Surgical outcomes reflect a combination of preoperative decision-making, technical proficiency, and early identification and rescue of postoperative adverse events, which are highly integrated with clinical knowledge, communication skills, and clinical judgment.¹ Patients treated by female surgeons may have better postoperative outcomes than those treated by male surgeons,² although the mechanism has yet to be elucidated.

Evaluation of treatment options for localized prostate cancer (PCa) remains among the highest priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Surgery and radiotherapy (RT) are the two interventions most commonly used. To provide a critical narrative review of evidence of the comparative effectiveness and harms of surgery and RT in the treatment of localized PCa. A collaborative critical narrative review of the literature was conducted. Evidence to clearly guide treatment choice in PCa remains insufficient. Randomized trials are underpowered for clinically meaningful endpoints and have demonstrated no difference in overall or PCa-specific survival. Observational studies have consistently demonstrated an absolute survival benefit for men treated with radical prostatectomy, but are limited by selection bias and residual confounding errors. Surgery and RT are associated with comparable health-related quality of life following treatment in three randomized trials. Randomized data regarding urinary, erectile, and bowel function show few long-term (>5 yr) differences, although short-term continence and erectile function were worse following surgery and short-term urinary bother and bowel function were worse following RT. There has been recent recognition of other complications that may significantly affect the life trajectory of those undergoing PCa treatment. Of these, hospitalization, the need for urologic, rectoanal, and other major surgical procedures, and secondary cancers are more common among men treated with RT. Androgen deprivation therapy, frequently co-administered with RT, may additionally contribute to treatment-related morbidity. Technological innovations in surgery and RT have shown inconsistent oncologic and functional benefits. Owing to underpowered randomized control studies and the selection biases inherent in observational studies, the question of which treatment provides better PCa control cannot be definitively answered now or in the near future. Complications following PCa treatment are relatively common regardless of treatment approach. These include the commonly identified issues of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction, and others including hospitalization and invasive procedures to manage complications and secondary malignancies. Population-based outcome studies, rather than clinical trial data, will be necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the relative benefits and risks of each therapeutic approach. Surgery and radiotherapy are the most common interventions for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Comparisons of survival after these treatments are limited by various flaws in the relevant studies. Complications are common regardless of the treatment approach.

For patients with localized prostate cancer, guideline-recommended treatments include active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, and radiotherapy.¹ Shared decision-making is key^2,3: although absolute differences in cancer-specific and overall mortality are small,^4,5 treatment-related morbidity differs according to treatment modality,^6-13 and the importance of these outcomes differs among individuals. Published studies of patient-reported outcomes^6-9 have focused on disease-specific functional outcomes, including urinary symptoms, erectile dysfunction, and bowel symptoms. However, applying these data for patient counseling is complicated given that previous studies have suggested that functional impairments have little impact on bother¹⁴: nearly half of previously potent men who developed impotence after surgery reported that this was “not a problem.”^15(p165)

Randomized clinical trials have recently examined the benefit of adding docetaxel or abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in hormone-naïve advanced prostate cancer (PCa). To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, indirectly evaluating overall survival (OS) for men treated with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone/prednisolone with ADT (Abi-ADT) versus docetaxel with ADT (Doce-ADT) in hormone-naïve high-risk and metastatic PCa. Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched in August 2017. We pooled results using the inverse variance technique and random-effects models. The Bucher technique for indirect treatment comparison was used to compare Abi-ADT with Doce-ADT. A priori subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. Overall, 6067 patients from five trials were included: 1181 (19.5%) patients who received Doce-ADT, 1557 (25.7%) patients who received Abi-ADT, and 3329 (54.9%) patients who received ADT-alone. There was a total of 1921 deaths: 391 in the Doce-ADT group, 353 in the Abi-ADT group, and 1177 in the ADT-only group. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63-0.91, I2=51%, 3 trials, 2951 patients) for Doce-ADT versus ADT-alone and 0.63 (95% CI: 0.55-0.72, I2=0%, 2 trials, 3116 patients) for Abi-ADT versus ADT-alone. The indirect comparison of Abi-ADT to Doce-ADT demonstrated no statistically significant difference in OS between these approaches (HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.67-1.06). Findings were similar in various a priori subset analyses, including patients with metastatic disease. Bayesian analyses demonstrated comparable results (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.63-1.16). Despite the lack of statistical significance, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Analysis demonstrated an 89% probability that Abi-ADT was preferred. We did not identify a significant difference in OS between Abi-ADT and Doce-ADT for men with hormone-naïve high-risk or metastatic PCa, although Bayesian analysis demonstrates a high likelihood that Abi-ADT was preferred. We synthesized the evidence available from studies examining the administration of docetaxel or abiraterone in combination with hormonal therapy for patients with newly diagnosed, advanced prostate cancer. While these studies did not directly compare these agents, we used methodological techniques to indirectly compare them and found no significant difference in overall survival.