Comparative Effectiveness of Partial Gland Cryoablation Versus Robotic Radical Prostatectomy for Cancer Control

Abstract

Background and objectiveThere is an absence of high-level evidence comparing oncologic endpoints for partial gland ablation, and most series used prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rather than biopsy endpoints. Our aim was to compare oncologic outcomes between partial gland cryoablation (PGC) and radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer. MethodsThis was a retrospective, single-center analysis of subjects treated with PGC (n = 98) or RP (n = 536) between January 2017 and December 2022 as primary treatment for intermediate-risk (Gleason grade group [GG] 2–3) prostate cancer. Oncologic endpoints included protocol surveillance biopsies after PGC in comparison to serial PSA testing after RP. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as a need for any salvage treatment or development of metastatic disease. Treatment failure and survival analyses were conducted using Cox proportional-hazard regression and Kaplan Meier survival curves. Key findings and limitationsAfter applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, the PGC (n = 75) and RP (n = 298) groups were compared. PGC patients were significantly older (71 vs 64 yr; p < 0.001) but there were no differences in PSA, biopsy GG, or treatment year between the groups. The PGC group had higher rates of treatment failures at 24 mo (33% vs 11%; p < 0.001) and 48 mo (43% vs 14%; p < 0.001). One PGC patient (2.1%) and one RP patient (0.7%) had developed metastases by 48-mo follow-up (p = 0.4). On adjusted analysis, PGC was associated with a higher risk of treatment failure (hazard ratio 4.6, 95% confidence interval 2.7–7.9; p < 0.001). Limitations include observational biases associated with the retrospective study design. ConclusionsThis is the first comparative effectiveness study of cancer control outcomes for PGC versus RP. The results demonstrate an almost fivefold higher risk of treatment failure with PGC during short-term follow-up. Patient summaryWe compared cancer control outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with partial prostate gland cryoablation versus radical prostatectomy. We found that partial gland cryoablation had an almost fivefold higher risk of treatment failure. Men with prostate cancer should be counseled regarding this difference in treatment failure.