Mike Wenzel1, Claudia Collà Ruvolo2, Luigi Nocera3, Christoph Würnschimmel4, Zhe Tian5, Shahrokh F Shariat6, Fred Saad5, Alberto Briganti7, Markus Graefen8, Andreas Becker9, 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; Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Italy. 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; Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 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, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA; 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
BACKGROUND: Intermediate risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa) is a highly heterogeneous entity and can be distinguished into favorable and unfavorable IR PCa according to biopsy, PSA and cT-stage characteristics. These differences may translate into differences in treatment type. METHODS: We tested for differences in PCa tumor characteristics and differences in active treatment rates (radical prostatectomy [RP], external beam radiotherapy [EBRT]) according to Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry (2010-2015) in favorable and unfavorable IR PCa. Data were stratified according to individual SEER registries. Further analyses additionally adjusted for PCa baseline characteristics (PSA, cT stage, biopsy Gleason group grading [GGG], percentage of positive biopsy cores). RESULTS: Tabulations according to SEER registries showed that, in favorable IR vs. unfavorable IR, the rates of RP and EBRT respectively ranged from 30.0 to 54.3% vs. 30.3-55.5 % and 8.3-44.7 % vs. 11.5-45.5 %. Differences in age and baseline PCa tumor characteristics also existed in both favorable and unfavorable IR across SEER registries. After adjustment for those baseline patient and PCa characteristics (PSA, cT stage, GGG, percentage of positive biopsy cores), RP and EBRT rates exhibited virtually no residual differences across individual SEER registries, in both favorable (36.0-41.0 % and 26.8-28.1 %) and unfavorable IR PCa (39.2-42.0% and 31.1-33.5 %). CONCLUSION: Important differences may be identified in treatment rates within the examined 18 SEER registries in favorable and in unfavorable IR PCa. However, the observed differences are virtually entirely explained by differences in baseline PCa characteristics.
BACKGROUND: Intermediate risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa) is a highly heterogeneous entity and can be distinguished into favorable and unfavorable IR PCa according to biopsy, PSA and cT-stage characteristics. These differences may translate into differences in treatment type. METHODS: We tested for differences in PCa tumor characteristics and differences in active treatment rates (radical prostatectomy [RP], external beam radiotherapy [EBRT]) according to Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry (2010-2015) in favorable and unfavorable IR PCa. Data were stratified according to individual SEER registries. Further analyses additionally adjusted for PCa baseline characteristics (PSA, cT stage, biopsy Gleason group grading [GGG], percentage of positive biopsy cores). RESULTS: Tabulations according to SEER registries showed that, in favorable IR vs. unfavorable IR, the rates of RP and EBRT respectively ranged from 30.0 to 54.3% vs. 30.3-55.5 % and 8.3-44.7 % vs. 11.5-45.5 %. Differences in age and baseline PCa tumor characteristics also existed in both favorable and unfavorable IR across SEER registries. After adjustment for those baseline patient and PCa characteristics (PSA, cT stage, GGG, percentage of positive biopsy cores), RP and EBRT rates exhibited virtually no residual differences across individual SEER registries, in both favorable (36.0-41.0 % and 26.8-28.1 %) and unfavorable IR PCa (39.2-42.0% and 31.1-33.5 %). CONCLUSION: Important differences may be identified in treatment rates within the examined 18 SEER registries in favorable and in unfavorable IR PCa. However, the observed differences are virtually entirely explained by differences in baseline PCa characteristics.
Authors: Gabriele Sorce; Rocco Simone Flammia; Benedikt Hoeh; Francesco Chierigo; Lukas Hohenhorst; Andrea Panunzio; Armando Stabile; Giorgio Gandaglia; Zhe Tian; Derya Tilki; Carlo Terrone; Michele Gallucci; Felix K H Chun; Alessandro Antonelli; Fred Saad; Shahrokh F Shariat; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Prostate Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 4.012
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
Authors: Mike Wenzel; Felix Preisser; Benedikt Hoeh; Maria N Welte; Clara Humke; Clarissa Wittler; Christoph Würnschimmel; Andreas Becker; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Felix K H Chun; Philipp Mandel; Luis A Kluth Journal: Front Surg Date: 2021-12-09