-2N0M0 prostatic adenocarcinoma: long-term results. J Urol 144 (5): 1180-4, 1990