{"id":614728,"date":"2026-09-28T22:24:12","date_gmt":"2026-09-28T22:24:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/614728\/"},"modified":"2026-09-28T22:24:12","modified_gmt":"2026-09-28T22:24:12","slug":"sbrt-prostatectomy-show-comparable-long-term-disease-control-in-pace-a-trial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/614728\/","title":{"rendered":"SBRT, prostatectomy show comparable long-term disease control in PACE-A trial"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"\">At a median follow-up of 8 years, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and radical prostatectomy showed comparable rates of freedom from biochemical or clinical failure (BCF) in men with low- or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer.1<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">Numerically, the 8-year BCF-free rate was higher with SBRT, but the trial had few events and the between-group difference was not statistically significant. The data come from the phase 3 PACE-A trial (NCT01584258), presented as a late-breaking abstract at the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.urologytimes.com\/conference\/astro-annual-meeting\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">2026 American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting<\/a> in Boston, Massachusetts.<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">\u201cRandomized evidence of efficacy of radical prostatectomy vs SBRT is lacking,\u201d said lead author Nicholas van As, MD, MB, during the presentation at ASTRO. \u201cPACE is the first phase 3 randomized trial comparing prostatectomy with SBRT.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Trial design and results<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">PACE is an open-label, multicohort phase 3 platform. In PACE-A, men with cT1c-T2c disease, Gleason score of 3+4 or lower, and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 20 ng\/mL or less were eligible if they were suitable candidates for surgery. All patients were MRI staged. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to SBRT (36.25 Gy in 5 fractions) or prostatectomy, which could be open, laparoscopic, or robot assisted. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was not permitted.<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">The co-primary end points were patient-reported pad use and bowel bother at 2 years. Those results were published in 2024 in European Urology.2 The current analysis covers secondary end points: freedom from BCF, overall survival (OS), clinician-reported late effects, and 5-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs).<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">Between August 2012 and February 2022, 123 patients were randomly assigned (60 to prostatectomy and 63 to SBRT). The median age was 65.5 years, and most patients had intermediate-risk disease.<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">Thirteen BCF events occurred: 8 in the prostatectomy arm and 5 in the SBRT arm. The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.16 to 1.46; P = .18). BCF-free rates at 5 years were 95% with SBRT and 94% with prostatectomy. At 8 years, they were 91% and 84%, respectively. The absolute difference at 5 years, estimated from the HR, was 3.1% (90% CI, -2.6 to 5.0).<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">There were 4 deaths in the prostatectomy arm and 3 in the SBRT arm, and none were from prostate cancer. OS was 98% in both arms at 5 years. At 8 years, OS was 95% in the SBRT arm vs 92% in the prostatectomy arm (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.12 to 2.46; P = .43).<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">\u201cIt is really important to remember that these men are not dying of prostate cancer, so it&#8217;s the functional outcomes that are crucial to these men,\u201d van As noted during the presentation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">On the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item questionnaire (EPIC-26), 14 of 29 patients in the prostatectomy arm (48%) and 3 of 36 patients in the SBRT arm (8%) reported using 1 or more pads daily at 5 years.<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">van As added, \u201cFor 85% of these patients, they were just wearing 1 pad a day, but they were still wearing a pad. I think patients should be aware of this information before they select treatment.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">One prostatectomy patient (3.6%) and no SBRT patients reported a moderate or big bowel problem.<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">\u201cWhen we reported this at 2 years, there was a significant difference between SBRT and prostatectomy\u2014SBRT was slightly worse\u2014but that appears to have disappeared by 5 years,\u201d van As explained.<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">CTCAE grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal toxicity occurred in 1 patient in the SBRT arm (2%) and no prostatectomy patients. Grade 2 or higher genitourinary toxicity occurred in 2 patients in the SBRT arm (4%) and 1 patient in the prostatectomy arm (3%).<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">For progression, 5 patients in the prostatectomy arm received prostate bed radiotherapy and 1 patient in the SBRT arm underwent salvage prostatectomy. Five patients started ADT (3 prostatectomy, 2 SBRT).<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">Based on these results, van As concluded, \u201cEight-year biochemical free rates numerically favored SBRT, although few events occurred and the between-group difference was not statistically significant. These randomized findings support SBRT as an effective non-surgical treatment option for localized prostate cancer, and low rates of clinician- and patient-reported [adverse] effects were noted in both options.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">___<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">REFERENCES<br \/>1. van As N, Patel J, Tree A, et al. Efficacy of Radical Prostatectomy Versus Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for Localised Prostate Cancer: Results from an international Phase III Randomised Controlled Trial (PACE &#8211; A). Presented at: 2026 American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting. September 26 \u2013 30, 2026. Boston, Massachusetts. LBA 32<\/p>\n<p class=\"\">2. van As N, Yasar B, Griffin C, et al. Radical Prostatectomy Versus Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer: Results of the PACE-A Randomised Trial. Eur Urol. 2024;86(6):566-576. doi:10.1016\/j.eururo.2024.08.030<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"At a median follow-up of 8 years, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and radical prostatectomy showed comparable rates of&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":614729,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[134,111,139,69],"class_list":["post-614728","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-health","tag-health","tag-new-zealand","tag-newzealand","tag-nz"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/614728","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=614728"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/614728\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/614729"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=614728"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=614728"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=614728"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}