External beam radiation therapy versus radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: protocol of the RECOVER study

Abstract Background This paper describes the rationale and design of the RECOVER study. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment for high-risk, non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). The study primarily aims to evaluate and compare the impact of treatment with robot-assisted r...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Caroline M. van der Starre, Chris H. Bangma, Maarten J. Bijlsma, Alfons C.M. van den Bergh, Lambertus A.L.M. Kiemeney, Wietske Kievit, Kees Vos, Diederik M. Somford, Sally M. Wildeman, Katja K.H. Aben, Igle J. de Jong, Floris J. Pos, Berdine L. Heesterman
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2025-01-01
Series:BMC Cancer
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-13511-7
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832571601884807168
author Caroline M. van der Starre
Chris H. Bangma
Maarten J. Bijlsma
Alfons C.M. van den Bergh
Lambertus A.L.M. Kiemeney
Wietske Kievit
Kees Vos
Diederik M. Somford
Sally M. Wildeman
Katja K.H. Aben
Igle J. de Jong
Floris J. Pos
Berdine L. Heesterman
author_facet Caroline M. van der Starre
Chris H. Bangma
Maarten J. Bijlsma
Alfons C.M. van den Bergh
Lambertus A.L.M. Kiemeney
Wietske Kievit
Kees Vos
Diederik M. Somford
Sally M. Wildeman
Katja K.H. Aben
Igle J. de Jong
Floris J. Pos
Berdine L. Heesterman
author_sort Caroline M. van der Starre
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background This paper describes the rationale and design of the RECOVER study. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment for high-risk, non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). The study primarily aims to evaluate and compare the impact of treatment with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RP) versus external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with high-risk, non-metastatic PCa regarding health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and functional outcomes. Secondary objectives are progression-free survival (PFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), costs and cost-effectiveness. Methods The RECOVER study is a comparative effectiveness study that prospectively includes newly diagnosed high-risk (cT3a-bN0M0, ISUP-grade ≥ 4 and/or PSA > 20 ng/mL), non-metastatic PCa patients. Four Dutch prostate cancer networks, comprising 29 hospitals, are currently participating in the study. Patient reported outcomes are collected before treatment initiation, 12 months and 36 months after treatment initiation and include the EORTC-QLQ-C30, the EPIC-26, an adapted version of the SCQ, an adapted version of the iMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire and several specific questions regarding patient characteristics, treatment of PCa specific complaints and health resources used. Clinical data regarding patient-, tumor- and treatment characteristics and oncological outcomes are collected up to 5 years after diagnosis. For sufficient power, patient reported outcomes of 471 patients must be collected 36 months after treatment initiation. Descriptive statistics and mixed-effects models are used to assess differences in HRQoL and functional outcomes over time between the patients treated with radical prostatectomy versus EBRT (+ ADT). Inverse probability of treatment weighting or the g-formula are used to adjust for confounding covariates associated with treatment. Secondary endpoints PFS and DMFS are evaluated using a competing risk analysis and cost-utility and budget-impact analyses will be performed to determine cost and cost-effectiveness. Discussion An observational prospective design was chosen since a randomized controlled trial comparing surgery and radiotherapy was not deemed feasible. This study evaluates effectiveness of treatment in a routine clinical setting (with adjustment for confounding) and its findings will enhance patients’ and healthcare professionals’ awareness for the impact of both treatment modalities on (long-term) daily functioning and HRQoL and aid treatment decision making. Trial registration This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05931419).
format Article
id doaj-art-96cb4d815d76403088f81f0b7e49964e
institution Kabale University
issn 1471-2407
language English
publishDate 2025-01-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Cancer
spelling doaj-art-96cb4d815d76403088f81f0b7e49964e2025-02-02T12:28:35ZengBMCBMC Cancer1471-24072025-01-012511810.1186/s12885-025-13511-7External beam radiation therapy versus radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: protocol of the RECOVER studyCaroline M. van der Starre0Chris H. Bangma1Maarten J. Bijlsma2Alfons C.M. van den Bergh3Lambertus A.L.M. Kiemeney4Wietske Kievit5Kees Vos6Diederik M. Somford7Sally M. Wildeman8Katja K.H. Aben9Igle J. de Jong10Floris J. Pos11Berdine L. Heesterman12Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer OrganisationDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical CentreNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer OrganisationRadiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer InstituteDepartment IQ Health, Radboud university medical centerDepartment IQ Health, Radboud university medical centerPatient Representative, Dutch Prostate Cancer Foundation (Prostaatkankerstichting)Department of Urology, Canisius-Wilhelmina HospitalDepartment of Urology, Franciscus Gasthuis en VlietlandNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer OrganisationDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center GroningenRadiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer InstituteNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer OrganisationAbstract Background This paper describes the rationale and design of the RECOVER study. