Refine
Document Type
- Article (21)
Language
- English (21)
Has Fulltext
- yes (21)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (21)
Keywords
- radical prostatectomy (4)
- bladder cancer (3)
- chemotherapy (3)
- metastatic prostate cancer (3)
- mortality (3)
- primary prostate cancer (3)
- Adenocarcinoma (2)
- CSM (2)
- Cancer-specific mortality (2)
- Epidemiology and End Results (2)
Institute
- Medizin (21)
Background and Objectives: To test for differences in perioperative outcomes and total hospital costs (THC) in nonmetastatic bladder cancer patients undergoing open (ORC) versus robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC).
Methods: We relied on the National Inpatient Sample database (2016–2019). Statistics consisted of trend analyses, multivariable logistic, Poisson, and linear regression models.
Results: Of 5280 patients, 1876 (36%) versus 3200 (60%) underwent RARC versus ORC. RARC increased from 32% to 41% (estimated annual percentage change [EAPC]: + 8.6%; p = 0.02). Rates of transfusion (8% vs. 16%), intraoperative (2% vs. 3%), wound (6% vs. 10%), and pulmonary (6% vs. 10%) complications were lower in RARC patients (all p < 0.05). Moreover, median length of stay (LOS) was shorter in RARC (6 vs. 7days; p < 0.001). Conversely, median THC (31,486 vs. 27,162$; p < 0.001) were higher in RARC. Multivariable logistic regression-derived odds ratios addressing transfusion (0.49), intraoperative (0.53), wound (0.68), and pulmonary (0.71) complications favored RARC (all p < 0.01). In multivariable Poisson and linear regression models, RARC was associated with shorter LOS (Rate ratio:0.86; p < 0.001), yet higher THC (Coef.:5,859$; p < 0.001). RARC in-hospital mortality was lower (1% vs. 2%; p = 0.04).
Conclusions: RARC complications, LOS, and mortality appear more favorable than ORC, but result in higher THC. The favorable RARC profile contributes to its increasing popularity throughout the United States.
Non-organ confined stage and upgrading rates in exclusive PSA high-risk prostate cancer patients
(2022)
Background: The pathological stage of prostate cancer with high-risk prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but otherwise favorable and/or intermediate risk characteristics (clinical T-stage, Gleason Grade group at biopsy [B-GGG]) is unknown. We hypothesized that a considerable proportion of such patients will exhibit clinically meaningful GGG upgrading or non-organ confined (NOC) stage at radical prostatectomy (RP).
Materials and methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010–2015) we identified RP-patients with cT1c-stage and B-GGG1, B-GGG2, or B-GGG3 and PSA 20–50 ng/ml. Rates of GGG4 or GGG5 and/or rates of NOC stage (≥ pT3 and/or pN1) were analyzed. Subsequently, separate univariable and multivariable logistic regression models tested for predictors of NOC stage and upgrading at RP.
Results: Of 486 assessable patients, 134 (28%) exhibited B-GGG1, 209 (43%) B-GGG2, and 143 (29%) B-GGG3, respectively. The overall upgrading and NOC rates were 11% and 51% for a combined rate of upgrading and/or NOC stage of 53%. In multivariable logistic regression models predicting upgrading, only B-GGG3 was an independent predictor (odds ratio [OR]: 5.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.21–14.19; p < 0.001). Conversely, 33%–66% (OR: 2.36; 95% CI: 1.42–3.95; p = 0.001) and >66% of positive biopsy cores (OR: 4.85; 95% CI: 2.84–8.42; p < 0.001), as well as B-GGG2 and B-GGG3 were independent predictors for NOC stage (all p ≤ 0.001).
Conclusions: In cT1c-stage patients with high-risk PSA baseline, but low- to intermediate risk B-GGG, the rate of upgrading to GGG4 or GGG5 is low (11%). However, NOC stage is found in the majority (51%) and can be independently predicted with percentage of positive cores at biopsy and B-GGG.
