You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 19, Issue 5
  • Radical prostatectomy reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality among men with intermediate-grade disease, but provides minimal benefit for men with low-grade and high-grade disease

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Therapeutics
Randomised controlled trial
Radical prostatectomy reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality among men with intermediate-grade disease, but provides minimal benefit for men with low-grade and high-grade disease
  1. Peter Albertsen
  1. Department of Surgery (Urology), University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA
  1. Correspondence to : Professor Peter Albertsen, Department of Surgery (Urology), University of Connecticut Health Center, MC 3955, 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030, USA; albertsen{at}nso.uchc.edu

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/eb-2014-110013

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Commentary on: Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Eng J Med 2014;370:932–42.OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science

    Context

    As a consequence of testing for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), over 130 000 American men are diagnosed with prostate cancer each year. A significant majority of these men harbour localised disease. The recent update of the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SPCG-4) by Bill-Axelson and colleagues provides significant new data that carry important practical implications for contemporary practice.

    Methods

    The SPCG-4 was initiated in the 1980s to determine the relative efficacy of radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting to improve all-cause survival and prostate cancer-specific survival in men with newly diagnosed, localised disease. Between 1989 and 1999 a total of 695 men were randomised to undergo either a radical prostatectomy (n=347) or watchful waiting (n=348). All men received antiandrogen therapy with the onset of disease progression. Men had to be …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Copyright information:

    Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions