Socioeconomic and Clinical Factors Influence the Interval Between Positive Prostate Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy

被引:18
|
作者
Pitman, Max [1 ]
Korets, Ruslan [1 ]
Kates, Max [1 ]
Hruby, Gregory W. [1 ]
McKiernan, James M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Columbia Univ Coll Phys & Surg, Dept Urol, New York, NY 10032 USA
关键词
RACIAL-DIFFERENCES; CANCER-PATIENTS; EQUAL-ACCESS; LOW-INCOME; OUTCOMES; MEN; RISK; POPULATION; MARRIAGE; SURVIVAL;
D O I
10.1016/j.urology.2012.01.008
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE To examine socioeconomic and clinical factors that may predict a longer interval between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS The Columbia University Urologic Oncology Database was queried for patients who underwent RP from 1990-2010. Time to surgery (TTS) was defined as the period between the most recent positive prostate biopsy and date of surgery. Clinical factors examined included: age, D'Amico risk group, year of surgery, body mass index, and comorbidities. Socioeconomic factors included race/ethnicity, relationship status, income, and distance to treatment center. The relationship between clinical/socioeconomic factors and TTS was evaluated using univariate and multivariate regression models. RESULTS Two-thousand five-hundred seventy-three patients were included in the analysis. Median TTS was 48 days (IQR 35-70, range 43-1103), and 71% of patients underwent RP within 60 days after the most recent positive biopsy. On multivariate analysis, living further from the medical center was associated with shorter TTS (P = .01), whereas more recent year of surgery (P = .01), comorbid cardiovascular disease (P = .007), African-American (P = .005) or Hispanic race (P = .005), divorced relationship status (P = .01), and lower income (P = .003) were all associated with longer TTS. CONCLUSION Patients often experience widely variable intervals between the diagnosis and treatment of localized prostate cancer. Longer intervals before surgery may point to disparities in access to prostate cancer care, and not increased decision-making time by the patient. UROLOGY 80: 1027-1032, 2012. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:1027 / 1032
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Pathological Patterns Influence Prostate Cancer Gene 3 (PCA3) Score
    De Luca, Stefano
    Passera, Roberto
    Bollito, Enrico
    Milillo, Angela
    Scarpa, Roberto Mario
    Papotti, Mauro
    Coda, Renato
    Randone, Donato Franco
    ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2013, 33 (10) : 4657 - 4662
  • [42] Prediction of surgical margin status and location after radical prostatectomy using positive biopsy sites on 12-core standard prostate biopsy
    Jeong, Hyeon
    Choo, Min Soo
    Cho, Min Chul
    Son, Hwancheol
    Yoo, Sangjun
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2022, 12 (01):
  • [43] Prognostic Significance of the Disparity Between Biopsy and Pathologic Gleason Score After Radical Prostatectomy in Clinical Candidates for Active Surveillance According to the Royal Marsden Criteria
    Jo, Jung Ki
    Hong, Sung Kyu
    Byun, Seok-Soo
    Lee, Sang Eun
    Lee, Sangchul
    Oh, Jong Jin
    CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER, 2016, 14 (04) : E329 - E333
  • [44] The association of atrophy in baseline prostate biopsy and lower prostate cancer grade in radical prostatectomy specimens
    Freitas, D. M. O.
    Andriole, G. L.
    Castro-Santamaria, R.
    Freedland, S. J.
    Moreira, D. M.
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 52 (5-6) : 328 - 332
  • [45] Factors predicting biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy among patients with clinical T3 prostate cancer
    Otsuka, Masafumi
    Kamasako, Tomohiko
    Uemura, Toshihiro
    Takeshita, Nobushige
    Shinozaki, Tetsuo
    Kobayashi, Masayuki
    Komaru, Atsushi
    Fukasawa, Satoshi
    JAPANESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2018, 48 (08) : 760 - 764
  • [46] Clinical-Prostate cancer Variation in management of lymph node positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy within a statewide quality improvement consortium
    Triner, Daniel
    Daignault-Newton, Stephanie
    Singhal, Udit
    Sessine, Michael
    Dess, Robert T.
    Caram, Megan E., V
    Borza, Tudor
    Ginsburg, Kevin B.
    Lane, Brian R.
    Morgan, Todd M.
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2024, 42 (07) : 220e1 - 220e8
  • [47] Clinical role of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer
    Gondo, Tatsuo
    Poon, Bing Ying
    Matsumoto, Kazuhiro
    Bernstein, Melanie
    Sjoberg, Daniel D.
    Eastham, James A.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2015, 115 (01) : 81 - 86
  • [48] Radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: clinical outcomes and factors influencing biochemical recurrence
    Fukuda, Ichiro
    Aoki, Manabu
    Kimura, Takahiro
    Ikeda, Koshi
    IRISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2023, 192 (06) : 2663 - 2671
  • [49] How significant is upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology while discussing less invasive treatment options?
    Suer, Evren
    Gokce, Mehmet Ilker
    Gulpinar, Omer
    Guclu, Adil Gucal
    Haciyev, Perviz
    Gogus, Cagatay
    Turkolmez, Kadir
    Baltaci, Sumer
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 48 (02) : 177 - 182
  • [50] Comparison of positive surgical margin rates in high risk prostate cancer: open versus minimally invasive radical prostatectomy
    Harty, Niall J.
    Kozinn, Spencer I.
    Canes, David
    Sorcini, Andrea
    Moinzadeh, Alireza
    INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL, 2013, 39 (05): : 639 - 646