Literature DB >> 18422773

Comparison of stage migration patterns between Europe and the USA: an analysis of 11 350 men treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Andrea Gallina1, Felix K-H Chun, Nazareno Suardi, James A Eastham, Paul Perrotte, Markus Graefen, Georg Hutterer, Hartwig Huland, Eric A Klein, Alwyn Reuther, Francesco Montorsi, Alberto Briganti, Shahrokh F Shariat, Claus G Roehrborn, Alexandre de la Taille, Laurent Salomon, Pierre I Karakiewicz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the stage migration patterns in patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer in Europe and in the USA in the last 20 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1988 and 2005, RP was performed in 11 350 men: 5739 from Europe and 5611 from the USA. Independent-samples t-test and the chi-square test were, respectively, used for comparisons of means and proportions. The trend test was used to test the statistical significance of trends in proportions over time. RESULTS; Temporal patterns in patients' age, stage and PSA level at presentation were similar on both continents. Conversely, temporal patterns in Gleason sum distribution differed. In the USA, the rate of biopsy Gleason sums of 2-5 decreased from 32.8% to 0.2% (P < 0.001), while the rate of Gleason sums of 7 and 8-10 increased (P < 0.001). Conversely, in Europe the rate of Gleason sums of 6 increased from 40% to 64% (P < 0.001) at the expense of all other Gleason sums. At RP, the rate of Gleason sums of 2-5 decreased on both continents and the rate of a Gleason sum of 7 increased in the USA. Moreover, no important differences in pathological stage trends (organ confinement, extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion) distinguished either population. Finally, the rate of lymph node involvement increased in the USA but remained stable in Europe.
CONCLUSIONS: Stage and grade migration affected the USA and Europe to different extents. These differences should be accounted for when prediction tools or comparisons between the USA and Europe are considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18422773     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07519.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  27 in total

Review 1.  Controversies associated with the evaluation of elderly men with localized prostate cancer when considering radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Koji Mitsuzuka; Yoichi Arai
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-08-26       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Does the presence of robotic surgery affect demographics in patients choosing to undergo radical prostatectomy? A multi-center contemporary analysis.

Authors:  Philippa J Cheetham; Daniel J Lee; Anna Rose-Morris; Simon F Brewster; Ketan K Badani
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2010-07-10

3.  Factors predicting outcomes of penile rehabilitation with udenafil 50 mg following radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  T-H Kim; Y-S Ha; S H Choi; E S Yoo; B W Kim; S-J Yun; W-J Kim; Y S Kwon; T G Kwon
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2015-10-29       Impact factor: 2.896

4.  [Patients with prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: Stage migration and changes in tumor characteristics from 1998-2012].

Authors:  A Walther; M Kron; T Klorek; J E Gschwend; K Herkommer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 5.  Random biopsy: when, how many and where to take the cores?

Authors:  Vincenzo Scattoni; Carmen Maccagnano; Umberto Capitanio; Andrea Gallina; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-06-08       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Recent time trends in the epidemiology of stage IV prostate cancer in the United States: analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program.

Authors:  Karynsa Cetin; Jennifer L Beebe-Dimmer; Jon P Fryzek; Richard Markus; Michael A Carducci
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-12-06       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Metastatic prostate cancer with malignant ascites: A case report and literature review.

Authors:  Ifeanyi Ani; Mark Costaldi; Robert Abouassaly
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.862

8.  11C-acetate PET/CT before radical prostatectomy: nodal staging and treatment failure prediction.

Authors:  Mohammed Haseebuddin; Farrokh Dehdashti; Barry A Siegel; Jingxia Liu; Elizabeth B Roth; Kenneth G Nepple; Cary L Siegel; Keith C Fischer; Adam S Kibel; Gerald L Andriole; Tom R Miller
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 10.057

9.  Significance of erection hardness score as a diagnostic tool to assess erectile function recovery in Japanese men after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Hideaki Miyake; Akira Miyazaki; Akihisa Yao; Nobuyuki Hinata; Masato Fujisawa
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-03-19

Review 10.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Authors:  N L Sharma; N C Shah; D E Neal
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.