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment for high-risk, non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). The study primarily aims to evaluate and compare the impact of treatment with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RP) versus external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with high-risk, non-metastatic PCa regarding health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and functional outcomes. Secondary objectives are progression-free survival (PFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), costs and cost-effectiveness. Methods The RECOVER study is a comparative effectiveness study that prospectively includes newly diagnosed high-risk (cT3a-bN0M0, ISUP-grade ≥ 4 and/or PSA > 20 ng/mL), non-metastatic PCa patients. Four Dutch prostate cancer networks, comprising 29 hospitals, are currently participating in the study. Patient reported outcomes are collected before treatment initiation, 12 months and 36 months after treatment initiation and include the EORTC-QLQ-C30, the EPIC-26, an adapted version of the SCQ, an adapted version of the iMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire and several specific questions regarding patient characteristics, treatment of PCa specific complaints and health resources used. Clinical data regarding patient-, tumor- and treatment characteristics and oncological outcomes are collected up to 5 years after diagnosis. For sufficient power, patient reported outcomes of 471 patients must be collected 36 months after treatment initiation. Descriptive statistics and mixed-effects models are used to assess differences in HRQoL and functional outcomes over time between the patients treated with radical prostatectomy versus EBRT (+ ADT). Inverse probability of treatment weighting or the g-formula are used to adjust for confounding covariates associated with treatment. Secondary endpoints PFS and DMFS are evaluated using a competing risk analysis and cost-utility and budget-impact analyses will be performed to determine cost and cost-effectiveness. Discussion An observational prospective design was chosen since a randomized controlled trial comparing surgery and radiotherapy was not deemed feasible. This study evaluates effectiveness of treatment in a routine clinical setting (with adjustment for confounding) and its findings will enhance patients’ and healthcare professionals’ awareness for the impact of both treatment modalities on (long-term) daily functioning and HRQoL and aid treatment decision making. Trial registration This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05931419).https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-13511-7Prostate cancerPatient reported outcomesHealth-Related Quality of LifeProstatectomy / methodsProstatic neoplasm / radiotherapyProstatic neoplasms / surgery
spellingShingle Caroline M. van der Starre
Chris H. Bangma
Maarten J. Bijlsma
Alfons C.M. van den Bergh
Lambertus A.L.M. Kiemeney
Wietske Kievit
Kees Vos
Diederik M. Somford
Sally M. Wildeman
Katja K.H. Aben
Igle J. de Jong
Floris J. Pos
Berdine L. Heesterman
External beam radiation therapy versus radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: protocol of the RECOVER study
BMC Cancer
Prostate cancer
Patient reported outcomes
Health-Related Quality of Life
Prostatectomy / methods
Prostatic neoplasm / radiotherapy
Prostatic neoplasms / surgery
title External beam radiation therapy versus radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: protocol of the RECOVER study
title_full External beam radiation therapy versus radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: protocol of the RECOVER study
title_fullStr External beam radiation therapy versus radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: protocol of the RECOVER study
title_full_unstemmed External beam radiation therapy versus radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: protocol of the RECOVER study
title_short External beam radiation therapy versus radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: protocol of the RECOVER study
title_sort external beam radiation therapy versus radical prostatectomy for high risk prostate cancer protocol of the recover study
topic Prostate cancer
Patient reported outcomes
Health-Related Quality of Life
Prostatectomy / methods
Prostatic neoplasm / radiotherapy
Prostatic neoplasms / surgery
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-13511-7
work_keys_str_mv AT carolinemvanderstarre externalbeamradiationtherapyversusradicalprostatectomyforhighriskprostatecancerprotocoloftherecoverstudy
AT chrishbangma externalbeamradiationtherapyversusradicalprostatectomyforhighriskprostatecancerprotocoloftherecoverstudy
AT maartenjbijlsma externalbeamradiationtherapyversusradicalprostatectomyforhighriskprostatecancerprotocoloftherecoverstudy
AT alfonscmvandenbergh externalbeamradiationtherapyversusradicalprostatectomyforhighriskprostatecancerprotocoloftherecoverstudy
AT lambertusalmkiemeney externalbeamradiationtherapyversusradicalprostatectomyforhighriskprostatecancerprotocoloftherecoverstudy
AT wietskekievit externalbeamradiationtherapyversusradicalprostatectomyforhighriskprostatecancerprotocoloftherecoverstudy
AT keesvos externalbeamradiationtherapyversusradicalprostatectomyforhighriskprostatecancerprotocoloftherecoverstudy
AT diederikmsomford externalbeamradiationtherapyversusradicalprostatectomyforhighriskprostatecancerprotocoloftherecoverstudy
AT sallymwildeman externalbeamradiationtherapyversusradicalprostatectomyforhighriskprostatecancerprotocoloftherecoverstudy
AT katjakhaben externalbeamradiationtherapyversusradicalprostatectomyforhighriskprostatecancerprotocoloftherecoverstudy
AT iglejdejong externalbeamradiationtherapyversusradicalprostatectomyforhighriskprostatecancerprotocoloftherecoverstudy
AT florisjpos externalbeamradiationtherapyversusradicalprostatectomyforhighriskprostatecancerprotocoloftherecoverstudy
AT berdinelheesterman externalbeamradiationtherapyversusradicalprostatectomyforhighriskprostatecancerprotocoloftherecoverstudy