4.6 Article

Long-term followup of a randomized trial of 0 versus 3 months of neoadjuvant androgen ablation before radical prostatectomy

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 170, 期 3, 页码 791-794

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000081404.98273.fd

关键词

prostatic neoplasms; prostatectomy; neoadjuvant therapy; androgens

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: In 1992 we initiated a national randomized prospective trial of 3 months of cyproterone acetate before radical prostatectomy compared to prostatectomy alone. Initial results indicated a 50% decrease in the rate of positive surgical margins. This decrease did not translate into a difference in prostate specific antigen (PSA) progression at 3 years. This report is on the long-term outcome (median follow up 6 years) of this cohort. Materials and Methods: This prospective, randomized, open label trial compared 100 mg cyproterone acetate 3 times daily for 3 months before surgery to surgery alone. Randomization occurred between January 1993 and April 1994. Patients were stratified according to clinical stage, baseline serum PSA and Gleason sum. A total of 213 patients were accrued. Biochemical progression was defined as 2 consecutive detectable PSAs (greater than 0.2 ng/ml) at least 4 weeks apart, re-treatment or death from prostate cancer. Results: A total of 34 (33.6%) patients undergoing surgery only and 42 (37.5%) patients given neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) had biochemical recurrence during the median follow up of 6 years. Despite the significant pathological down staging in this study, there was no significant difference in number of patients with no evidence of biochemical disease (bNED) survival (p = 0.732). A bNED survival benefit favoring NHT was seen in men with a baseline PSA greater than 20 (p = 0.015). Conclusions: After 6 years of follow up there was no overall benefit with 3 months of NHT. Improved bNED survival was seen in the highest risk PSA group (PSA greater than 20). The possibility that high risk patients may benefit from NHT warrants further investigation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据