the following is data from the PIVOT study which enrolled 731 patients
11)
importantly, enrolments for the study occurred in 1994-2002 and since then PSA levels and biopsy interpretation has changed which will effect how the results of this study could be interpreted, however, the authors conclude that the findings support observation for men with low risk disease (which includes some 2/3rds of all men diagnosed with prostate cancer although currently 90% of prostate cancer patients receive either surgery or radiotherapy).
by study end (after 15 years), death from any cause was similar in both groups (47% in surgery group vs 49.9% in observation group) and death attributable to prostate cancer or its treatment was similar in both groups overall with a small mortality benefit in the surgical group (5.8% in surgery group vs 8.4% in observation group)
21.4% of the surgical group had a significant adverse event within 30 days of surgery (eg. infection, bleeding, DVT/PE or need for persistent IDC)
at 2yrs, 17% of surgical group had urinary incontinence (vs 6% of observation group)
at 2yrs, 81% of surgical group had erectile dysfunction (vs 44% of observation group)
at 15yrs, bone metastases occurred in 4.7% of those who had radical prostatectomy vs 10.6% of those observed, however, the differences in cumulative incidence between the groups changed little after 8 years of follow up
high risk tumours:
intermediate risk tumours
defined as PSA 10.1-20.0 ng/ml, Gleason score 7, or stage T2b tumour
radical prostatectomy gave a 31% relative reduction in all-cause mortality of 6.7 percentage points compared with observation (hazard ratio 0.69, CI 0.49-0.98, absolute risk reduction 12.6 percentage points)
low-risk tumours:
defined as PSA 10ng/ml or less, Gleason score 6 or less, and stage T1a-c or T2a
radical prostatectomy gave a 15% non-significant INCREASE in mortality compared with observation (hazard ratio 1.15, CI 0.80-1.66)