Refine
Document Type
- Article (14)
Language
- English (14)
Has Fulltext
- yes (14)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (14)
Keywords
- Adenocarcinoma (3)
- Squamous cell carcinoma (3)
- Variant histology (3)
- mortality (3)
- primary prostate cancer (3)
- CSM (2)
- Cancer-specific mortality (2)
- Melanoma (2)
- Penile cancer (2)
- SCC (2)
Institute
- Medizin (14)
Background: To test the effect of variant histology relative to urothelial histology on stage at presentation, cancer specific mortality (CSM) and overall mortality (OM) after chemotherapy use, in urethral cancer.
Materials and Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (2004–2016) database, we identified 1,907 primary variant histology urethral cancer patients. Kaplan-Meier plots, Cox regression analyses, cumulative incidence-plots, multivariable competing-risks regression models and propensity score matching for patient and tumor characteristics were used.
Results:Of 1,907 eligible urethral cancer patients, urothelial histology affected 1,009 (52.9%) vs. squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) 455 (23.6%) vs. adenocarcinoma 278 (14.6%) vs. other histology 165 (8.7%) patients. Urothelial histological patients exhibited lower stages at presentation than SCC, adenocarcinoma or other histology patients. In urothelial histology patients, five-year CSM was 23.5% vs. 34.4% in SCC (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.57) vs. 40.7% in adenocarcinoma (HR 1.69) vs. 43.4% in other histology (HR 1.99, p<0.001). After matching in multivariate competing-risks regression models, variant histology exhibited 1.35-fold higher CSM than urothelial. Finally, in metastatic urethral cancer, lower OM was recorded after chemotherapy in general, including metastatic adenocarcinoma and other variant histology subtypes, except metastatic SCC.
Conclusion: Adenocarcinoma, SCC and other histology subtypes affect fewer patients than urothelial histology. Presence of variant histology results in higher CSM. Finally, chemotherapy for metastatic urethral cancer improves survival in adenocarcinoma and other variant histology subtypes, but not in SCC.
Objective: Relative to urban populations, rural patients may have more limited access to care, which may undermine timely bladder cancer (BCa) diagnosis and even survival.
Methods: We tested the effect of residency status (rural areas [RA < 2500 inhabitants] vs. urban clusters [UC ≥ 2500 inhabitants] vs. urbanized areas [UA, ≥50,000 inhabitants]) on BCa stage at presentation, as well as on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other cause mortality (OCM), according to the US Census Bureau definition. Multivariate competing risks regression (CRR) models were fitted after matching of RA or UC with UA in stage-stratified analyses.
Results: Of 222,330 patients, 3496 (1.6%) resided in RA, 25,462 (11.5%) in UC and 193,372 (87%) in UA. Age, tumor stage, radical cystectomy rates or chemotherapy use were comparable between RA, UC and UA (all p > 0.05). At 10 years, RA was associated with highest OCM followed by UC and UA (30.9% vs. 27.7% vs. 25.6%, p < 0.01). Similarly, CSM was also marginally higher in RA or UC vs. UA (20.0% vs. 20.1% vs. 18.8%, p = 0.01). In stage-stratified, fully matched CRR analyses, increased OCM and CSM only applied to stage T1 BCa patients.
Conclusion: We did not observe meaningful differences in access to treatment or stage distribution, according to residency status. However, RA and to a lesser extent UC residency status, were associated with higher OCM and marginally higher CSM in T1N0M0 patients. This observation should be further validated or refuted in additional epidemiological investigations.
Background: This study aims to test the effect of the 10 most common nonurological primary cancers (skin, rectal, colon, lymphoma, leukemia, pancreas, stomach, esophagus, liver, lung) on overall mortality (OM) after secondary prostate cancer (PCa). Material and Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, patients with 10 most common primary cancers and concomitant secondary PCa (diagnosed 2004–2016) were identified and were matched in 1:4 fashion (age, year at diagnosis, race/ethnicity, treatment type, TNM stage) with primary PCa controls. OM was compared between secondary and primary PCa patients and was stratified according to primary cancer type, as well as according to time interval between primary cancer vs. secondary PCa diagnoses. Results: We identified 24,848 secondary PCa patients (skin, n = 3,871; rectal, n = 798; colon, n = 3,665; lymphoma, n = 2,583; leukemia, n = 1,102; pancreatic, n = 118; stomach, n = 361; esophagus, n = 219; liver, n = 160; lung, n = 1,328) vs. 531,732 primary PCa patients. Secondary PCa characteristics were less favorable than those of primary PCa patients (PSA and grade), and smaller proportions of secondary PCa patients received active treatment. After 1:4 matching, all secondary PCa exhibited worse OM than primary PCa patients. Finally, subgroup analyses showed that the survival disadvantage of secondary PCa patients decreased with longer time interval since primary cancer diagnosis and subsequent secondary PCa. Conclusion: Patients with secondary PCa are diagnosed with less favorable PSA and grade. Even after matching for PCa characteristics, secondary PCa patients still exhibit worse survival. However, the survival disadvantage is attenuated, when secondary PCa diagnosis is made after longer time interval, since primary cancer diagnosis.
