Radical prostatectomy reduces mortality among men with localized prostate cancer; however, important questions regarding long-term benefit remain. Between 1989 and 1999, we randomly assigned 695 men with early prostate cancer to watchful waiting or radical prostatectomy and followed them through the end of 2012. The primary end points in the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SPCG-4) were death from any cause, death from prostate cancer, and the risk of metastases. Secondary end points included the initiation of androgen-deprivation therapy. During 23.2 years of follow-up, 200 of 347 men in the surgery group and 247 of the 348 men in the watchful-waiting group died. Of the deaths, 63 in the surgery group and 99 in the watchful-waiting group were due to prostate cancer; the relative risk was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.77; P=0.001), and the absolute difference was 11.0 percentage points (95% CI, 4.5 to 17.5). The number needed to treat to prevent one death was 8. One man died after surgery in the radical-prostatectomy group. Androgen-deprivation therapy was used in fewer patients who underwent prostatectomy (a difference of 25.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 17.7 to 32.3). The benefit of surgery with respect to death from prostate cancer was largest in men younger than 65 years of age (relative risk, 0.45) and in those with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (relative risk, 0.38). However, radical prostatectomy was associated with a reduced risk of metastases among older men (relative risk, 0.68; P=0.04). Extended follow-up confirmed a substantial reduction in mortality after radical prostatectomy; the number needed to treat to prevent one death continued to decrease when the treatment was modified according to age at diagnosis and tumor risk. A large proportion of long-term survivors in the watchful-waiting group have not required any palliative treatment. (Funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and others.)

In 2008, we reported that radical prostatectomy, as compared with watchful waiting, reduces the rate of death from prostate cancer. After an additional 3 years of follow-up, we now report estimated 15-year results.

We evaluated symptoms and self-assessments of quality of life in men with localized prostate cancer who participated in a randomized comparison between radical prostatectomy and watchful waiting. Between 1989 and 1999, a group of Swedish urologists randomly assigned men with localized prostate cancer to radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting. In this follow-up study, we obtained information from 326 of 376 eligible men (87 percent) concerning certain symptoms, symptom-induced distress, well-being, and the subjective assessment of quality of life by means of a mailed questionnaire. Erectile dysfunction (80 percent vs. 45 percent) and urinary leakage (49 percent vs. 21 percent) were more common after radical prostatectomy, whereas urinary obstruction (e.g., 28 percent vs. 44 percent for weak urinary stream) was less common. Bowel function, the prevalence of anxiety, the prevalence of depression, well-being, and the subjective quality of life were similar in the two groups. The assignment of patients to watchful waiting or radical prostatectomy entails different risks of erectile dysfunction, urinary leakage, and urinary obstruction, but on average, the choice has little if any influence on well-being or the subjective quality of life after a mean follow-up of four years.

In women with cervical cancer, treatment causes changes in vaginal anatomy and function. The effect of these changes on sexual function and the extent, if any, to which they distress women are not known.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has become widely used without high-grade evidence of superiority regarding long-term clinical outcomes compared with open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), the gold standard. To compare patient-reported urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction 12 mo after RALP or RRP. This was a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial of patients undergoing prostatectomy in 14 centres using RALP or RRP. Clinical-record forms and validated patient questionnaires at baseline and 12 mo after surgery were collected. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with logistic regression and adjusted for possible confounders. The primary end point was urinary incontinence (change of pad less than once in 24h vs one time or more per 24h) at 12 mo. Secondary end points were erectile dysfunction at 12 mo and positive surgical margins. At 12 mo after RALP, 366 men (21.3%) were incontinent, as were 144 (20.2%) after RRP. The unadjusted OR was 1.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87–1.34). Erectile dysfunction was observed in 1200 men (70.4%) 12 mo after RALP and 531 (74.7%) after RRP. The unadjusted OR was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66–0.98). In a Swedish setting, RALP for prostate cancer was modestly beneficial in preserving erectile function compared with RRP, without a statistically significant difference regarding urinary incontinence or surgical margins. We compared patient-reported urinary incontinence after prostatectomy with two types of surgical technique. There was no statistically significant improvement in the rate of urinary leakage, but there was a small improvement regarding erectile function after robot-assisted operation.