Chelsea K Osterman1, Jaber Alanzi2, James D Lewis3, Elizabeth L Kaufman4, Vivek Narayan4, Ben Boursi3, Ravy K Vajravelu3, Frank I Scott5, S Bruce Malkowicz2, Ronac Mamtani6. 1. Department of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Department of Urology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 4. Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. 6. Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: ronac.mamtani@uphs.upenn.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefit of surveillance after curative cystectomy in bladder cancer is unproven, but might be justified if detection of asymptomatic recurrence improves survival. Previous studies showing a benefit of surveillance might have been affected by lead-time or length-time bias. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among 463 cystectomy patients at the University of Pennsylvania. Patients were followed according to a standardized protocol and classified according to asymptomatic or symptomatic recurrence detection. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Adjusted Cox regression models were used to assess the effect of mode of recurrence on survival from time of cystectomy (model 1) and time of recurrence (model 2) to account for lead and length time. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-seven patients (42.5%) recurred; 71 were asymptomatic (36.0%), 107 were symptomatic (54.3%), and 19 (9.6%) were unknown. Relative to patients with asymptomatic recurrence, patients with symptomatic recurrence had significantly increased risk of death (model 1: hazard ratio [HR], 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.61; model 2: HR, 1.74, 95% CI, 1.13-2.69) and had lower 1-year overall survival from time of recurrence (29.37% vs. 55.66%). Symptomatic patients were diagnosed with recurrence a median of 1.7 months before asymptomatic patients, yet their median survival from recurrence was 8.2 months less. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic recurrence is associated with worse outcomes than asymptomatic recurrence, which cannot be explained by lead- or length-time bias. Similar methods to account for these biases should be considered in studies of cancer surveillance. Shortening surveillance intervals might allow for detection of more recurrences in an asymptomatic phase. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: The benefit of surveillance after curative cystectomy in bladder cancer is unproven, but might be justified if detection of asymptomatic recurrence improves survival. Previous studies showing a benefit of surveillance might have been affected by lead-time or length-time bias. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among 463 cystectomy patients at the University of Pennsylvania. Patients were followed according to a standardized protocol and classified according to asymptomatic or symptomatic recurrence detection. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Adjusted Cox regression models were used to assess the effect of mode of recurrence on survival from time of cystectomy (model 1) and time of recurrence (model 2) to account for lead and length time. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-seven patients (42.5%) recurred; 71 were asymptomatic (36.0%), 107 were symptomatic (54.3%), and 19 (9.6%) were unknown. Relative to patients with asymptomatic recurrence, patients with symptomatic recurrence had significantly increased risk of death (model 1: hazard ratio [HR], 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.61; model 2: HR, 1.74, 95% CI, 1.13-2.69) and had lower 1-year overall survival from time of recurrence (29.37% vs. 55.66%). Symptomatic patients were diagnosed with recurrence a median of 1.7 months before asymptomatic patients, yet their median survival from recurrence was 8.2 months less. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic recurrence is associated with worse outcomes than asymptomatic recurrence, which cannot be explained by lead- or length-time bias. Similar methods to account for these biases should be considered in studies of cancer surveillance. Shortening surveillance intervals might allow for detection of more recurrences in an asymptomatic phase. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer recurrence; Cancer surveillance; Epidemiologic methods; Lead-time bias; Length-time bias
Authors: Michael Rink; Felix K Chun; Roland Dahlem; Armin Soave; Sarah Minner; Jens Hansen; Malgorzata Stoupiec; Cornelia Coith; Luis A Kluth; Sascha A Ahyai; Martin G Friedrich; Shahrokh F Shariat; Margit Fisch; Klaus Pantel; Sabine Riethdorf Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Elenir B C Avritscher; Catherine D Cooksley; H Barton Grossman; Anita L Sabichi; Lois Hamblin; Colin P Dinney; Linda S Elting Journal: Urology Date: 2006-09-18 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ming Yin; Monika Joshi; Richard P Meijer; Michael Glantz; Sheldon Holder; Harold A Harvey; Matthew Kaag; Elisabeth E Fransen van de Putte; Simon Horenblas; Joseph J Drabick Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-04-06
Authors: Stephen A Boorjian; Matthew K Tollefson; John C Cheville; Brian A Costello; Prabin Thapa; Igor Frank Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-09-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Robert S Svatek; Brent K Hollenbeck; Sten Holmäng; Richard Lee; Simon P Kim; Arnulf Stenzl; Yair Lotan Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Thomas J Guzzo; Matthew J Resnick; Daniel J Canter; Arturo Balandra; Meredith R Bergey; Laurie Magerfleisch; John E Tomaszewski; David J Vaughn; S Bruce Malkowicz Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Cora N Sternberg; Iwona Skoneczna; J Martijn Kerst; Peter Albers; Sophie D Fossa; Mads Agerbaek; Herlinde Dumez; Maria de Santis; Christine Théodore; Michael G Leahy; John D Chester; Antony Verbaeys; Gedske Daugaard; Lori Wood; J Alfred Witjes; Ronald de Wit; Lionel Geoffrois; Lisa Sengelov; George Thalmann; Danielle Charpentier; Frédéric Rolland; Laurent Mignot; Santhanam Sundar; Paul Symonds; John Graham; Florence Joly; Sandrine Marreaud; Laurence Collette; Richard Sylvester Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jonathan E Rosenberg; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Tom Powles; Michiel S van der Heijden; Arjun V Balar; Andrea Necchi; Nancy Dawson; Peter H O'Donnell; Ani Balmanoukian; Yohann Loriot; Sandy Srinivas; Margitta M Retz; Petros Grivas; Richard W Joseph; Matthew D Galsky; Mark T Fleming; Daniel P Petrylak; Jose Luis Perez-Gracia; Howard A Burris; Daniel Castellano; Christina Canil; Joaquim Bellmunt; Dean Bajorin; Dorothee Nickles; Richard Bourgon; Garrett M Frampton; Na Cui; Sanjeev Mariathasan; Oyewale Abidoye; Gregg D Fine; Robert Dreicer Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Daan J Reesink; Ewoudt M W van de Garde; Bas J M Peters; Paul B van der Nat; Maartje Los; Simon Horenblas; Harm H E van Melick Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 4.379