Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer

Choosing the best treatment for localized prostate cancer (T1 or T2) is generally based on the patient's age, the stage and grade of the cancer, and the patient's knowledge and acceptance of the risks and benefits of each therapy.

Patients have three main options:

• Surgery (radical prostatectomy or cryosurgery) removes the prostate gland. The vessels that carry semen and surrounding tissue may also be removed.
• Radiation is used to destroy tumors.
• Watchful waiting (for selected patients with lower-risk tumors) involves lifestyle change and careful monitoring for cancer progression. Treatment at that point may be radiation or hormones depending on the extent of the cancer.

Additional treatments to suppress androgen (male hormones) may be helpful in some cases. Unfortunately, even the medical community is divided over the best treatment for localized prostate cancer. No treatment appears to have a clear survival advantage. The choice is often not an easy one, even for experts, for many reasons.

Conflicting Data on Survival Rates. To date, neither treatment nor watchful waiting has emerged with a definitive survival advantage. Several studies from 2005 and 2006 suggested that treatment provides a survival advantage over watchful waiting for some men with early-stage prostate cancer. A 2005 New England Journal of Medicine study reported that men who had a radical prostatectomy before age 65 had a reduced risk of death from prostate cancer, death from other causes, localized cancer progression, and metastases than men who chose watchful waiting.

Similarly, research presented at the 2006 Prostate Cancer Symposium found in a study of nearly 50,000 men with early-stage prostate cancer that men who had radiation or surgical treatment had a 30% lower risk of death than men who were randomly assigned to watchful waiting. However, a 2005 Journal of the American Medical Association study advised against aggressive treatment for localized low-grade prostate cancer. The study found that men with low-grade prostate cancer had a small risk of cancer progression even after 20 years of watchful waiting or hormonal drug therapy

Imperfection of Classification System. The classification systems are not perfect. Even if tumors are rated in low stages and grades and are treated accordingly, undetected cancer cells may escape and spread beyond the prostate. Other factors, such as the man's age and medical condition, must be included in determining whether aggressive treatments or conservative measures are appropriate.

Specialty Bias. Patients should be aware that doctors may be biased to prefer a specific treatment depending on their specialty. For example, in one study the following treatments were favored for patients who were generally appropriate candidates for either surgery, radiation, or watchful waiting:

• 93% of urologists recommended radical prostatectomy.
• 72% of radiation oncologists recommended radiation. (And 82% thought that radical prostatectomy was overused.)
• Virtually none of the doctors recommended watchful waiting for higher-risk disease. When in doubt, patients should always seek a second opinion to help them make this important choice.

Quality of Life. Surgery and radiation both have potentially distressing side effects, including the possibility of impotence, incontinence, or both. A man must weigh his own emotional responses to the possibility of these side effects versus the possible stress of watchful waiting.

In general, differences in quality of life after surgery or radiation treatment have to do with the specific effects of each type of treatment:

• Radiotherapy generally causes more bowel problems than surgery, 30 - 35% versus 6 - 7%, according to a 2001 study. In a 2003 review, the risk for impotence from radiotherapy varied from 25% with brachytherapy to 45% with external beam radiotherapy.
• Prostatectomy causes more urinary incontinence (39 - 49% versus 6 - 7% for radiotherapy patients) than radiotherapy. Risks for impotence range from 66% after nerve-sparing prostatectomy to 87% after cryotherapy. In spite of these adverse effects, a 2002 study reported no meaningful differences in well-being or quality of life during a 4-year period for men who chose surgery versus those who chose watchful waiting.
• Watchful waiting could lead to cancer growth that eventually obstructs the urinary tract (which can happen with the treatments as well). It may also impose an emotional burden on men who live with the possibility of progressive cancer and its difficult treatments. Some who decide to wait become what some doctors refer to as the "walking worried," men who are constantly concerned with their PSA levels. Because aggressive treatment reduces such anxiety, some studies reported that years after surgery, about 75% of men said they would chose it again, in spite of the significant side effects.

Choosing Watchful Waiting

Watchful waiting involves lifestyle change and careful monitoring for cancer progression. Over the last several years, watchful waiting has evolved into a strategy called “active surveillance” or “delayed surgical intervention.” With this approach, patients have a digital rectal exam and PSA blood test every 6 to 12 months. If test results indicate cancer progression, then treatment options (surgery, radiation, drugs) are considered. Patients should exercise and eat healthy foods. Patients should report symptoms such as weight loss, pain, urinary problems, fatigue, or impotence to their doctors.

