Literature DB >> 2247914

Radical prostatectomy versus expectant primary treatment in stages I and II prostatic cancer. A fifteen-year follow-up.

P H Graversen1, K T Nielsen, T C Gasser, D K Corle, P O Madsen.   

Abstract

A fifteen-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized study comparing placebo with radical prostatectomy as the primary treatment of early prostatic cancer is presented. A total of 111 patients with clinical Stage I or II prostatic cancer, normal acid phosphatase levels, and negative findings on skeletal x-ray film were evaluable. Thirty Stage I patients and 20 Stage II patients received placebo only; 31 Stage I and 30 Stage II patients underwent radical prostatectomy. The survival status for 95 patients (86%) was established at the fifteen-year follow-up. No significant differences in crude survival occurred in either stage or in both stages combined. Moreover, the survival curves closely followed reference curves based on expected U.S. mortality for men of comparable ages and races. A statistically significant association between a high Gleason histologic score and poor survival was established. In this study, initial treatment with radical prostatectomy did not yield longer survival than initial placebo treatment alone. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution, since sample size was small and staging procedure was simplified.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2247914     DOI: 10.1016/0090-4295(90)80184-o

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  10 in total

1.  Rising incidence rate of prostate cancer.

Authors:  F Meyer
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1993-11-15       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  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

Review 3.  Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of various therapies for common prostatic disorders.

Authors:  E A Amin; M Amin
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Measurement of prostate specific antigen as screening test for prostate cancer. Trials of treatment are needed before trials of screening.

Authors:  S Sandhu; R Morris; V Matveev; A V Kaisary
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-03-16

5.  Screening for prostatic cancer.

Authors:  R H Harwood
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-03-27

6.  Quality of life in low-income patients with metastatic prostate cancer: divergent and convergent validity of three instruments.

Authors:  L K Sharp; S J Knight; R Nadler; M Albers; E Moran; T Kuzel; R Sharifi; C Bennett
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer: asking men what's important.

Authors:  E S Holmboe; J Concato
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 8.  Guidance on patient consultation. Current evidence for prostate-specific antigen screening in healthy men and treatment options for men with proven localised prostate cancer.

Authors:  Giovannalberto Pini; Justin Collins; Pirus Ghadjar; Peter Wiklund
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 9.  Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy versus Watchful Waiting in Localized Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Mojtaba Nouhi; Seyed Masood Mousavi; Alireza Olyaeemanesh; Nasser Shaksisalim; Ali Akbari Sari
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 1.429

Review 10.  Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tengbin Xiong; Rebecca M Turner; Yinghui Wei; David E Neal; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Julian P T Higgins
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 2.692

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.