Radical prostatectomy is a reasonable treatment for patients over 70 years of age

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the tumor nature and oncological course of patients operated on by radical prostatectomy in three age groups. Materials and methodsFrom the prospective completion of the data base of our department, we analyzed 1012 patients operated on between 1986 and December 2009. Patients with neo- or adjuvant treatment and those with pre-operative PSA over 50 were excluded. The sample was divided into three groups: younger than 60, 60–69 and over 70. The clinical, pathological variables, biochemical course and need for rescue treatment were analyzed. We consider biochemical relapse as when the PSA values reached values greater than 0.4 in two consecutive measurements. Rescue was defined as the need for hormone treatment or radiotherapy. We then made a comparative study, a univariate survival analysis by Kaplan and Meyer Curves and multivariate by Cox's regression. ResultsThe median follow-up was 55.1 months. Of the 1012 patients included in the study, 317 patients (31.3%) had biochemical progression and 259 (25.6%) required rescue treatment. We observed that the groups with the older age had a significantly higher PSA and higher stages than the rest. No differences were observed in the Gleason score of the surgical specimen or in the state of the surgical margins. Biochemical relapse free survival at 5 years was 72.3% (CI 66.4–78.2) in patients under 60 years, 65.3% (CI 60.6–70.0) for patients under 70 and 62.2% (CI 53.2–71.1) for patients of 70 years or older; P<.05. In the univariate study, age was a factor that was significantly associated to biochemical relapse. However, it loses interest in the multivariate study and PSA, pathological state and Gleason score regain interest. Rescue treatment free survival did not differ by age groups. ConclusionsIn the current study, worse biochemical evolution of patients over 70 was observed. However, this worse biochemical course was conditioned by clinically more aggressive tumors that, in our opinion, justifies the decision made in regards to the surgical approach taken with these patients.