A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer

Robert F. Wolff, Steve Ryder, Alberto Bossi, Alberto Briganti, Juanita Crook, Ann Henry, Robert Jeffrey Karnes, Louis Potters, Theo De Reijke, Nelson Stone, Marion Burckhardt, Steven Duffy, Gillian Worthy, Jos Kleijnen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Prostate cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer and the sixth leading cause of cancer death in males. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of radiotherapy and other non-pharmacological management options for localised prostate cancer was undertaken. Methods A search of thirteen databases was carried out until March 2014. RCTs comparing radiotherapy (brachytherapy (BT) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)) to other management options i.e. radical prostatectomy (RP), active surveillance, watchful waiting, high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), or cryotherapy; each alone or in combination, e.g. with adjuvant hormone therapy (HT), were included. Methods followed guidance by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Cochrane Collaboration. Indirect comparisons were calculated using the Bucher method. Results Thirty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs, 134 references) were included. EBRT, BT and RP were found to be effective in the management of localised prostate cancer. While higher doses of EBRT seem to be related to favourable survival-related outcomes they might, depending on technique, involve more adverse events, e.g. gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity. Combining EBRT with hormone therapy shows a statistically significant advantage regarding overall survival when compared to EBRT alone (Relative risk 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.30). Aside from mixed findings regarding urinary function, BT and radical prostatectomy were comparable in terms of quality of life and biochemical progression-free survival while favouring BT regarding patient satisfaction and sexual function. There might be advantages of EBRT (with/without HT) compared to cryoablation (with/without HT). No studies on HIFU were identified. Conclusions Based on this systematic review, there is no strong evidence to support one therapy over another as EBRT, BT and RP can all be considered as effective monotherapies for localised disease with EBRT also effective for post-operative management. All treatments have unique adverse events profiles. Further large, robust RCTs which report treatment-specific and treatment combination-specific outcomes in defined prostate cancer risk groups following established reporting standards are needed. These will strengthen the evidence base for newer technologies, help reinforce current consensus guidelines and establish greater standardisation across practices.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2345-2367
Number of pages23
JournalEuropean Journal of Cancer
Volume51
Issue number16
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 12 2015

Fingerprint

Prostatic Neoplasms
Radiotherapy
Randomized Controlled Trials
Brachytherapy
Prostatectomy
Hormones
Therapeutics
Watchful Waiting
Cryosurgery
Cryotherapy
Patient Satisfaction
Disease-Free Survival
Cause of Death
Neoplasms
Quality of Life
Databases
Guidelines
Confidence Intervals
Technology

Keywords

  • Brachytherapy
  • Cryotherapy
  • High-intensity focused ultrasound ablation
  • Prostatectomy
  • Prostatic neoplasms
  • Radiotherapy
  • Review
  • Watchful waiting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Wolff, R. F., Ryder, S., Bossi, A., Briganti, A., Crook, J., Henry, A., ... Kleijnen, J. (2015). A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer. European Journal of Cancer, 51(16), 2345-2367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.019

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer. / Wolff, Robert F.; Ryder, Steve; Bossi, Alberto; Briganti, Alberto; Crook, Juanita; Henry, Ann; Karnes, Robert Jeffrey; Potters, Louis; De Reijke, Theo; Stone, Nelson; Burckhardt, Marion; Duffy, Steven; Worthy, Gillian; Kleijnen, Jos.

In: European Journal of Cancer, Vol. 51, No. 16, 12.02.2015, p. 2345-2367.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wolff, RF, Ryder, S, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Crook, J, Henry, A, Karnes, RJ, Potters, L, De Reijke, T, Stone, N, Burckhardt, M, Duffy, S, Worthy, G & Kleijnen, J 2015, 'A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer', European Journal of Cancer, vol. 51, no. 16, pp. 2345-2367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.019
Wolff, Robert F. ; Ryder, Steve ; Bossi, Alberto ; Briganti, Alberto ; Crook, Juanita ; Henry, Ann ; Karnes, Robert Jeffrey ; Potters, Louis ; De Reijke, Theo ; Stone, Nelson ; Burckhardt, Marion ; Duffy, Steven ; Worthy, Gillian ; Kleijnen, Jos. / A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer. In: European Journal of Cancer. 2015 ; Vol. 51, No. 16. pp. 2345-2367.
@article{07013dbed35f43f6a8c8b91d0d65a99f,
title = "A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer",
abstract = "Background Prostate cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer and the sixth leading cause of cancer death in males. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of radiotherapy and other non-pharmacological management options for localised prostate cancer was undertaken. Methods A search of thirteen databases was carried out until March 2014. RCTs comparing radiotherapy (brachytherapy (BT) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)) to other management options i.e. radical prostatectomy (RP), active surveillance, watchful waiting, high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), or cryotherapy; each alone or in combination, e.g. with adjuvant hormone therapy (HT), were included. Methods followed guidance by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Cochrane Collaboration. Indirect comparisons were calculated using the Bucher method. Results Thirty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs, 134 references) were included. EBRT, BT and RP were found to be effective in the management of localised prostate cancer. While higher doses of EBRT seem to be related to favourable survival-related outcomes they might, depending on technique, involve more adverse events, e.g. gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity. Combining EBRT with hormone therapy shows a statistically significant advantage regarding overall survival when compared to EBRT alone (Relative risk 1.21, 95{\%} confidence interval 1.12-1.30). Aside from mixed findings regarding urinary function, BT and radical prostatectomy were comparable in terms of quality of life and biochemical progression-free survival while favouring BT regarding patient satisfaction and sexual function. There might be advantages of EBRT (with/without HT) compared to cryoablation (with/without HT). No studies on HIFU were identified. Conclusions Based on this systematic review, there is no strong evidence to support one therapy over another as EBRT, BT and RP can all be considered as effective monotherapies for localised disease with EBRT also effective for post-operative management. All treatments have unique adverse events profiles. Further large, robust RCTs which report treatment-specific and treatment combination-specific outcomes in defined prostate cancer risk groups following established reporting standards are needed. These will strengthen the evidence base for newer technologies, help reinforce current consensus guidelines and establish greater standardisation across practices.",
keywords = "Brachytherapy, Cryotherapy, High-intensity focused ultrasound ablation, Prostatectomy, Prostatic neoplasms, Radiotherapy, Review, Watchful waiting",
author = "Wolff, {Robert F.} and Steve Ryder and Alberto Bossi and Alberto Briganti and Juanita Crook and Ann Henry and Karnes, {Robert Jeffrey} and Louis Potters and {De Reijke}, Theo and Nelson Stone and Marion Burckhardt and Steven Duffy and Gillian Worthy and Jos Kleijnen",
year = "2015",
month = "2",
day = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.019",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "51",
pages = "2345--2367",
journal = "European Journal of Cancer",
issn = "0959-8049",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "16",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer

