Conservative management and radical treatment in localised prostate cancer: A systematic review with meta

Several randomised control trials comparing conservative management (watchful waiting/observation/active monitoring) and radical treatments (radical prostatectomy/radiotherapy) for localised prostate cancer with at least more than 10 years of follow-up (median) have been published with conflicting findings. The primary aim of this study was to determine all-cause mortality and prostate cancer-related mortality between conservative management and radical treatment for localised prostate cancer. All randomised clinical trials were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and CENTRAL from their inception until September 2018. Four trials were eligible (n = 3211) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In patients who had radical treatment, the incidence of all-cause mortality and prostate cancer-related mortality (three trials, 3069 patients) were reduced (with odds ratio, i.e. 95% confidence interval (CI)), of 1.37 (1.14–1.64), ρ < 0.001, low quality of evidence and odd ratio (95% CI) of 1.74 (1.31–2.30), ρ < 0.001, low quality of evidence, respectively). The radical treatment group was associated with reduced incidence of distant metastases, the odds ratio (95% CI) being 1.87 (1.48–2.36), ρ < 0.001, low quality of evidence. However, patients who were randomised to radical treatment had a significantly higher incidence of erectile dysfunction (the odds ratio (95% CI) being 0.62 (0.39–0.98), ρ = 0.04, very low quality of evidence) and urinary incontinence (odds ratio (95% CI) of 0.42 (0.21–0.86), ρ = 0.02, very low quality of evidence). In summary, radical treatments reduce all-cause mortality, and prostate cancer-related and distant metastases, at the expense of higher incidence of erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. The general quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD4201707268