Wei Sheng1, Hongwei Zhang2, Yong Lu3. 1. Department of Urology/Neuro-Urology, University Clinic, University of Bonn, 53127, Bonn, Germany. shengwei0708@gmail.com. 2. The First People's Hospital of Changde City, Changde, China. 3. The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess survival outcomes of locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPC) in patients aged < 50 years after local therapy (LT), as compared to that in the older patients (≥ 50 years). Moreover, effectiveness of postoperative radiation therapy (PRT) after radical prostatectomy (RP) was also assessed in patients aged < 50 years. METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End results database (2004-2014), non-metastatic cT3-4 LAPC patients treated with LT (RP, RT or RP+RT) were identified. After propensity score matching (PSM), cancer-specific mortality (CSM), overall survival (OS), and other-cause mortality (OCM) rates were assessed. Multivariable competing risk regression (MVA CRR) model was also used in our analysis. RESULTS: 1507 younger (< 50 years) and 34833 older (≥ 50 years) LAPC patients treated with LT were identified. Younger patients with LAPC had overall more aggressive disease features than their older counterparts. After PSM, younger patients yielded higher cumulative CSM rates than the older patients (P = 0.046). However, OS and cumulative OCM rates were significantly higher (P = 0.038 and P < 0.0001, respectively) in the older cohort. In the MVA CRR model, younger patients yielded higher CSM (P = 0.02). Specifically, younger patients resulted in higher CSM in Gleason score 8-10, cT3b/4 stage, cN1 stage, and patients treated with RP. No statistically significant differences were found in patients treated with RP versus RP+PRT in all parameters. CONCLUSIONS: LAPC patients aged < 50 years yielded higher CSM after LT, specifically after RP, compared with the older counterparts (≥ 50 years). No significant differences were observed in RP versus RP+PRT regarding survival outcomes in our analysis.
PURPOSE: To assess survival outcomes of locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPC) in patients aged < 50 years after local therapy (LT), as compared to that in the older patients (≥ 50 years). Moreover, effectiveness of postoperative radiation therapy (PRT) after radical prostatectomy (RP) was also assessed in patients aged < 50 years. METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End results database (2004-2014), non-metastatic cT3-4 LAPC patients treated with LT (RP, RT or RP+RT) were identified. After propensity score matching (PSM), cancer-specific mortality (CSM), overall survival (OS), and other-cause mortality (OCM) rates were assessed. Multivariable competing risk regression (MVA CRR) model was also used in our analysis. RESULTS: 1507 younger (< 50 years) and 34833 older (≥ 50 years) LAPC patients treated with LT were identified. Younger patients with LAPC had overall more aggressive disease features than their older counterparts. After PSM, younger patients yielded higher cumulative CSM rates than the older patients (P = 0.046). However, OS and cumulative OCM rates were significantly higher (P = 0.038 and P < 0.0001, respectively) in the older cohort. In the MVA CRR model, younger patients yielded higher CSM (P = 0.02). Specifically, younger patients resulted in higher CSM in Gleason score 8-10, cT3b/4 stage, cN1 stage, and patients treated with RP. No statistically significant differences were found in patients treated with RP versus RP+PRT in all parameters. CONCLUSIONS: LAPC patients aged < 50 years yielded higher CSM after LT, specifically after RP, compared with the older counterparts (≥ 50 years). No significant differences were observed in RP versus RP+PRT regarding survival outcomes in our analysis.
Authors: Ethan M Lange; Claudia A Salinas; Kimberly A Zuhlke; Anna M Ray; Yunfei Wang; Yurong Lu; Lindsey A Ho; Jingchun Luo; Kathleen A Cooney Journal: Prostate Date: 2011-05-02 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Daniel W Lin; Liesel M FitzGerald; Rong Fu; Erika M Kwon; Siqun Lilly Zheng; Suzanne Kolb; Fredrik Wiklund; Pär Stattin; William B Isaacs; Jianfeng Xu; Elaine A Ostrander; Ziding Feng; Henrik Grönberg; Janet L Stanford Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-08-16 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Patrick M Parker; Kevin R Rice; Joseph R Sterbis; Yongmei Chen; Jennifer Cullen; David G McLeod; Stephen A Brassell Journal: Urology Date: 2011-03-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Joshua R Kaplan; Keith J Kowalczyk; Tudor Borza; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Paul L Nguyen; David F Friedlander; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jim C Hu Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: N J Kinnear; G Kichenadasse; S Plagakis; M E O'Callaghan; T Kopsaftis; S Walsh; D Foreman Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Piotr Zapała; Mieszko Kozikowski; Bartosz Dybowski; Łukasz Zapała; Jakub Dobruch; Piotr Radziszewski Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2021-09-18
Authors: Yu Zheng; Sharron X Lin; Shulin Wu; Douglas M Dahl; Michael L Blute; Wei-De Zhong; Xing Zhou; Chin-Lee Wu Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 4.452