Literature DB >> 21484780

Reverse stage shift at a tertiary care center: escalating risk in men undergoing radical prostatectomy.

Jonathan L Silberstein1, Andrew J Vickers, Nicholas E Power, Samson W Fine, Peter T Scardino, James A Eastham, Vincent P Laudone.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate changes in clinical and pathologic characteristics of prostate cancer in patients who underwent surgery at a large tertiary care center in the context of increased use of active surveillance (AS) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS).
METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed 6624 patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy from 2000 to 2010 at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Patients were stratified by surgical approach (open, laparoscopic, or robotic) and by risk category (low, intermediate, or high). Patients with low-risk disease, without intervention, and with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were considered to have elected AS.
RESULTS: The number of patients who had AS increased from <20 per year between 2000 and 2004 to ≥ 100 per year between 2007 and 2009. Over the same decade, the number of patients who underwent MIS (laparoscopic or robotic) increased from zero to 63% of all surgical cases. The percentage of patients in the intermediate-risk and high-risk categories increased over time, whereas the percentage of patients in the low-risk category decreased (odds ratio [OR] per year, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-0.92; P < .0005). The proportion of patients who underwent surgery with Gleason 6 tumors decreased over time (OR per year, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.85-0.88; P < .0005), whereas pathologic stage and Gleason score increased (P < .0005). The proportion of low-risk patients decreased across all types of surgery, and the largest decrease was observed for robotic surgery (P < .0005).
CONCLUSIONS: A reverse stage shift was observed in patients who underwent radical prostatectomy after 2000 despite the introduction and rapid proliferation of MIS. This shift may have been caused in part by the increased use of AS and an institutional focus on the treatment of higher risk disease.
Copyright © 2011 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21484780      PMCID: PMC3181272          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26132

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  19 in total

Review 1.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; William C Allsbrook; Mahul B Amin; Lars L Egevad
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.394

2.  Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update.

Authors:  Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Assessment of outcome prediction models for patients with localized prostate carcinoma managed with radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy.

Authors:  A V D'Amico; A Desjardin; A Chung; M H Chen; D Schultz; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; A Wein; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; K Loughlin; J P Richie
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1998-05-15       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance.

Authors:  Ryan K Berglund; Timothy A Masterson; Kinjal C Vora; Scott E Eggener; James A Eastham; Bertrand D Guillonneau
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-09-17       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease.

Authors:  Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention: using natural history to guide treatment in good risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Continuing trends in pathological stage migration in radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Ithaar H Derweesh; Patrick A Kupelian; Craig Zippe; Howard S Levin; Jennifer Brainard; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Jonathan Myles; Alwyn M Reuther; Eric A Klein
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.498

8.  Update on the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer: results of an international consensus conference of urologic pathologists.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; William C Allsbrook; Mahul B Amin; Lars L Egevad
Journal:  Adv Anat Pathol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.875

9.  Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Jeannette M Broering; Philip W Kantoff; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-07-20       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 10.  Point: open radical prostatectomy should not be abandoned.

Authors:  William J Ellis; Paul H Lange
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 11.908

View more
  20 in total

1.  Genomic classifier identifies men with adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy who benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy.

Authors:  Robert B Den; Kasra Yousefi; Edouard J Trabulsi; Firas Abdollah; Voleak Choeurng; Felix Y Feng; Adam P Dicker; Costas D Lallas; Leonard G Gomella; Elai Davicioni; R Jeffrey Karnes
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-02-09       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 2.  Targeted prostate biopsy and MR-guided therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  David A Woodrum; Akira Kawashima; Krzysztof R Gorny; Lance A Mynderse
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2016-05

3.  [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

4.  Prostate-specific antigen screening in prostate cancer: perspectives on the evidence.

Authors:  Timothy J Wilt; Peter T Scardino; Sigrid V Carlsson; Ethan Basch
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Impact of stage migration and practice changes on high-risk prostate cancer: results from patients treated with radical prostatectomy over the last two decades.

Authors:  Nicola Fossati; Niccolò M Passoni; Marco Moschini; Giorgio Gandaglia; Alessandro Larcher; Massimo Freschi; Giorgio Guazzoni; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew J Vickers; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 6.  Magnetic Resonance Image-Guided Focal Prostate Ablation.

Authors:  Sherif G Nour
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.513

7.  Implementation of Dynamically Updated Prediction Models at the Point of Care at a Major Cancer Center: Making Nomograms More Like Netflix.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Mathew Kent; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Variation in serum prostate-specific antigen levels in men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance.

Authors:  Behfar Ehdaie; Bing Ying Poon; Daniel D Sjoberg; Pedro Recabal; Vincent Laudone; Karim Touijer; James Eastham; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  A case-mix-adjusted comparison of early oncological outcomes of open and robotic prostatectomy performed by experienced high volume surgeons.

Authors:  Jonathan L Silberstein; Daniel Su; Leonard Glickman; Matthew Kent; Gal Keren-Paz; Andrew J Vickers; Jonathan A Coleman; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Vincent P Laudone
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 5.588

10.  Validation of a genomic classifier that predicts metastasis following radical prostatectomy in an at risk patient population.

Authors:  R Jeffrey Karnes; Eric J Bergstralh; Elai Davicioni; Mercedeh Ghadessi; Christine Buerki; Anirban P Mitra; Anamaria Crisan; Nicholas Erho; Ismael A Vergara; Lucia L Lam; Rachel Carlson; Darby J S Thompson; Zaid Haddad; Benedikt Zimmermann; Thomas Sierocinski; Timothy J Triche; Thomas Kollmeyer; Karla V Ballman; Peter C Black; George G Klee; Robert B Jenkins
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.