Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy vs external beam radiotherapy in high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients

B. Hoeh, JL. Hohenhorst, R. Flammia, B. Horlemann, G. Sorce, F. Chierigo, Z. Tian, F. Saad, M. Graefen, M. Gallucci, A. Briganti, C. Terrone, SF. Shariat, LA. Kluth, A. Becker, FKH. Chun, PI. Karakiewicz

. 2022 ; 54 (1) : 81-87. [pub] 20211116

Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko

Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22011502
E-zdroje Online Plný text

NLK ProQuest Central od 1999-01-01 do Před 1 rokem
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost) od 2011-03-01 do Před 1 rokem
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) od 1999-01-01 do Před 1 rokem

Odkazy

PubMed 34783982
DOI 10.1007/s11255-021-03055-7
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje

PURPOSE: To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates in Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients according to treatment type, radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 2290 NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) high-risk (HR) Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients. Of those, 893 (39.0%) were treated with RP vs 1397 (61.0%) with EBRT. First, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models tested for CSM differences after adjustment for other cause mortality (OCM). Second, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models were refitted after 1:1 propensity score matching (according to age, PSA, biopsy Gleason score, cT-stage, cN-stage). RESULTS: In NCCN HR patients, 5-year CSM rates for RP vs EBRT were 2.4 vs 4.7%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% CI 0.19-0.73, p = 0.004) favoring RP. However, after propensity score matching, the hazard ratio of 0.54 was no longer statistically significant (95% CI 0.21-1.39, p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: Without the use of strictest adjustment for population differences, NCCN high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients appear to benefit more of RP than EBRT. However, after strictest adjustment for baseline patient and tumor characteristics between RP and EBRT cohorts, the apparent CSM benefit of RP is no longer statistically significant. In consequence, in Hispanic/Latino NCCN high-risk patients, either treatment modality results in similar CSM outcome.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22011502
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220506125955.0
007      
ta
008      
220425s2022 ne f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1007/s11255-021-03055-7 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34783982
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a ne
100    1_
$a Hoeh, Benedikt $u Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. benedikt.hoeh@kgu.de $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada. benedikt.hoeh@kgu.de
245    10
$a Cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy vs external beam radiotherapy in high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients / $c B. Hoeh, JL. Hohenhorst, R. Flammia, B. Horlemann, G. Sorce, F. Chierigo, Z. Tian, F. Saad, M. Graefen, M. Gallucci, A. Briganti, C. Terrone, SF. Shariat, LA. Kluth, A. Becker, FKH. Chun, PI. Karakiewicz
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates in Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients according to treatment type, radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 2290 NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) high-risk (HR) Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients. Of those, 893 (39.0%) were treated with RP vs 1397 (61.0%) with EBRT. First, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models tested for CSM differences after adjustment for other cause mortality (OCM). Second, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models were refitted after 1:1 propensity score matching (according to age, PSA, biopsy Gleason score, cT-stage, cN-stage). RESULTS: In NCCN HR patients, 5-year CSM rates for RP vs EBRT were 2.4 vs 4.7%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% CI 0.19-0.73, p = 0.004) favoring RP. However, after propensity score matching, the hazard ratio of 0.54 was no longer statistically significant (95% CI 0.21-1.39, p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: Without the use of strictest adjustment for population differences, NCCN high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients appear to benefit more of RP than EBRT. However, after strictest adjustment for baseline patient and tumor characteristics between RP and EBRT cohorts, the apparent CSM benefit of RP is no longer statistically significant. In consequence, in Hispanic/Latino NCCN high-risk patients, either treatment modality results in similar CSM outcome.
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a Hispánci a Latinoameričané $7 D006630
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a prostatektomie $7 D011468
650    _2
$a nádory prostaty $x mortalita $x radioterapie $x terapie $7 D011471
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    _2
$a hodnocení rizik $7 D018570
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Hohenhorst, Jan L $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada $u Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Flammia, Rocco $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada $u Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza Rome University, Rome, Italy
700    1_
$a Horlemann, Benedikt $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada
700    1_
$a Sorce, Gabriele $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada $u Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
700    1_
$a Chierigo, Francesco $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada $u Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
700    1_
$a Tian, Zhe $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada
700    1_
$a Saad, Fred $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada
700    1_
$a Graefen, Markus $u Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Gallucci, Michele $u Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza Rome University, Rome, Italy
700    1_
$a Briganti, Alberto $u Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
700    1_
$a Terrone, Carlo $u Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA $u Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA $u Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia $u Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
700    1_
$a Kluth, Luis A $u Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
700    1_
$a Becker, Andreas $u Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
700    1_
$a Chun, Felix K H $u Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
700    1_
$a Karakiewicz, Pierre I $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada
773    0_
$w MED00002396 $t International urology and nephrology $x 1573-2584 $g Roč. 54, č. 1 (2022), s. 81-87
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34783982 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220425 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220506125948 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1789219 $s 1162700
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 54 $c 1 $d 81-87 $e 20211116 $i 1573-2584 $m International urology and nephrology $n Int Urol Nephrol $x MED00002396
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220425

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace