INTRODUCTION: We sought to determine whether patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) in the context of disseminated cancer have higher 30-day complications. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Men undergoing RP (from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2014) for prostate cancer were identified and stratified by presence (n=97) or absence (n=27 868) of disseminated cancer. The primary outcome was major complications (death, re-operation, cardiac or neurologic events) within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary, infectious, venous thromboembolic, and bleeding complications; prolonged length of stay; and concomitant procedures (bowel-related, cystectomy, urinary diversion, and major ureteric reconstruction). Odds ratios (OR) for each complication were calculated using univariable logistic regression. RESULTS: We did not identify a difference in major complication rates (OR 2.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-7.16). Patients with disseminated cancer had increased risk of venous thromboembolic events (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.04-10.48) and transfusion (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.18-5.05), but similar odds of pulmonary and infectious complications and length of stay. Bowel procedures were rare, however, a significantly higher proportion of patients with disseminated cancer required bowel procedures (2.1% vs. 0.3%; p=0.03). Patients with disseminated cancer undergoing RP had greater comorbidities and higher predicted probability of morbidity and mortality. This study is limited by its retrospective design, lack of cancer-specific variables, and prostatectomy-specific complications. CONCLUSIONS: RP in the context of disseminated cancer may be associated with increased perioperative complications. Caution should be exercised in embarking on this practice outside of clinical trials.
INTRODUCTION: We sought to determine whether patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) in the context of disseminated cancer have higher 30-day complications. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Men undergoing RP (from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2014) for prostate cancer were identified and stratified by presence (n=97) or absence (n=27 868) of disseminated cancer. The primary outcome was major complications (death, re-operation, cardiac or neurologic events) within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary, infectious, venous thromboembolic, and bleeding complications; prolonged length of stay; and concomitant procedures (bowel-related, cystectomy, urinary diversion, and major ureteric reconstruction). Odds ratios (OR) for each complication were calculated using univariable logistic regression. RESULTS: We did not identify a difference in major complication rates (OR 2.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-7.16). Patients with disseminated cancer had increased risk of venous thromboembolic events (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.04-10.48) and transfusion (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.18-5.05), but similar odds of pulmonary and infectious complications and length of stay. Bowel procedures were rare, however, a significantly higher proportion of patients with disseminated cancer required bowel procedures (2.1% vs. 0.3%; p=0.03). Patients with disseminated cancer undergoing RP had greater comorbidities and higher predicted probability of morbidity and mortality. This study is limited by its retrospective design, lack of cancer-specific variables, and prostatectomy-specific complications. CONCLUSIONS: RP in the context of disseminated cancer may be associated with increased perioperative complications. Caution should be exercised in embarking on this practice outside of clinical trials.
Authors: Colleen G Koch; Liang Li; Eric Hixson; Anne Tang; Shannon Phillips; J Michael Henderson Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Jeffrey Karnes; Christian Stief; Bethan Copsey; Francesco Montorsi; Peter Hammerer; Burkhard Beyer; Marco Moschini; Christian Gratzke; Thomas Steuber; Nazareno Suardi; Alberto Briganti; Lukas Manka; Tommy Nyberg; Susan J Dutton; Peter Wiklund; Markus Graefen Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-05-30 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Robert R Cima; Kandace A Lackore; Sharon A Nehring; Stephen D Cassivi; John H Donohue; Claude Deschamps; Monica Vansuch; James M Naessens Journal: Surgery Date: 2011-08-27 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Raj Satkunasivam; Andre E Kim; Mihir Desai; Mike M Nguyen; David I Quinn; Leslie Ballas; Juan Pablo Lewinger; Mariana C Stern; Ann S Hamilton; Monish Aron; Inderbir S Gill Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ryan P Merkow; Thomas E Kmiecik; David J Bentrem; David P Winchester; Andrew K Stewart; Clifford Y Ko; Karl Y Bilimoria Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-11-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christopher Foster; Douglas Easton; Ultan McDermott; David C Wedge; G Steven Bova; Gunes Gundem; Peter Van Loo; Barbara Kremeyer; Ludmil B Alexandrov; Jose M C Tubio; Elli Papaemmanuil; Daniel S Brewer; Heini M L Kallio; Gunilla Högnäs; Matti Annala; Kati Kivinummi; Victoria Goody; Calli Latimer; Sarah O'Meara; Kevin J Dawson; William Isaacs; Michael R Emmert-Buck; Matti Nykter; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Hayley C Whitaker; David E Neal; Colin S Cooper; Rosalind A Eeles; Tapio Visakorpi; Peter J Campbell Journal: Nature Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 49.962