Cheng Chen1, Jie Shen1, Zhaoyu Xing1, Changchuan Jiang2, Linkun Hu3, Li Cui1, Dong Xue1, Xiaozhou He1, Renfang Xu4. 1. Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 185 Juqian Street, Changzhou, 213003, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 185 Juqian Street, Changzhou, 213003, People's Republic of China. xurenfang@suda.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The number of examined lymph node (ELN) is regarded as the critical quality index for cancer care. We scrutinize the relationship among ELN number, accurate staging, and long-term survival in prostate cancer (Pca). METHODS: Population-based data on Pca patients in 2004-2015 from the US SEER database were investigated. The connection among ELN number and stage migration, overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (CSS) were evaluated by performing multivariable-adjusted logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and fine-gray competing-risk regression models, respectively. LOWESS smoother was used to fit the series of ELN number, odds ratios (OR), and hazard ratios (HR), while the Chow test was used to resolve the structural breakpoints. Subgroup and interaction analyses were performed in different risk populations. RESULTS: Overall, 84,838 patients were analyzed. Serial improvements were seen in stage migration (OR, 1.072, P < 0.001), OS (HR, 0.991; P < 0.001), and CSS (HR, 0.983; P < 0.001) per additional ELN after adjusting for confounders. Subgroup analysis revealed that the ELN number gains the most staging and survival benefits in high-risk population (P for interaction < 0.001). Cut-point analyses suggested that an optimal number of 12 ELNs, which was verified by the cumulative incidence curve, had a strong capability to distinguish different probabilities of CSS. CONCLUSIONS: Higher quantities of ELNs are related to more-accurate nodal staging and long-term survival of Pca patients undergoing RP. We highlight that 12 ELNs are the optimal cut-point for the high-risk population to investigate the quality of LN detection and stratifying postoperative prognosis.
PURPOSE: The number of examined lymph node (ELN) is regarded as the critical quality index for cancer care. We scrutinize the relationship among ELN number, accurate staging, and long-term survival in prostate cancer (Pca). METHODS: Population-based data on Pcapatients in 2004-2015 from the US SEER database were investigated. The connection among ELN number and stage migration, overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (CSS) were evaluated by performing multivariable-adjusted logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and fine-gray competing-risk regression models, respectively. LOWESS smoother was used to fit the series of ELN number, odds ratios (OR), and hazard ratios (HR), while the Chow test was used to resolve the structural breakpoints. Subgroup and interaction analyses were performed in different risk populations. RESULTS: Overall, 84,838 patients were analyzed. Serial improvements were seen in stage migration (OR, 1.072, P < 0.001), OS (HR, 0.991; P < 0.001), and CSS (HR, 0.983; P < 0.001) per additional ELN after adjusting for confounders. Subgroup analysis revealed that the ELN number gains the most staging and survival benefits in high-risk population (P for interaction < 0.001). Cut-point analyses suggested that an optimal number of 12 ELNs, which was verified by the cumulative incidence curve, had a strong capability to distinguish different probabilities of CSS. CONCLUSIONS: Higher quantities of ELNs are related to more-accurate nodal staging and long-term survival of Pcapatients undergoing RP. We highlight that 12 ELNs are the optimal cut-point for the high-risk population to investigate the quality of LN detection and stratifying postoperative prognosis.
Authors: Felix Preisser; Marco Bandini; Michele Marchioni; Sebastiano Nazzani; Zhe Tian; Raisa S Pompe; Nicola Fossati; Alberto Briganti; Fred Saad; Shahrokh F Shariat; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Derya Tilki; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Prostate Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Nicola Fossati; Peter-Paul M Willemse; Thomas Van den Broeck; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Cathy Yuhong Yuan; Erik Briers; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Philip Cornford; Maria De Santis; Ekelechi MacPepple; Ann M Henry; Malcolm D Mason; Vsevolod B Matveev; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Thomas B Lam; Nicolas Mottet; Steven Joniau Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: T M Pisansky; M L Blute; V J Suman; D G Bostwick; J D Earle; H Zincke Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1996-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nicolas Mottet; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Nicola Fossati; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Vsevolod B Matveev; Paul C Moldovan; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Thomas Van den Broeck; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Philip Cornford Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: John B Eifler; Zhaoyang Feng; Brian M Lin; Michael T Partin; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Misop Han; Jonathan I Epstein; Patrick C Walsh; Bruce J Trock; Alan W Partin Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: F Abdollah; N Suardi; A Gallina; M Bianchi; M Tutolo; N Passoni; N Fossati; M Sun; P dell'Oglio; A Salonia; P I Karakiewicz; P Rigatti; F Montorsi; A Briganti Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Anoop D Shah; Jonathan W Bartlett; James Carpenter; Owen Nicholas; Harry Hemingway Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2014-01-12 Impact factor: 4.897