BACKGROUND: Men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate carcinoma have several treatment options. The investigation of these options may delay the initiation of definitive therapy. In the current study, the authors evaluated whether time from biopsy to radical prostatectomy (RP) was predictive of postoperative biochemical disease recurrence (BCR). METHODS: A total of 3149 consecutive patients who underwent RP as their initial treatment for prostate carcinoma within a year of diagnosis were identified. The time between diagnosis and RP was entered as a predictor in a multivariate logistic regression model predicting BCR at 3 years, 5 years, 8 years, and 10 years. The year surgery was performed and the nomogram-predicted probability of recurrence, which incorporates stage of disease, Gleason grade, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, were used as covariates. RESULTS: The authors found no clear evidence of a significant effect of delay to diagnosis on BCR. For those patients treated within 6 months (96% of the total sample) the odds ratio for each additional month of delay was 1.04, 1.07, 1.08, and 1.02, respectively, for 3-year, 5-year, 8-year, and 10-year BCR-free survival (P>0.2 for all analyses). However, the 95% confidence intervals were wide and included the possibility that even a minor delay in surgery might have a large impact on the probability of BCR. CONCLUSIONS: The time between biopsy and surgery does not appear to have a large effect on the risk of disease recurrence. Counseling patients on the importance of avoiding undue delay to surgery must be based on clinical judgment, particularly with respect to modifying advice based on the patient's risk. Copyright (c) 2005 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND:Men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate carcinoma have several treatment options. The investigation of these options may delay the initiation of definitive therapy. In the current study, the authors evaluated whether time from biopsy to radical prostatectomy (RP) was predictive of postoperative biochemical disease recurrence (BCR). METHODS: A total of 3149 consecutive patients who underwent RP as their initial treatment for prostate carcinoma within a year of diagnosis were identified. The time between diagnosis and RP was entered as a predictor in a multivariate logistic regression model predicting BCR at 3 years, 5 years, 8 years, and 10 years. The year surgery was performed and the nomogram-predicted probability of recurrence, which incorporates stage of disease, Gleason grade, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, were used as covariates. RESULTS: The authors found no clear evidence of a significant effect of delay to diagnosis on BCR. For those patients treated within 6 months (96% of the total sample) the odds ratio for each additional month of delay was 1.04, 1.07, 1.08, and 1.02, respectively, for 3-year, 5-year, 8-year, and 10-year BCR-free survival (P>0.2 for all analyses). However, the 95% confidence intervals were wide and included the possibility that even a minor delay in surgery might have a large impact on the probability of BCR. CONCLUSIONS: The time between biopsy and surgery does not appear to have a large effect on the risk of disease recurrence. Counseling patients on the importance of avoiding undue delay to surgery must be based on clinical judgment, particularly with respect to modifying advice based on the patient's risk. Copyright (c) 2005 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Richard Whittington; Sophia Koo; Delray Schultz; Kerri B Cote; Marian Loffredo; Elizabeth McMahon; Andrew A Renshaw; John E Tomaszewski; Anthony V D'Amico Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: C Robertson; A G Robertson; J H Hendry; S A Roberts; N J Slevin; W B Duncan; R H MacDougall; G R Kerr; B O'Sullivan; T J Keane Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1998-01-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Ilias Cagiannos; David I Quinn; Susan M Henshall; John J Grygiel; Robert L Sutherland; Phillip D Stricker; Eric Klein; Patrick Kupelian; Donald G Skinner; Gary Lieskovsky; Bernard Bochner; Hartwig Huland; Peter G Hammerer; Alexander Haese; Andreas Erbersdobler; James A Eastham; Jean de Kernion; Thomas Cangiano; Fritz H Schröder; Mark F Wildhagen; Theo H van der Kwast; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Robert K Nam; Michael A S Jewett; Murray D Krahn; Michael A Robinette; John Tsihlias; Ants Toi; Minnie Ho; Andrew Evans; Joan Sweet; John Trachtenberg Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Masood A Khan; Leslie A Mangold; Jonathan I Epstein; John K Boitnott; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; Caroline J Savage; Fernando J Bianco; Eric A Klein; Michael W Kattan; Fernando P Secin; Bertrand D Guilloneau; Peter T Scardino Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Mariana Andozia Morini; Roberto Lodeiro Muller; Paulo César Barbosa de Castro Junior; Rafael José de Souza; Eliney Ferreira Faria Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jonathan L Silberstein; Stephen A Poon; Daniel D Sjoberg; Alexandra C Maschino; Andrew J Vickers; Aaron Bernie; Badrinath R Konety; W Kevin Kelly; James A Eastham Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Vincent Bourgade; Sarah J Drouin; David R Yates; Jerôme Parra; Marc-Olivier Bitker; Olivier Cussenot; Morgan Rouprêt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-03-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Roderick C N van den Bergh; Peter C Albertsen; Chris H Bangma; Stephen J Freedland; Markus Graefen; Andrew Vickers; Henk G van der Poel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-02-22 Impact factor: 20.096