Background: To test the effect of urological primary cancers (bladder, kidney, testis, upper tract, penile, urethral) on overall mortality (OM) after secondary prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database, patients with urological primary cancers and concomitant secondary PCa (diagnosed 2004-2016) were identified and were matched in 1:4 fashion with primary PCa controls. OM was compared between secondary and primary PCa patients and stratified according to primary urological cancer type, as well as to time interval between primary urological cancer versus secondary PCa diagnoses. Results: We identified 5,987 patients with primary urological and secondary PCa (bladder, n = 3,287; kidney, n = 2,127; testis, n = 391; upper tract, n = 125; penile, n = 47; urethral, n = 10) versus 531,732 primary PCa patients. Except for small proportions of Gleason grade group and age at diagnosis, PCa characteristics between secondary and primary PCa were comparable. Conversely, proportions of secondary PCa patients which received radical prostatectomy were smaller (29.0 vs. 33.5%), while no local treatment rates were higher (34.2 vs. 26.3%). After 1:4 matching, secondary PCa patients exhibited worse OM than primary PCa patients, except for primary testis cancer. Here, no OM differences were recorded. Finally, subgroup analyses showed that the survival disadvantage of secondary PCa patients decreased with longer time interval since primary cancer diagnosis. Conclusions: After detailed matching for PCa characteristics, secondary PCa patients exhibit worse survival, except for testis cancer patients. The survival disadvantage is attenuated, when secondary PCa diagnosis is made after longer time interval, since primary urological cancer diagnosis.
Background: To test the effect of urological primary cancers (bladder, kidney, testis, upper tract, penile, urethral) on overall mortality (OM) after secondary prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database, patients with urological primary cancers and concomitant secondary PCa (diagnosed 2004-2016) were identified and were matched in 1:4 fashion with primary PCa controls. OM was compared between secondary and primary PCa patients and stratified according to primary urological cancer type, as well as to time interval between primary urological cancer versus secondary PCa diagnoses. Results: We identified 5,987 patients with primary urological and secondary PCa (bladder, n = 3,287; kidney, n = 2,127; testis, n = 391; upper tract, n = 125; penile, n = 47; urethral, n = 10) versus 531,732 primary PCa patients. Except for small proportions of Gleason grade group and age at diagnosis, PCa characteristics between secondary and primary PCa were comparable. Conversely, proportions of secondary PCa patients which received radical prostatectomy were smaller (29.0 vs. 33.5%), while no local treatment rates were higher (34.2 vs. 26.3%). After 1:4 matching, secondary PCa patients exhibited worse OM than primary PCa patients, except for primary testis cancer. Here, no OM differences were recorded. Finally, subgroup analyses showed that the survival disadvantage of secondary PCa patients decreased with longer time interval since primary cancer diagnosis. Conclusions: After detailed matching for PCa characteristics, secondary PCa patients exhibit worse survival, except for testis cancer patients. The survival disadvantage is attenuated, when secondary PCa diagnosis is made after longer time interval, since primary urological cancer diagnosis.
Purpose: To compare Cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in patients with Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) vs. non-SCC penile cancer, since survival outcomes may differ between histological subtypes. Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2004–2016), penile cancer patients of all stages were identified. Temporal trend analyses, cumulative incidence and Kaplan–Meier plots, multivariable Cox regression and Fine and Gray competing-risks regression analyses tested for CSM differences between non-SCC vs. SCC penile cancer patients. Results: Of 4,120 eligible penile cancer patients, 123 (3%) harbored non-SCC vs. 4,027 (97%) SCC. Of all non-SCC patients, 51 (41%) harbored melanomas, 42 (34%) basal cell carcinomas, 10 (8%) adenocarcinomas, eight (6.5%) skin appendage malignancies, six (5%) epithelial cell neoplasms, two (1.5%) neuroendocrine tumors, two (1.5%) lymphomas, two (1.5%) sarcomas. Stage at presentation differed between non-SCC vs. SCC. In temporal trend analyses, non-SCC diagnoses neither decreased nor increased over time (p > 0.05). After stratification according to localized, locally advanced, and metastatic stage, no CSM differences were observed between non-SCC vs. SCC, with 5-year survival rates of 11 vs 11% (p = 0.9) for localized, 33 vs. 37% (p = 0.4) for locally advanced, and 1-year survival rates of 37 vs. 53% (p = 0.9) for metastatic penile cancer, respectively. After propensity score matching for patient and tumor characteristics and additional multivariable adjustment, no CSM differences between non-SCC vs. SCC were observed. Conclusion: Non-SCC penile cancer is rare. Although exceptions exist, on average, non-SCC penile cancer has comparable CSM as SCC penile cancer patients, after stratification for localized, locally invasive, and metastatic disease.
