Migration in last decade to high-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy

被引:2
作者
Patard, P. -M. [1 ]
Roumiguie, M. [1 ]
Prudhomme, T. [1 ]
Doumerc, N. [1 ]
Thoulouzan, M. [1 ]
Game, X. [1 ]
de la Taille, A. [2 ]
Rischmann, P. [1 ]
Soulie, M. [1 ]
Salomon, L. [2 ]
Beauval, J. -B. [1 ]
机构
[1] Paul Sabatier Univ, CHU Rangueil, Dept Urol Androl & Renal Transplantat, 1 Ave J Poulhes, F-31059 Toulouse, France
[2] Henri Mondor Hosp, AP HP, Dept Urol, 51 Ave Marechal de Lattre de Tassigny, F-94010 Creteil, France
来源
PROGRES EN UROLOGIE | 2019年 / 29卷 / 01期
关键词
Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Stage migration; PATHOLOGICALLY FAVORABLE DISEASE; SURGICAL-MANAGEMENT; STAGE MIGRATION; TRENDS; MEN; IDENTIFICATION; ULTRASOUND; EVOLUTION; DIAGNOSIS;
D O I
10.1016/j.purol.2018.09.008
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. - There is controversy around prostate cancer (PCa) screening through the use of PSA, due to the risk of overtreatment. The current trend observed in various European and American studies is a decrease in the number of radical prostatectomy (RP) in low-risk PCa and an increase for intermediate or locally advanced diseases. The objective of this study was to observe the migration of the pathological stages from radical prostatectomy (RP) over 10 years in France through 2 French centers. Methods. - It was a multicentric retrospective study, where all the RP realized in 2 French tertiary centers, in a laparoscopic or retropubic approach for each of the years 2005, 2010 and 2015 were included. Preoperative data (age, PSA, clinical stage, number of positive biopsies, Gleason biopsy score) and postoperative data (pTNM, pathological Gleason score (pGS)) were analyzed and compared. Results. - In all, 1282 RP were realized (503 in 2005, 403 in 2010, 376 in 2015). Respectively between 2005, 2010, 2015 the average number of positive biopsy increased significantly from 2.30 vs. 2.88 vs. 5.3 (P=0.0001). The distribution of D'Amico's risk evolves with time: low-risk: 49.9 vs. 44.4 vs. 15.7% (P=0.0001); intermediate risk: 40.95 vs. 43.92 vs. 64.1% (P=0.0001) and high-risk: 9.15 vs. 11.66 vs. 20.2% (P=0.0001) between 2005, 2010 and 2015 respectively. pGS evolved to higher score with SG < 7: 22.8 vs. 29.9 vs. 7.1% et SG >= 7: 77.2 vs. 70.1 vs. 92.9% (P=0.001). Also, pTNM increased to non-organ-confined disease: pT2: 66.9 vs. 51.9 vs. 48.7%; pT3: 33.1 vs. 48.1 vs. 51.3% (P=0.0001). Conclusion. - This study showed a change in the management of PCa since new recommendations from medical authorities about PSA screening and evolving of conservative treatment. Number of RP increase for higher risk PCa. This change corresponds to better patient selection for RP: decrease for low-risk and increase for high-risk organ-confined disease. (C) 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:29 / 35
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Radical prostatectomy for locally advanced and high-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review of the literature
    Delporte, G.
    Henon, F.
    Ploussard, G.
    Briganti, A.
    Rizk, J.
    Rozet, F.
    Touijer, K.
    Ouzzane, A.
    PROGRES EN UROLOGIE, 2018, 28 (16): : 875 - 889
  • [42] Radiotherapy for high-risk patients after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: Immediate postoperative or salvage?
    Pasquier, D.
    Kouto, H.
    Ballereau, C.
    PROGRES EN UROLOGIE, 2009, 19 (07): : 447 - 456
  • [43] Adjuvant chemotherapy and/or hormone therapy after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer.
    Paule, B
    de la Taille, A
    PROGRES EN UROLOGIE, 2005, 15 (02): : 208 - 212
  • [44] Is tumour volume an independent predictor of outcome after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer?
    Raison, Nicholas
    Servian, Pol
    Patel, Amit
    Santhirasekaram, Ainkaran
    Smith, Andrew
    Yeung, Maidie
    Lloyd, Josephine
    Mannion, Ethna
    Rockall, Andrea
    Ahmed, Hashim
    Winkler, Mathias
    PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2023, 26 (02) : 282 - 286
  • [45] Oncological and functional results after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer patients
    Sanchez-Nunez, Juan E.
    Gonzalez-Cuenca, Eduardo
    Fernandez-Noyola, Gerardo
    Gonzalez-Bonilla, Eduardo A.
    Doria-Lozano, Mario
    Rosas-Nava, Jesus E.
    Corona-Montes, Victor E.
    CIRUGIA Y CIRUJANOS, 2022, 90 : 1 - 7
  • [46] Radical prostatectomy as radical cure of prostate cancer in a high-risk group: A single-institution experience
    Furubayashi, Nobuki
    Nakamura, Motonobu
    Hishikawa, Ken
    Fukuda, Atsushi
    Matsumoto, Takashi
    Nishiyama, Kenichi
    Yamanaka, Takeharu
    Hasegawa, Yoshihiro
    MOLECULAR AND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2013, 1 (02) : 337 - 342
  • [47] Evolution of the clinical presentation of men undergoing radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer
    Pierorazio, Phillip M.
    Ross, Ashley E.
    Han, Misop
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    Partin, Alan W.
    Schaeffer, Edward M.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2012, 109 (07) : 988 - 993
  • [48] Predicting pathological outcomes in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: a preoperative nomogram
    Abdollah, Firas
    Klett, Dane E.
    Sood, Akshay
    Sammon, Jesse D.
    Pucheril, Daniel
    Dalela, Deepansh
    Diaz, Mireya
    Peabody, James O.
    Quoc-Dien Trinh
    Menon, Mani
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2015, 116 (05) : 703 - 712
  • [49] Long-term oncological results of treatment for high-risk prostate cancer using radical prostatectomy in a cancer hospital
    Rubio-Briones, J.
    Ramirez-Backhaus, M.
    Gomez-Ferrer, A.
    Mir, C.
    Dominguez-Escrig, J.
    Collado, A.
    Iborra, I.
    Casanova, J.
    Solsona, E.
    Mascaros, J. M.
    Calatrava, A.
    ACTAS UROLOGICAS ESPANOLAS, 2018, 42 (08): : 507 - 515
  • [50] Long-Term Survival After Radical Prostatectomy Versus External-Beam Radiotherapy for Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer
    Boorjian, Stephen A.
    Karnes, R. Jeffrey
    Viterbo, Rosalia
    Rangel, Laureano J.
    Bergstralh, Eric J.
    Horwitz, Eric M.
    Blute, Michael L.
    Buyyounouski, Mark K.
    CANCER, 2011, 117 (13) : 2883 - 2891