Background: Up- and/or downgrading rates in single intermediate-risk positive biopsy core are unknown.
Methods: We identified single intermediate-risk (Gleason grade group (GGG) 2/GGG3) positive biopsy core prostate cancer patients (≤ cT2c and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL) within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2010–2015). Subsequently, separate uni- and multivariable logistic regression models tested for independent predictors of up- and downgrading.
Results: Of 1,328 assessable patients with single core positive intermediate-risk prostate cancer at biopsy, 972 (73%) harbored GGG2 versus 356 (27%) harbored GGG3. Median PSA (5.5 vs 5.7; p = 0.3), median age (62 vs 63 years; p = 0.07) and cT1-stage (77 vs 75%; p = 0.3) did not differ between GGG2 and GGG3 patients. Of individuals with single GGG2 positive biopsy core, 191 (20%) showed downgrading to GGG1 versus 35 (4%) upgrading to GGG4 or GGG5 at RP. Of individuals with single GGG3 positive biopsy core, 36 (10%) showed downgrading to GGG1 versus 42 (12%) significant upgrading to GGG4 or GGG5 at RP. In multivariable logistic regression models, elevated PSA (10–20 ng/mL) was an independent predictor of upgrading to GGG4/GGG5 in single GGG3 positive biopsy core patients (OR:2.89; 95%-CI: 1.31–6.11; p = 0.007).
Conclusion: In single GGG2 positive biopsy core patients, downgrading was four times more often recorded compared to upgrading. Conversely, in single GGG3 positive biopsy core patients, up- and downgrading rates were comparable and should be expected in one out of ten patients.
Effect of chemotherapy on overall survival in contemporary metastatic prostate cancer patients
(2021)
Introduction: Randomized clinical trials demonstrated improved overall survival in chemotherapy exposed metastatic prostate cancer patients. However, real-world data validating this effect with large scale epidemiological data sets are scarce and might not agree with trials. We tested this hypothesis.
Materials and Methods: We identified de novo metastatic prostate cancer patients within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2014-2015). Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression models tested for overall survival differences between chemotherapy-exposed patients vs chemotherapy-naïve patients. All analyses were repeated in propensity-score matched cohorts. Additionally, landmark analyses were applied to account for potential immortal time bias.
Results: Overall, 4295 de novo metastatic prostate cancer patients were identified. Of those, 905 (21.1%) patients received chemotherapy vs 3390 (78.9%) did not. Median overall survival was not reached at 30 months follow-up. Chemotherapy-exposed patients exhibited significantly better overall survival (61.6 vs 54.3%, multivariable HR:0.82, CI: 0.72-0.96, p=0.01) at 30 months compared to their chemotherapy-naïve counterparts. These findings were confirmed in propensity score matched analyses (multivariable HR: 0.77, CI:0.66-0.90, p<0.001). Results remained unchanged after landmark analyses were applied in propensity score matched population.
Conclusions: In this contemporary real-world population-based cohort, chemotherapy for metastatic prostate cancer patients was associated with better overall survival. However, the magnitude of overall survival benefit was not comparable to phase 3 trials.
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: Number of positive prostate biopsy cores represents a key determinant between high versus very high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We performed a critical appraisal of the association between the number of positive prostate biopsy cores and CSM in high versus very high-risk PCa. Methods: Within Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010–2016), 13,836 high versus 20,359 very high-risk PCa patients were identified. Discrimination according to 11 different positive prostate biopsy core cut-offs (≥2–≥12) were tested in Kaplan–Meier, cumulative incidence, and multivariable Cox and competing risks regression models. Results: Among 11 tested positive prostate biopsy core cut-offs, more than or equal to 8 (high-risk vs. very high-risk: n = 18,986 vs. n = 15,209, median prostate-specific antigen [PSA]: 10.6 vs. 16.8 ng/ml, <.001) yielded optimal discrimination and was closely followed by the established more than or equal to 5 cut-off (high-risk vs. very high-risk: n = 13,836 vs. n = 20,359, median PSA: 16.5 vs. 11.1 ng/ml, p < .001). Stratification according to more than or equal to 8 positive prostate biopsy cores resulted in CSM rates of 4.1 versus 14.2% (delta: 10.1%, multivariable hazard ratio: 2.2, p < .001) and stratification according to more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores with CSM rates of 3.7 versus 11.9% (delta: 8.2%, multivariable hazard ratio: 2.0, p < .001) in respectively high versus very high-risk PCa. Conclusions: The more than or equal to 8 positive prostate biopsy cores cutoff yielded optimal results. It was very closely followed by more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores. In consequence, virtually the same endorsement may be made for either cutoff. However, more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores cutoff, based on its existing wide implementation, might represent the optimal choice.
