Literature DB >> 25624093

Pathologic outcomes for low-risk prostate cancer after delayed radical prostatectomy in the United States.

Adam B Weiner1, Sanjay G Patel1, Scott E Eggener2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To measure adverse pathologic outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP) for men with low-risk prostate cancer in the United States based on time from diagnosis to surgery.
METHODS: We extracted data from the National Cancer Database in 2010 and 2011 on 17,943 low-risk patients (Gleason score = 3+3, prostate-specific antigen < 10 ng/ml, and cT1-T2) who underwent RP. We identified men who delayed RP by>6 months after diagnosis and measured the effect of delayed RP on pathologic upgrading, upstaging, nodal metastases, and positive surgical margins.
RESULTS: Overall, 16,818 underwent RP ≤ 6 months, 894 at 6 to 9 months, 169 at 9 to 12 months, and 62 at>12 months from diagnostic biopsy. Furthermore, upgrading occurred in 43%, upstaging in 9%, positive surgical margins in 16%, and nodal metastases in 0.3% of men. Upgrading, upstaging, or nodal metastases occurred in 45% of men. On multivariable analysis, higher prostate-specific antigen (4.1-9.9 ng/ml vs. 0.1-2.4 ng/ml; odds ratio [OR] = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.66-2.10),>2 positive biopsy cores (OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.57-1.81), ≥ 34% positive biopsy cores (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.18-1.39), black race (OR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.05-1.28), and time from biopsy to RP>12 months (vs. ≤ 6 mo: OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.01-2.84) each independently increased the composite risk of adverse pathology (all P< 0.05).
CONCLUSION: In the United States, nearly half of men with low-risk prostate cancer experience at least one adverse pathologic outcome at RP. Delaying RP up to 12 months did not change the risk of adverse pathology. Men may safely use the time following their initial biopsy to consider management options and obtain a restaging biopsy, if recommended.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active Surveillance; Pathology; Prostatic neoplasms; Radical prostatectomy; United States/epidemiology; Watchful waiting

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25624093     DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.12.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  10 in total

1.  Pathological and Biochemical Outcomes among African-American and Caucasian Men with Low Risk Prostate Cancer in the SEARCH Database: Implications for Active Surveillance Candidacy.

Authors:  Michael S Leapman; Stephen J Freedland; William J Aronson; Christopher J Kane; Martha K Terris; Kelly Walker; Christopher L Amling; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-06-25       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Prostate cancer: No need to rush for men with low-risk disease.

Authors:  Clemens Thoma
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Risk of Pathological Upgrading and Up Staging among Men with Low Risk Prostate Cancer Varies by Race: Results from the National Cancer Database.

Authors:  Matthew J Maurice; Debasish Sundi; Edward M Schaeffer; Robert Abouassaly
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-08-28       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Prostate cancer radiomics and the promise of radiogenomics.

Authors:  Radka Stoyanova; Mandeep Takhar; Yohann Tschudi; John C Ford; Gabriel Solórzano; Nicholas Erho; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Sanoj Punnen; Elai Davicioni; Robert J Gillies; Alan Pollack
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.241

5.  Optimizing Time to Treatment to Achieve Durable Biochemical Disease Control after Surgery in Prostate Cancer: A Multi-Institutional Cohort Study.

Authors:  Shivanshu Awasthi; Travis Gerke; Jong Y Park; Francis A Asamoah; Vonetta L Williams; Angelina K Fink; Rajesh Balkrishnan; David I Lee; S Bruce Malkowicz; Priti Lal; Jasreman Dhillon; Julio M Pow-Sang; Timothy R Rebbeck; Kosj Yamoah
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2018-11-09       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 6.  The Contemporary Role of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Ariel A Schulman; Christina Sze; Efrat Tsivian; Rajan T Gupta; Judd W Moul; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  An assessment of Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria for active surveillance of clinically low-risk prostate cancer patients.

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

Review 8.  Is active surveillance a suitable option for African American men with prostate cancer? A systemic literature review.

Authors:  M I Gökce; D Sundi; E Schaeffer; C Pettaway
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2017-04-18       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 9.  Old men with prostate cancer have higher risk of Gleason score upgrading and pathological upstaging after initial diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiaochuan Wang; Yu Zhang; Zhengguo Ji; Peiqian Yang; Ye Tian
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 2.754

Review 10.  Entering an era of radiogenomics in prostate cancer risk stratification.

Authors:  Nachiketh Soodana-Prakash; Radka Stoyanova; Abhishek Bhat; Maria C Velasquez; Omer E Kineish; Alan Pollack; Dipen J Parekh; Sanoj Punnen
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-09
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.