Mike Wenzel1, Christoph Würnschimmel2, Luigi Nocera3, Claudia Collà Ruvolo4, Zhe Tian5, Shahrokh F Shariat6, Fred Saad5, Alberto Briganti7, Markus Graefen8, Andreas Becker9, Luis A Kluth9, Philipp Mandel9, Felix K H Chun9, Pierre I Karakiewicz5. 1. Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada. Electronic address: Mike.Wenzel@kgu.de. 2. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 4. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Italy. 5. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 6. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Departments of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Tx; Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prag, Czech Republic; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia; Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan. 7. Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 8. Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 9. Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test for baseline prostate cancer characteristics and survival differences after salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP) across 18 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries from 2004 to 2016. METHODS: We tabulated prostate-specific antigen (PSA), cT stage, age, and SRP rates across individual SEER registries. Kaplan-Meier and competing risks regression methodologies depicted cancer-specific mortality and other cause mortality. Finally, overall mortality was compared with predicted life expectancy. RESULTS: Overall, 428 SRP patients (2004-2016) were identified in the SEER database. Median follow-up duration was 74 months (interquartile range [IQR], 31-114). The median age at diagnosis was 68 years (IQR, 61-73 years) with a median PSA at diagnosis of 8.8 ng/mL (IQR, 5.4-18.6 ng/mL) and 10% cT3-4 stage (0%-23.8%). Variability existed across individual SEER registries regarding age, PSA, cT stage, and annual number of SRPs (0-17), as well as cumulative numbers of SRPs (7-73) between 2004 and 2016. At 10 years, cancer-specific mortality was 23.2% vs. other cause mortality 19.3%. Finally, SRP patients exhibited higher 10-year overall mortality (43.3%) than predicted by life tables (31.8%). CONCLUSION: SRP is rarely performed. In most SEER registries, SRP use is very occasional. More than 2 average annual SRPs were reported in only 5 of all registries. Nonetheless, across all registries, SRP patients showed marginal to moderate differences in PSA, cT stage, and age at diagnosis. However, at 10 years of follow-up, 1 of 5 SRP patients died of other causes and observed overall mortality was higher than expected (36%).
OBJECTIVE: To test for baseline prostate cancer characteristics and survival differences after salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP) across 18 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries from 2004 to 2016. METHODS: We tabulated prostate-specific antigen (PSA), cT stage, age, and SRP rates across individual SEER registries. Kaplan-Meier and competing risks regression methodologies depicted cancer-specific mortality and other cause mortality. Finally, overall mortality was compared with predicted life expectancy. RESULTS: Overall, 428 SRPpatients (2004-2016) were identified in the SEER database. Median follow-up duration was 74 months (interquartile range [IQR], 31-114). The median age at diagnosis was 68 years (IQR, 61-73 years) with a median PSA at diagnosis of 8.8 ng/mL (IQR, 5.4-18.6 ng/mL) and 10% cT3-4 stage (0%-23.8%). Variability existed across individual SEER registries regarding age, PSA, cT stage, and annual number of SRPs (0-17), as well as cumulative numbers of SRPs (7-73) between 2004 and 2016. At 10 years, cancer-specific mortality was 23.2% vs. other cause mortality 19.3%. Finally, SRPpatients exhibited higher 10-year overall mortality (43.3%) than predicted by life tables (31.8%). CONCLUSION:SRP is rarely performed. In most SEER registries, SRP use is very occasional. More than 2 average annual SRPs were reported in only 5 of all registries. Nonetheless, across all registries, SRPpatients showed marginal to moderate differences in PSA, cT stage, and age at diagnosis. However, at 10 years of follow-up, 1 of 5 SRPpatientsdied of other causes and observed overall mortality was higher than expected (36%).
Authors: Mike Wenzel; Christoph Würnschimmel; Luigi Nocera; Claudia Colla Ruvolo; Benedikt Hoeh; Zhe Tian; Shahrokh F Shariat; Fred Saad; Alberto Briganti; Markus Graefen; Felix Preisser; Andreas Becker; Philipp Mandel; Felix K H Chun; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 5.738