Objectives: To test the effect of race/ethnicity on cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer patients. Methods: In the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database 2004–2016, we identified intermediate-risk and high-risk white (n = 151 632), Asian (n = 11 189), Hispanic/Latino (n = 20 077) and African American (n = 32 550) localized prostate cancer patients, treated with external beam radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy. Race/ethnicity-stratified cancer-specific mortality analyses relied on competing risks regression, after propensity score matching for patient and cancer characteristics. Results: Compared with white patients, Asian intermediate- and high-risk external beam radiotherapy patients showed lower cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio 0.58 and 0.70, respectively, both P ≤ 0.02). Additionally, Asian high-risk radical prostatectomy patients also showed lower cancer-specific mortality than white patients (hazard ratio 0.72, P = 0.04), but not Asian intermediate-risk radical prostatectomy patients (P = 0.08). Conversely, compared with white patients, African American intermediate-risk radical prostatectomy patients showed higher cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio 1.36, P = 0.01), but not African American high-risk radical prostatectomy or intermediate- and high-risk external beam radiotherapy patients (all P ≥ 0.2). Finally, compared with white people, no cancer-specific mortality differences were recorded for Hispanic/Latino patients after external beam radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy, in both risk levels (P ≥ 0.2). Conclusions: Relative to white patients, an important cancer-specific mortality advantage applies to intermediate-risk and high-risk Asian prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy, and to high-risk Asian patients treated with radical prostatectomy. These observations should be considered in pretreatment risk stratification and decision-making.
Background: The most recent overall survival (OS) and adverse event (AE) data have not been compared for the three guideline-recommended high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) treatment alternatives.
Methods: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis focusing on OS and AE according to the most recent apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide reports. We systematically examined and compared apalutamide vs. enzalutamide vs. darolutamide efficacy and toxicity, relative to ADT according to PRISMA. We relied on PubMed search for most recent reports addressing prospective randomized trials with proven predefined OS benefit, relative to ADT: SPARTAN, PROSPER, and ARAMIS. OS represented the primary outcome and AEs represented secondary outcomes.
Results: Overall, data originated from 4117 observations made within the three trials that were analyzed. Regarding OS benefit relative to ADT, darolutamide ranked first, followed by enzalutamide and apalutamide, in that order. In the subgroup of PSA-doubling time (PSA-DT) ≤ 6 months patients, enzalutamide ranked first, followed by darolutamide and apalutamide in that order. Conversely, in the subgroup of PSA-DT 6–10 months patients, darolutamide ranked first, followed by apalutamide and enzalutamide, in that order. Regarding grade 3+ AEs, darolutamide was most favorable, followed by enzalutamide and apalutamide, in that order.
Conclusion: The current network meta-analysis suggests the highest OS efficacy and lowest grade 3+ toxicity for darolutamide. However, in the PSA-DT ≤ 6 months subgroup, the highest efficacy was recorded for enzalutamide. It is noteworthy that study design, study population, and follow-up duration represent some of the potentially critical differences that distinguish between the three studies and remained statistically unaccounted for using the network meta-analysis methodology. Those differences should be strongly considered in the interpretation of the current and any network meta-analyses.