AU - Wolff, Robert F.

AU - Ryder, Steve

AU - Bossi, Alberto

AU - Briganti, Alberto

AU - Crook, Juanita

AU - Henry, Ann

AU - Karnes, Robert Jeffrey

AU - Potters, Louis

AU - De Reijke, Theo

AU - Stone, Nelson

AU - Burckhardt, Marion

AU - Duffy, Steven

AU - Worthy, Gillian

AU - Kleijnen, Jos

PY - 2015/2/12

Y1 - 2015/2/12

N2 - Background Prostate cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer and the sixth leading cause of cancer death in males. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of radiotherapy and other non-pharmacological management options for localised prostate cancer was undertaken. Methods A search of thirteen databases was carried out until March 2014. RCTs comparing radiotherapy (brachytherapy (BT) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)) to other management options i.e. radical prostatectomy (RP), active surveillance, watchful waiting, high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), or cryotherapy; each alone or in combination, e.g. with adjuvant hormone therapy (HT), were included. Methods followed guidance by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Cochrane Collaboration. Indirect comparisons were calculated using the Bucher method. Results Thirty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs, 134 references) were included. EBRT, BT and RP were found to be effective in the management of localised prostate cancer. While higher doses of EBRT seem to be related to favourable survival-related outcomes they might, depending on technique, involve more adverse events, e.g. gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity. Combining EBRT with hormone therapy shows a statistically significant advantage regarding overall survival when compared to EBRT alone (Relative risk 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.30). Aside from mixed findings regarding urinary function, BT and radical prostatectomy were comparable in terms of quality of life and biochemical progression-free survival while favouring BT regarding patient satisfaction and sexual function. There might be advantages of EBRT (with/without HT) compared to cryoablation (with/without HT). No studies on HIFU were identified. Conclusions Based on this systematic review, there is no strong evidence to support one therapy over another as EBRT, BT and RP can all be considered as effective monotherapies for localised disease with EBRT also effective for post-operative management. All treatments have unique adverse events profiles. Further large, robust RCTs which report treatment-specific and treatment combination-specific outcomes in defined prostate cancer risk groups following established reporting standards are needed. These will strengthen the evidence base for newer technologies, help reinforce current consensus guidelines and establish greater standardisation across practices.

AB - Background Prostate cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer and the sixth leading cause of cancer death in males. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of radiotherapy and other non-pharmacological management options for localised prostate cancer was undertaken. Methods A search of thirteen databases was carried out until March 2014. RCTs comparing radiotherapy (brachytherapy (BT) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)) to other management options i.e. radical prostatectomy (RP), active surveillance, watchful waiting, high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), or cryotherapy; each alone or in combination, e.g. with adjuvant hormone therapy (HT), were included. Methods followed guidance by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Cochrane Collaboration. Indirect comparisons were calculated using the Bucher method. Results Thirty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs, 134 references) were included. EBRT, BT and RP were found to be effective in the management of localised prostate cancer. While higher doses of EBRT seem to be related to favourable survival-related outcomes they might, depending on technique, involve more adverse events, e.g. gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity. Combining EBRT with hormone therapy shows a statistically significant advantage regarding overall survival when compared to EBRT alone (Relative risk 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.30). Aside from mixed findings regarding urinary function, BT and radical prostatectomy were comparable in terms of quality of life and biochemical progression-free survival while favouring BT regarding patient satisfaction and sexual function. There might be advantages of EBRT (with/without HT) compared to cryoablation (with/without HT). No studies on HIFU were identified. Conclusions Based on this systematic review, there is no strong evidence to support one therapy over another as EBRT, BT and RP can all be considered as effective monotherapies for localised disease with EBRT also effective for post-operative management. All treatments have unique adverse events profiles. Further large, robust RCTs which report treatment-specific and treatment combination-specific outcomes in defined prostate cancer risk groups following established reporting standards are needed. These will strengthen the evidence base for newer technologies, help reinforce current consensus guidelines and establish greater standardisation across practices.

KW - Brachytherapy

KW - Cryotherapy

KW - High-intensity focused ultrasound ablation

KW - Prostatectomy

KW - Prostatic neoplasms

KW - Radiotherapy

KW - Review

KW - Watchful waiting

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84943665811&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84943665811&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.019

DO - 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.019

M3 - Article

C2 - 26254809

AN - SCOPUS:84943665811

VL - 51

SP - 2345

EP - 2367

JO - European Journal of Cancer

JF - European Journal of Cancer

SN - 0959-8049

IS - 16

ER -