Immediate Versus Delayed Radical Prostatectomy: Updated Outcomes Following Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer

被引:44
|
作者
Filippou, Pauline [1 ]
Welty, Christopher J. [1 ]
Cowan, Janet E. [1 ]
Perez, Nannette [1 ]
Shinohara, Katsuto [1 ]
Carroll, Peter R. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Urol, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehens Canc Ctr, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
关键词
Active surveillance; Outcomes; Pathology; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; LOW-RISK; MEN; STRAIGHTFORWARD; RECURRENCE; COHORT; TRENDS; SCORE;
D O I
10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.011
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
Background: Biopsy progression on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) often reflects failure of the initial biopsy to detect cancer present at enrollment. The risks for delayed treatment among men who progress on AS are not well defined. Objective: To report outcomes for men who underwent surgery after AS compared to men who underwent immediate surgery and the influence of selection bias on this outcome. Design, setting, and participants: AS-eligible (ASE) men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) after a median of 20 mo of AS were compared to ASE men who underwent RP within 6 mo of diagnosis. A subset of men on AS who underwent RP after upgrade to Gleason 3 + 4 was compared to matched controls with similar pretreatment biopsy features who underwent immediate RP. Outcome measurement and statistical analysis: Rates of adverse pathology (upstaging, positive surgical margin, or Gleason upgrading) were examined. Logistic regression was used to determine associations between treatment subgroup and adverse pathology. Results and limitations: Of 157 ASE men who underwent delayed RP after AS, 54 were upgraded to Gleason 3 + 4 before surgery. ASE men who underwent immediate RP had lower probability of adverse pathology than ASE men who underwent delayed RP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.55). The rate of adverse pathology did not differ between immediate and delayed RP patients matched for pretreatment characteristics (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.27-2.28). The observational design of this study is its main limitation. Conclusions: When compared to men with similar pretreatment biopsy features, those who underwent delayed RP were not at higher risk of adverse pathology. Patient summary: The oncologic safety of delayed treatment when indicated for men enrolled in active surveillance for prostate cancer is important. We found that men who underwent delayed surgery had similar outcomes to men who underwent immediate prostatectomy. (C) 2015 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:458 / 463
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] A comprehensive analysis of cost of an active surveillance cohort compared to radical prostatectomy as primary treatment for prostate cancer
    Carmen Pozo
    Virginia Hernández
    Carlos Capitán
    Enrique de la Peña
    Guillermo Fernández-Conejo
    María del Mar Martínez
    Silvia del Riego
    Elia Pérez-Fernández
    Carlos Llorente
    World Journal of Urology, 2019, 37 : 1297 - 1303
  • [42] Impact of Prostate Weight on Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes
    Tal, Raanan
    Konichezky, Myriam
    Baniel, Jack
    ISRAEL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2009, 11 (06): : 354 - 358
  • [43] Subtyping the Risk of Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer for Active Surveillance Based on Adverse Pathology at Radical Prostatectomy
    Patel, Hiten D.
    Gupta, Mohit
    Tosoian, Jeffrey J.
    Carter, H. Ballentine
    Partin, Alan W.
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 200 (05) : 1068 - 1074
  • [44] Active surveillance versus radical treatment for favorable-risk localized prostate cancer
    Klotz L.
    Current Treatment Options in Oncology, 2006, 7 (5) : 355 - 362
  • [45] Pathological Outcome in Men with Prostate Cancer Suitable for Active Surveillance After Radical Prostatectomy
    Tan, Grace
    Ho, Henry
    Huang, Hong Hong
    Cheng, Christopher Wai Sam
    Lau, Weber Kam On
    PROCEEDINGS OF SINGAPORE HEALTHCARE, 2012, 21 (02) : 102 - 108
  • [46] Patient-reported Outcome Measures and Experience Measures After Active Surveillance Versus Radiation Therapy Versus Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Prospective Comparative Studies
    Alberti, Andrea
    Nicoletti, Rossella
    Castellani, Daniele
    Yuan, Yuhong
    Maggi, Martina
    Dibilio, Edoardo
    Resta, Giulio Raffaele
    Makrides, Pantelis
    Sessa, Francesco
    Sebastianelli, Arcangelo
    Serni, Sergio
    Gacci, Mauro
    De Nunzio, Cosimo
    Teoh, Jeremy Y. C.
    Campi, Riccardo
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2024, 7 (06): : 1255 - 1266
  • [47] Lifetime Health and Economic Outcomes of Active Surveillance, Radical Prostatectomy, and Radiotherapy for Favorable-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer
    Degeling, Koen
    Corcoran, Niall M.
    Pereira-Salgado, Amanda
    Hamid, Anis A.
    Siva, Shankar
    IJzerman, Maarten J.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2021, 24 (12) : 1737 - 1745
  • [48] Refined Analysis of Prostate-specific Antigen Kinetics to Predict Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Outcomes
    Cooperberg, Matthew R.
    Brooks, James D.
    Faino, Anna, V
    Newcomb, Lisa F.
    Kearns, James T.
    Carroll, Peter R.
    Dash, Atreya
    Etzioni, Ruth
    Fabrizio, Michael D.
    Gleave, Martin E.
    Morgan, Todd M.
    Nelson, Peter S.
    Thompson, Ian M.
    Wagner, Andrew A.
    Lin, Daniel W.
    Zheng, Yingye
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2018, 74 (02) : 211 - 217
  • [49] Functional outcomes after primary vs delayed robot-assisted radical prostatectomy following active surveillance
    Corsini, Christian
    Scilipoti, Pietro
    Orrason, Andri Wilberg
    Gedeborg, Rolf
    Westerberg, Marcus
    Stattin, Par
    JNCI CANCER SPECTRUM, 2025, 9 (02)
  • [50] Radical prostatectomy neutralizes obesity-driven risk of prostate cancer progression
    Schiffmann, Jonas
    Salomon, Georg
    Tilki, Derya
    Budaeus, Lars
    Karakiewicz, Pierre I.
    Leyh-Bannurah, Sami-Ramzi
    Pompe, Raisa S.
    Haese, Alexander
    Heinzer, Hans
    Huland, Hartwig
    Graefen, Markus
    Tennstedt, Pierre
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2017, 35 (05) : 243 - 249