Literature DB >> 17138126

Survival results in patients with screen-detected prostate cancer versus physician-referred patients treated with radical prostatectomy: early results.

Kimberly A Roehl1, Scott E Eggener, Stacy Loeb, Norm D Smith, Jo Ann V Antenor, William J Catalona.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Screening using a standardized protocol may improve outcomes of patients undergoing treatment for prostate cancer. We compared the 7- year progression-free survival rates after radical retropubic prostatectomy in patients whose prostate cancer was detected through a formal screening program with those of patients referred for treatment by other physicians who did not use a standardized screening/referral protocol.
METHODS: A single surgeon (W.J.C.) performed radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3,177 consecutive patients between 1989 and 2003. Of these patients, 464 had cancer detected in a screening study, and 2,713 were referred from outside institutions. We compared the screened and referred cohorts for age at surgery, clinical stage, pathologic stage, Gleason sum, preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, and adjuvant radiation therapy. Kaplan-Meier product limit estimates were used to calculate 7-year progression-free probabilities, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the clinical and pathologic parameters associated with cancer progression in each group.
RESULTS: The overall 7-year progression-free survival rates were 83% for the screened patients compared with 77% for the referred patients (P = 0.002). Preoperative PSA, Gleason sum, clinical stage, pathologic stage, and adjuvant radiotherapy were all significantly associated with cancer progression. There was a significantly higher proportion of referred patients with a preoperative PSA > or =10, Gleason sum > or =7, and nonorgan-confined disease.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with screened-detected prostate cancer have more favorable clinical and pathologic features, and 7-year progression-free survival rates than referred patients. On multivariate analysis, including other clinical variables, screening status was a significant independent predictor of biochemical outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17138126     DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2005.11.039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  6 in total

Review 1.  Basic principles of anatomy for optimal surgical treatment of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jochen Walz; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-02-27       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Screening for prostate cancer: early detection or overdetection?

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Monique J Roobol; Hans Lilja
Journal:  Annu Rev Med       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 13.739

3.  Prostate-specific antigen velocity (PSAV) risk count improves the specificity of screening for clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; E Jeffrey Metter; Donghui Kan; Kimberly A Roehl; William J Catalona
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Surgery for high-risk localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jan Schmitges; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jochen Walz; Markus Graefen
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2011-08

5.  Clinical and pathological characteristics of screen-detected versus clinically diagnosed prostate cancer in Nanjing, China.

Authors:  LiXin Hua; Di Qiao; Bin Xu; NingHan Feng; Gong Cheng; JieXiu Zhang; NingHong Song; Wei Zhang; Jie Yang; JianGang Chen; YuanGeng Sui; HongFei Wu
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2010-01-14       Impact factor: 3.064

Review 6.  Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen: A guide to the guidelines.

Authors:  Sonja Cabarkapa; Marlon Perera; Shannon McGrath; Nathan Lawrentschuk
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2016-10-08
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.