You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Commentary: Surgery
Minimal difference in survival between radical prostatectomy and observation in men with modest life expectancy
  1. Vignesh T Packiam,
  2. Scott E Eggener
  1. Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, The University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Vignesh T Packiam, Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, The University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL 60637, USA; vignesh.packiam{at}uchospitals.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110837

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    Commentary on: Wilt TJ, Jones KM, Barry MJ, et al. Follow-up of prostatectomy versus observation for early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2017;377:132–42.

    Context

    Screening, diagnosis and management of localised prostate cancer remains controversial.

    Methods

    Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) was a randomised controlled trial that accrued 731 men with prostate cancer (PCa) between 1994 and 2002 from Veterans Affairs hospitals. Patients were randomised to radical prostatectomy (n=364) or observation (n=367). Inclusion criteria was clinical stage T1–T2 (organ confined), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <50 ng/mL, age ≤75 years and estimated life expectancy >10 years. Primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause and prostate-cancer mortality.

    Findings

    Median age was 67 years, median PSA 7.8 ng/mL and 45% of patients were clinical stage T2 (palpable on exam). After 19.5 years follow-up (median 12.7 years), cumulative all-cause mortality was similar between surgery and observation (61.3% vs 66.8%; HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.70 …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.