OBJECTIVE: To determine pathological and oncological outcomes of patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer in two age cohorts who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) and qualified for active surveillance (AS) according to Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria, as AS for low-risk prostate cancer represents an acceptable management strategy especially for older patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 320 patients aged ≥65 years who underwent RP and were eligible for AS according to PRIAS criteria were propensity score matched 1:1 to patients aged <65 years. Patient characteristics were compared with chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis, and one-way anova tests. Predictors of RP pathological upgrading or upstaging were analysed using logistic regression. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Predictors of RFS were analysed within Cox regression models. RESULTS: Pathological upgrading and upstaging were significantly higher among older (≥65 years) vs younger (<65 years) patients (53.1% vs 44.1% and 12.2% vs 7.2%, respectively). Higher prostate-specific antigen levels and increasing age were independent predictors of upgrading among patients aged <65 years. There were no differences in RFS or OS between the two age groups. Positive surgical margin status was the only independent predictor of shorter RFS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients aged ≥65 years who are eligible for AS by PRIAS criteria have a higher risk of being upgraded and upstaged at RP than those aged <65 years. These findings should be taken into consideration when discussing treatment options for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To determine pathological and oncological outcomes of patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer in two age cohorts who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) and qualified for active surveillance (AS) according to Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria, as AS for low-risk prostate cancer represents an acceptable management strategy especially for older patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 320 patients aged ≥65 years who underwent RP and were eligible for AS according to PRIAS criteria were propensity score matched 1:1 to patients aged <65 years. Patient characteristics were compared with chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis, and one-way anova tests. Predictors of RP pathological upgrading or upstaging were analysed using logistic regression. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Predictors of RFS were analysed within Cox regression models. RESULTS: Pathological upgrading and upstaging were significantly higher among older (≥65 years) vs younger (<65 years) patients (53.1% vs 44.1% and 12.2% vs 7.2%, respectively). Higher prostate-specific antigen levels and increasing age were independent predictors of upgrading among patients aged <65 years. There were no differences in RFS or OS between the two age groups. Positive surgical margin status was the only independent predictor of shorter RFS. CONCLUSIONS:Patients aged ≥65 years who are eligible for AS by PRIAS criteria have a higher risk of being upgraded and upstaged at RP than those aged <65 years. These findings should be taken into consideration when discussing treatment options for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer.
Authors: Annika Herlemann; Alexander Buchner; Alexander Kretschmer; Maria Apfelbeck; Christian G Stief; Christian Gratzke; Stefan Tritschler Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: John W Davis; John F Ward; Curtis A Pettaway; Xuemei Wang; Deborah Kuban; Steven J Frank; Andrew K Lee; Louis L Pisters; Surena F Matin; Jay B Shah; Jose A Karam; Brian F Chapin; John N Papadopoulos; Mary Achim; Karen E Hoffman; Thomas J Pugh; Seungtaek Choi; Patricia Troncoso; Christopher J Logothetis; Jeri Kim Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-07-04 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Marco Bandini; Raisa S Pompe; Michele Marchioni; Zhe Tian; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nicola Fossati; Derya Tilki; Markus Graefen; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Alberto Briganti; Fred Saad; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Vitor da Silva; Ilias Cagiannos; Luke T Lavallée; Ranjeeta Mallick; Kelsey Witiuk; Sonya Cnossen; James A Eastham; Dean A Fergusson; Chris Morash; Rodney H Breau Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Hwang Gyun Jeon; Jae Ho Yoo; Byong Chang Jeong; Seong Il Seo; Seong Soo Jeon; Han-Yong Choi; Hyun Moo Lee; Michelle Ferrari; James D Brooks; Benjamin I Chung Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michael A Liss; Robin J Leach; Martin G Sanda; Oliver J Semmes Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 4.254