Candidates. Watchful waiting may be most appropriate for the following patients:

• Men in their late 70s and older. More aggressive therapies (surgery and radiation) are usually recommended for men in their 50s and younger. The choice for men in their 60s and early 70s is more problematic. The general recommendation is that aggressive therapy is suitable for those who have a life expectancy of more than 10 years and who have localized but mid- to high-grade tumors. The tumor grade may be the best guide for determining the risks in choosing watchful waiting.
• Elderly men with early-stage (T0 to T2) low-grade tumors.
• Men with low-to-moderate (3 - 13 ng/mL) PSA levels.

Some experts think that because prostate cancer grows so slowly, it is likely that older men will die from causes unrelated to the cancer. There is therefore little potential benefit from surgery or radiation, with both posing a risk for impotence and incontinence. However, some recent surveys suggest that more men are choosing treatment (especially surgery) over watchful waiting. The choice is a difficult one. It is important that patients find a doctor who can provide them with all the necessary information so that they can make an informed decision.

Choosing Surgery (Radical Prostatectomy)

In men whose cancer is confined to the prostate, surgical resection (radical prostatectomy) offers the potential for cure. Cure rates from initial surgery in men with localized cancer are about 70%, depending on tumor stage, tumor grade, and PSA levels. Research suggests that surgery provides long-term cancer control. Most patients can consider themselves disease-free if their PSA levels remain undetectable 10 years after surgery.

Candidates. Radical prostatectomy is a consideration for men who meet all of the following criteria:

• In good health and with a life expectancy of 10 years or more. As average life expectancy in men has increased, more older men are becoming candidates for surgery. Complication rates are higher the older a man is, however.
• The cancer has not spread beyond the prostate gland.
• The cancer is potentially life threatening. (In general, a life-threatening tumor is indicated by volumes more than 0.2 cc and Gleason grade scores greater than 5.)

The procedure is more likely to cause incontinence (up to 50%) than radiation treatment but has fewer bowel complications. Impotence rates are about the same. Surgery for prostate cancer may be particularly difficult in men who have had transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

Choosing Radiation

Radiation therapy (or radiotherapy) is administered as external-beam radiation or as brachytherapy (radiation implants). It may be used as the sole primary treatment for localized prostate cancer; 5-year survival rates are similar to those of surgery.

Candidates. Radiation is considered for men with one or more of the following characteristics:

• Being older and, particularly, having other medical problems.
• The cancer may have extended beyond the prostate capsule but has not spread to the lymph nodes or further.
• Being a good surgical candidate, but having decided against an operation.

The risk for incontinence (less than 10%) is much lower than with surgery, although bowel problems occur in about a third of patients. Impotence rates are about the same.

Hormonal Therapy With Radiation. Hormonal (“androgen suppression”) drugs combined with radiation therapy may improve survival rates in moderate- or high-risk groups. Patients may need to take these drugs long-term to improve outcomes. Hormonal drugs before radiation (neoadjuvant therapy) may be helpful in shrinking enlarged glands so that brachytherapy (radiation implants) can be used. Hormone therapy can also be given at the same time or following radiation.

An important study published in 2004 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that for men with localized prostate cancer, a 6-month course of hormone therapy combined with radiation treatments produced greater survival rates than radiation treatment alone. Standard medical practice has generally indicated that hormone therapy should be given for 3 years; the JAMA study suggests that a shorter regimen may be equally beneficial for some patients and may help reduce the side effects that typically accompany androgen-suppressing drugs.

A 2005 JAMA study suggested that PSA velocity (PSAV) may help doctors decide which patients should receive androgen suppression drugs along with radiation therapy. PSAV lets doctors calculate how quickly a patient’s PSA level has risen. Researchers found that men who had at least a 2.0 ng/mL increase in PSA levels during the year before their cancer diagnosis had a high risk of dying after external beam radiation therapy, even though they had low-grade prostate cancer. The study suggests that men with this particular PSAV history should consider combining radiation therapy with androgen suppression drugs.