Literature DB >> 21741762

Cancer-specific and other-cause mortality after radical prostatectomy versus observation in patients with prostate cancer: competing-risks analysis of a large North American population-based cohort.

Firas Abdollah1, Maxine Sun, Jan Schmitges, Zhe Tian, Claudio Jeldres, Alberto Briganti, Shahrohk F Shariat, Paul Perrotte, Francesco Montorsi, Pierre I Karakiewicz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Initial treatment options for low-risk clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) include radical prostatectomy (RP) or observation.
OBJECTIVE: To examine cancer-specific mortality (CSM) after accounting for other-cause mortality (OCM) in PCa patients treated with either RP or observation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Medicare-linked database, a total of 44 694 patients ≥65 yr with localized (T1/2) PCa were identified (1992-2005). INTERVENTION: RP and observation. MEASUREMENTS: Propensity-score matching was used to adjust for potential selection biases associated with treatment type. The matched cohort was randomly divided into the development and validation sets. Competing-risks regression models were fitted and a competing-risks nomogram was developed and externally validated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 22,244 (49.8%) patients were treated with RP versus 22450 (50.2%) with observation. Propensity score-matched analyses derived 11,669 matched pairs. In the development cohort, the 10-yr CSM rate was 2.8% (2.3-3.5%) for RP versus 5.8% (5.0-6.6%) for observation (absolute risk reduction: 3.0%; relative risk reduction: 0.5%; p<0.001). In multivariable analyses, the CSM hazard ratio for RP was 0.48 (0.38-0.59) relative to observation (p<0.001). The competing-risks nomogram discrimination was 73% and 69% for prediction of CSM and OCM, respectively, in external validation. The nature of observational data may have introduced a selection bias.
CONCLUSIONS: On average RP reduces the risk of CSM by half in patients aged ≥65 yr, relative to observation. The individualized protective effect of RP relative to observation may be quantified with our nomogram. Crown
Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21741762     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.06.039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  23 in total

1.  Prostate cancer: operate or wait? Nomogram decides.

Authors:  Suzanne J Farley
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-08-16       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Do we need the nerve sparing radical prostatectomy techniques (intrafascial vs. interfascial) in men with erectile dysfunction? Results of a single-centre study.

Authors:  Wael Y Khoder; Raphaela Waidelich; Michael Seitz; Armin J Becker; Alexander Buchner; Stefan Trittschler; Christian G Stief
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Recommendations on screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen test.

Authors:  Neil Bell; Sarah Connor Gorber; Amanda Shane; Michel Joffres; Harminder Singh; James Dickinson; Elizabeth Shaw; Lesley Dunfield; Marcello Tonelli
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2014-10-27       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer.

Authors:  Robin Wm Vernooij; Michelle Lancee; Anne Cleves; Philipp Dahm; Chris H Bangma; Katja Kh Aben
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-06-04

5.  Prostate cancer: epidemiologic studies and changing clinical practice.

Authors:  Giacomo Novara; Vincenzo Ficarra
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-11-13       Impact factor: 14.432

6.  Re-assessment of 30-, 60- and 90-day mortality rates in non-metastatic prostate cancer patients treated either with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy.

Authors:  Jens Hansen; Giorgio Gandaglia; Marco Bianchi; Maxine Sun; Michael Rink; Zhe Tian; Malek Meskawi; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Shahrokh F Shariat; Paul Perrotte; Felix K-H Chun; Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  Older patients with low Charlson score and high-risk prostate cancer benefit from radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  A Sivaraman; G Ordaz Jurado; X Cathelineau; Eric Barret; P Dell'Oglio; S Joniau; M Bianchi; A Briganti; M Spahn; P Bastian; J Chun; P Chlosta; P Gontero; M Graefen; R Jeffrey Karnes; G Marchioro; B Tombal; L Tosco; H Henk van der Poel; R Sanchez-Salas
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-02-20       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  The Development of Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate (ICECaP).

Authors:  Christopher Sweeney; Mari Nakabayashi; Meredith Regan; Wanling Xie; Julia Hayes; Nancy Keating; Suhui Li; Tomas Philipson; Marc Buyse; Susan Halabi; Philip Kantoff; A Oliver Sartor; Howard Soule; Brandon Mahal
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Is radical prostatectomy a useful therapeutic option for high-risk prostate cancer in older men?

Authors:  Markus Graefen; Thorsten Schlomm
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2012

10.  Consideration of comorbidity in risk stratification prior to prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Michael A Liss; John Billimek; Kathryn Osann; Jane Cho; Ross Moskowitz; Adam Kaplan; Richard J Szabo; Sherrie H Kaplan; Sheldon Greenfield; Atreya Dash
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.