Survival after Radical Prostatectomy versus Radiation Therapy in High-Risk and Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články
- Klíčová slova
- prostatectomy, prostatic neoplasms, radiotherapy, risk,
- MeSH
- analýza přežití MeSH
- brachyterapie statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- hodnocení rizik statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- kalikreiny krev MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nádory prostaty krev diagnóza mortalita terapie MeSH
- program SEER MeSH
- prostata patologie účinky záření chirurgie MeSH
- prostatektomie statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- prostatický specifický antigen krev MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- rizikové faktory MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- staging nádorů MeSH
- stupeň nádoru MeSH
- tendenční skóre MeSH
- věkové faktory MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
- Názvy látek
- kalikreiny MeSH
- KLK3 protein, human MeSH Prohlížeč
- prostatický specifický antigen MeSH
PURPOSE: Our goal was to compare cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network© (NCCN©) high risk (HR) patients, as well as in Johns Hopkins University (JH) HR and very high risk (VHR) subgroups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 24,407 NCCN HR patients, of whom 10,300 (42%) vs 14,107 (58%) patients qualified for JH HR vs VHR, respectively. Overall, 9,823 (40%) underwent RP vs 14,584 (60%) EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing-risks regression addressed CSM after 1:1 propensity score matching (according to age, prostate specific antigen, clinical T and N stages, and biopsy Gleason score) between RP and EBRT patients. All analyses addressed the combined NCCN HR cohort, as well as in JH HR and JH VHR subgroups. RESULTS: In the combined NCCN HR cohort 5-year CSM rates were 2.3% for RP vs 4.1% for EBRT and yielded a multivariate hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI 0.54-0.86, p <0.001) favoring RP. In VHR patients 5-year CSM rates were 3.5% for RP vs 6.0% for EBRT, yielding a multivariate hazard ratio of 0.58 (95% CI 0.44-0.77, p <0.001) favoring RP. Conversely, in HR patients no significant difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.39-1.25, p=0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that RP holds a CSM advantage over EBRT in the combined NCCN HR cohort, and in its subgroup of JH VHR patients.
Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences University of Genova Genova Italy
Department of Urology 2nd Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic
Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria
Department of Urology University Hospital Frankfurt Frankfurt am Main Germany
Department of Urology University of Texas Southwestern Dallas Texas
Departments of Urology Weill Cornell Medical College New York New York
Martini Klinik Prostate Cancer Center University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf Hamburg Germany
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
Contemporary seminal vesicle invasion rates in NCCN high-risk prostate cancer patients
