Literature DB >> 31235801

Contemporary national trends in prostate cancer risk profile at diagnosis.

Sean A Fletcher1,2, Nicolas von Landenberg2,3, Alexander P Cole1,2, Philipp Gild2,4, Toni K Choueiri5, Stuart R Lipsitz2, Quoc-Dien Trinh1,2, Adam S Kibel6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic approaches have evolved away from aggressive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. While a goal of these changes is to decrease over diagnosis and treatment, little is known about the downstream effects on PCa risk distribution at the time of diagnosis. To better understand these effects, we used a national cohort of men to investigate temporal trends in PCa risk profile at diagnosis.
METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified men diagnosed with biopsy-confirmed clinically localized prostate adenocarcinoma (T1-4N0M0) from 2004 to 2014. We assessed temporal trends in proportional distribution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk groups as well as their sub-components (PSA, Gleason score, clinical T stage). We also evaluated trends in these sub-components among men with intermediate- and high-risk disease as well as those with metastatic disease.
RESULTS: In our cohort of 755,567 men diagnosed between 2004 and 2014, there was a decrease in the proportion of men diagnosed with low-risk PCa (38.32 to 27.23%, p < 0.001) and a consequent increase in the proportion of localized intermediate-risk (40.49 to 46.72%, p < 0.001) and high-risk diagnoses (21.19 to 26.05%, p < 0.001). This was primarily driven by an increased proportion of Gleason 7 and Gleason 8-10 cancer, respectively. The number of men presenting with metastatic disease consistently increased from 3251 (2.88%) in 2004 to 6886 (7.19%) in 2014 (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of localized intermediate/high risk and metastatic PCa has substantially increased over the past decade, while the proportion of low-risk disease has decreased. This shift has been primarily driven by increased diagnosis of high-grade disease. National guidelines advising against PSA screening may have contributed to these findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31235801     DOI: 10.1038/s41391-019-0157-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis        ISSN: 1365-7852            Impact factor:   5.554


  12 in total

1.  National consensus quality indicators to assess quality of care for active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer: An evidence-informed, modified Delphi survey of Canadian urologists/radiation oncologists.

Authors:  Narhari Timilshina; Antonio Finelli; George Tomlinson; Anna Gagliardi; Beate Sander; Shabbir M H Alibhai
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Expanding the Secondary Use of Prostate Cancer Real World Data: Automated Classifiers for Clinical and Pathological Stage.

Authors:  Selen Bozkurt; Christopher J Magnani; Martin G Seneviratne; James D Brooks; Tina Hernandez-Boussard
Journal:  Front Digit Health       Date:  2022-06-02

3.  Comparative Effectiveness of Radiotherapy versus Focal Laser Ablation in Patients with Low and Intermediate Risk Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Xianghong Zhou; Kun Jin; Shi Qiu; Di Jin; Xinyang Liao; Xiang Tu; Xiaonan Zheng; Jiakun Li; Lu Yang; Qiang Wei
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-06-04       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Development and validation of a preoperative nomogram for predicting survival of patients with locally advanced prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Xianghong Zhou; Qingyang Ning; Kun Jin; Tao Zhang; Xuelei Ma
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-02-04       Impact factor: 4.430

5.  Prevalence of Missing Data in the National Cancer Database and Association With Overall Survival.

Authors:  Daniel X Yang; Rohan Khera; Joseph A Miccio; Vikram Jairam; Enoch Chang; James B Yu; Henry S Park; Harlan M Krumholz; Sanjay Aneja
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-03-01

6.  Genetic Analysis Reveals the Prognostic Significance of the DNA Mismatch Repair Gene MSH2 in Advanced Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Hao-Han Chang; Cheng-Hsueh Lee; Yei-Tsung Chen; Chao-Yuan Huang; Chia-Cheng Yu; Victor C Lin; Jiun-Hung Geng; Te-Ling Lu; Shu-Pin Huang; Bo-Ying Bao
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 6.639

7.  Interventional oncology update.

Authors:  Alex Newbury; Chantal Ferguson; Daniel Alvarez Valero; Roberto Kutcher-Diaz; Lacey McIntosh; Ara Karamanian; Aaron Harman
Journal:  Eur J Radiol Open       Date:  2022-06-20

8.  Comparing effectiveness of radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer: A population-based analysis.

Authors:  Xianghong Zhou; Kun Jin; Shi Qiu; Di Jin; Xinyang Liao; Xiang Tu; Xiaonan Zheng; Jiakun Li; Lu Yang; Qiang Wei
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-08-21       Impact factor: 1.889

Review 9.  Available evidence on HIFU for focal treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Arnas Bakavicius; Giancarlo Marra; Petr Macek; Cary Robertson; Andre L Abreu; Arvin K George; Bernard Malavaud; Patrick Coloby; Pascal Rischmann; Marco Moschini; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Abhinav Sidana; Armando Stabile; Rafael Tourinho-Barbosa; Jean de la Rosette; Hashim Ahmed; Thomas Polascik; Xavier Cathelineau; Rafael Sanchez-Salas
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2022 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.541

10.  Impact of Health-related Quality of Life and Prediagnosis Risk of Major Depressive Disorder on Treatment Choice in Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Hannah Riskin-Jones; Tristan Grogan; Amar Kishan; Ann Raldow
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2020-10-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.