Purpose: To compare Cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in patients with Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) vs. non-SCC penile cancer, since survival outcomes may differ between histological subtypes. Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2004–2016), penile cancer patients of all stages were identified. Temporal trend analyses, cumulative incidence and Kaplan–Meier plots, multivariable Cox regression and Fine and Gray competing-risks regression analyses tested for CSM differences between non-SCC vs. SCC penile cancer patients. Results: Of 4,120 eligible penile cancer patients, 123 (3%) harbored non-SCC vs. 4,027 (97%) SCC. Of all non-SCC patients, 51 (41%) harbored melanomas, 42 (34%) basal cell carcinomas, 10 (8%) adenocarcinomas, eight (6.5%) skin appendage malignancies, six (5%) epithelial cell neoplasms, two (1.5%) neuroendocrine tumors, two (1.5%) lymphomas, two (1.5%) sarcomas. Stage at presentation differed between non-SCC vs. SCC. In temporal trend analyses, non-SCC diagnoses neither decreased nor increased over time (p > 0.05). After stratification according to localized, locally advanced, and metastatic stage, no CSM differences were observed between non-SCC vs. SCC, with 5-year survival rates of 11 vs 11% (p = 0.9) for localized, 33 vs. 37% (p = 0.4) for locally advanced, and 1-year survival rates of 37 vs. 53% (p = 0.9) for metastatic penile cancer, respectively. After propensity score matching for patient and tumor characteristics and additional multivariable adjustment, no CSM differences between non-SCC vs. SCC were observed. Conclusion: Non-SCC penile cancer is rare. Although exceptions exist, on average, non-SCC penile cancer has comparable CSM as SCC penile cancer patients, after stratification for localized, locally invasive, and metastatic disease.
Background: Recently, an increase in the rates of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) was reported. We tested whether the rates of and low, intermediate, high and very high-risk PCa changed over time. We also tested whether the number of prostate biopsy cores contributed to changes rates over time. Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2010–2015), annual rates of low, intermediate, high-risk according to traditional National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and high versus very high-risk PCa according to Johns Hopkins classification were tabulated without and with adjustment for the number of prostate biopsy cores. Results: In 119,574 eligible prostate cancer patients, the rates of NCCN low, intermediate, and high-risk PCa were, respectively, 29.7%, 47.8%, and 22.5%. Of high-risk patients, 39.6% and 60.4% fulfilled high and very high-risk criteria. Without adjustment for number of prostate biopsy cores, the estimated annual percentage changes (EAPC) for low, intermediate, high and very high-risk were respectively −5.5% (32.4%–24.9%, p < .01), +0.5% (47.6%–48.4%, p = .09), +4.1% (8.2%–9.9%, p < .01), and +8.9% (11.8%–16.9%, p < .01), between 2010 and 2015. After adjustment for number of prostate biopsy cores, differences in rates over time disappeared and ranged from 29.8%–29.7% for low risk, 47.9%–47.9% for intermediate risk, 8.9%–9.0% for high-risk, and 13.6%–13.6% for very high-risk PCa (all p > .05). Conclusions: The rates of high and very high-risk PCa are strongly associated with the number of prostate biopsy cores, that in turn may be driven by broader use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Purpose: We assessed contemporary incidence rates and trends of primary urethral cancer.
Methods: We identified urethral cancer patients within Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry (SEER, 2004–2016). Age-standardized incidence rates per 1,000,000 (ASR) were calculated. Log linear regression analyses were used to compute average annual percent change (AAPC).
Results: From 2004 to 2016, 1907 patients with urethral cancer were diagnosed (ASR 1.69; AAPC: -0.98%, p = 0.3). ASR rates were higher in males than in females (2.70 vs. 0.55), respectively and did not change over the time (both p = 0.3). Highest incidence rates were recorded in respectively ≥75 (0.77), 55–74 (0.71) and ≤54 (0.19) years of age categories, in that order. African Americans exhibited highest incidence rate (3.33) followed by Caucasians (1.72), other race groups (1.57) and Hispanics (1.57), in that order. A significant decrease occurred over time in Hispanics, but not in other race groups. In African Americans, male and female sex-stratified incidence rates were higher than in any other race group. Urothelial histological subtype exhibited highest incidence rate (0.92), followed by squamous cell carcinoma (0.41), adenocarcinoma (0.29) and other histologies (0.20). In stage stratified analyses, T1N0M0 stage exhibited highest incidence rate. However, it decreased over time (−3.00%, p = 0.02) in favor of T1-4N1-2M0 stage (+ 2.11%, p = 0.02).
Conclusion: Urethral cancer is rare. Its incidence rates are highest in males, elderly patients, African Americans and in urothelial histological subtype. Most urethral cancer cases are T1N0M0, but over time, the incidence of T1N0M0 decreased in favor of T1-4N1-2M0.
