Advertisement

Der Onkologe

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 279–288 | Cite as

Therapieoptionen des lokal begrenzten Prostatakarzinoms

  • Sophie KnipperEmail author
  • Markus Graefen
CME

Zusammenfassung

Etablierte Therapieoptionen des lokalisierten Prostatakarzinoms (T1–2N0M0 [T: Tumorgrad, N: Lymphknotenstatus, M: Metastasen]), welche aufgrund des üblicherweise langsamen Krankheitsverlaufs bei Patienten mit einer Lebenserwartung von mindestens 10 Jahren empfohlen werden, sind die aktive Überwachung, die radikale Prostatektomie, die Brachytherapie und die perkutane Bestrahlung. Die Wahl der Therapieform orientiert sich am Tumorstadium bzw. der Risikogruppe, den Komorbiditäten sowie der Patientenpräferenz. Neben dem onkologischen Ergebnis sind die potenziellen Nebenwirkungen der jeweiligen Lokaltherapie mit dem Betroffenen zu diskutieren, wobei insbesondere Einschränkungen der Harnkontinenz und Erektionsfähigkeit möglich sind.

Schlüsselwörter

Prostataneoplasien Prostatektomie Brachytherapie Perkutane Radiotherapie Komorbidität 

Treatment options for localized prostate cancer

Abstract

Established therapeutic options for the treatment of localized prostate cancer (T1–2N0M0 [T: tumor grade, N: lymph node status, M: metastases]) are active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy and external beam radiation. Due to the prolonged natural history of localized prostate cancer a life-expectancy of at least 10 years is required to benefit from local treatment. The choice of treatment depends on risk classification of the disease, comorbidities and patients’ preferences. Potential side effects include urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. These should be discussed with the patient along with oncologic outcomes.

Keywords

Prostatic neoplasms  Prostatectomy Brachytherapy External beam radiation Comorbidity 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

S. Knipper und M. Graefen geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF) (2016) Konsultationsfassung: Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherken-nung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms, Lang-version 4.0. http://leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/Prostatakarzinom.58.0.html (AWMF Registernummer: 043/022OL)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280(11):969–974PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, Chen RC, Crispino T, Fontanarosa J, Freedland SJ, Greene K, Klotz LH, Makarov DV, Nelson JB, Rodrigues G, Sandler HM, Taplin ME, Treadwell JR (2017) Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: Risk Stratification, Shared Decision Making, and Care Options. J Urol 199(3):683–690.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.095 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dall’Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Stauf F, Cooperberg MR et al (2008) Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 112(12):2664–2670PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P et al (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375(15):1415–1424PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schumacher MC, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, Fleischmann A, Studer UE (2008) Good outcome for patients with few lymph node metastases after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 54(2):344–352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Rider JR, Taari K, Busch C et al (2014) Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 370(10):932–942PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Wheeler T, Maru N et al (2005) Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 174(3):903–907PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, Bolla M, Bourke L, Cornford P, De Santis M, Henry A, Joniau S, Lam T, Mason MD, Van den Poel H, Van den Kwast TH, Rouvière O, Wiegel T, Members of the EAU – ESTRO – ESUR –SIOG Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel (2018) EAU – ESTRO – ESUR – SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D’Amico AV, Moul J, Carroll PR, Sun L, Lubeck D, Chen M‑H (2003) Cancer-specific mortality after surgery or radiation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer managed during the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 21(11):2163–2172Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Isbarn H, Wanner M, Salomon G, Steuber T, Schlomm T, Köllermann J et al (2010) Long-term data on the survival of patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in the prostate-specific antigen era. BJU Int 106(1):37–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Serio AM, Eastham JA, Schrag D, Klein EA et al (2007) The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(15):1171–1177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coughlin GD, Yaxley JW, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L et al (2018) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol 19(8):1051–1060PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pompe RS, Beyer B, Haese A, Preisser F, Michl U, Steuber T et al (2018) Postoperative complications of contemporary open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using standardised reporting systems. BJU Int 122(5):801–807.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14369 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pompe RS, Tian Z, Preisser F, Tennstedt P, Beyer B, Michl U et al (2017) Short- and long-term functional outcomes and quality of life after radical prostatectomy: patient-reported outcomes from a tertiary high-volume center. Eur Urol Focus 3(6):615–620PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kupelian PA, Potters L, Khuntia D, Ciezki JP, Reddy CA, Reuther AM et al (2004) Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy 〈72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy 〉 or =72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1–T2 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58(1):25–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, Sandler HM, Northouse L, Hembroff L et al (2008) Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med 358(12):1250–1261PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pollack A, Zagars GK, Starkschall G, Antolak JA, Lee JJ, Huang E et al (2002) Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the M. D. Anderson phase III randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53(5):1097–1105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee TK, Miller JS, Epstein JI (2010) Rare histological patterns of prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Pathology (Phila) 42(4):319–324Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Mossop H, Khoo V, Birtle A, Bloomfield D et al (2016) Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5‑year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol 17(8):1047–1060PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Incrocci L, Wortel RC, Alemayehu WG, Aluwini S, Schimmel E, Krol S et al (2016) Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with localised prostate cancer (HYPRO): final efficacy results from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 17(8):1061–1069PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roach M, Bae K, Speight J, Wolkov HB, Rubin P, Lee RJ et al (2008) Short-term neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy and external-beam radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: long-term results of RTOG 8610. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 26(4):585–591Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goldner G, Bombosch V, Geinitz H, Becker G, Wachter S, Glocker S et al (2009) Moderate risk-adapted dose escalation with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy of localized prostate cancer from 70 to 74 Gy. First report on 5‑year morbidity and biochemical control from a prospective Austrian-German multicenter phase II trial. Strahlenther Onkol 185(2):94–100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van der Poel HG, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Cornford P, Govorov A, Henry AM et al (2018) Focal therapy in primary Localised prostate cancer: the European association of urology position in 2018. Eur Urol 74(1):84–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Azzouzi A‑R, Vincendeau S, Barret E, Cicco A, Kleinclauss F, van der Poel HG et al (2017) Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy versus active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer (CLIN1001 PCM301): an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 18(2):181–191PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Martini-Klinik, ProstatakarzinomzentrumUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations