Refine
Document Type
- Article (47)
Language
- English (47)
Has Fulltext
- yes (47)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (47)
Keywords
- prostate cancer (10)
- radical prostatectomy (10)
- bladder cancer (4)
- chemotherapy (4)
- external beam radiotherapy (4)
- metastatic prostate cancer (4)
- mortality (4)
- survival (4)
- Adenocarcinoma (3)
- Prostate cancer (3)
Institute
- Medizin (47)
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.
Background: To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk African American patients, as well as Johns Hopkins University (JHU) high-risk and very high-risk patients.
Materials and methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010–2016), we identified 4165 NCCN high-risk patients, of whom 1944 (46.7%) and 2221 (53.3%) patients qualified for JHU high-risk or very high-risk definitions. Of all 4165 patients, 1390 (33.5%) were treated with RP versus 2775 (66.6%) with EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models addressed CSM before and after 1:1 propensity score matching between RP and EBRT NCCN high-risk patients. Subsequently, analyses were repeated separately in JHU high-risk and very high-risk subgroups. Finally, all analyses were repeated after landmark analyses were applied.
Results: In the NCCN high-risk cohort, 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 2.4 versus 5.2%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30–0.84, p = 0.009) favoring RP. In JHU very high-risk patients 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 3.7 versus 8.4%, respectively, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.28–0.95, p = 0.03) favoring RP. Conversely, in JHU high-risk patients, no significant CSM difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (5-year CSM rates: 1.3 vs 1.3%; multivariable hazard ratio: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.16–1.90, p = 0.3). Observations were confirmed in propensity score-matched and landmark analyses adjusted cohorts.
Conclusions: In JHU very high-risk African American patients, RP may hold a CSM advantage over EBRT, but not in JHU high-risk African American patients.
Background: The survival benefit of primary external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has never been formally tested in elderly men who were newly diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). We hypothesized that elderly patients may not benefit of EBRT to the extent as younger newly diagnosed mPCa patients, due to shorter life expectancy.
Methods: We relied on Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (2004–2016) to identify elderly newly diagnosed mPCa patients, aged >75 years. Kaplan–Meier, univariable and multivariable Cox regression models, as well as Competing Risks Regression models tested the effect of EBRT versus no EBRT on overall mortality (OM) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM).
Results: Of 6556 patients, 1105 received EBRT (16.9%). M1b stage was predominant in both EBRT (n = 823; 74.5%) and no EBRT (n = 3908; 71.7%, p = 0.06) groups, followed by M1c (n = 211; 19.1% vs. n = 1042; 19.1%, p = 1) and M1a (n = 29; 2.6% vs. n = 268; 4.9%, p < 0.01). Median overall survival (OS) was 23 months for EBRT and 23 months for no EBRT (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.97, p = 0.6). Similarly, median cancer-specific survival (CSS) was 29 months for EBRT versus 30 months for no EBRT (HR: 1.04, p = 0.4). After additional multivariable adjustment, EBRT was not associated with lower OM or lower CSM in the entire cohort, as well as after stratification for M1b and M1c substages.
Conclusions: In elderly men who were newly diagnosed with mPCa, EBRT does not affect OS or CSS. In consequence, our findings question the added value of local EBRT in elderly newly diagnosed mPCa patients.
Background: Only one previously published study by Nocera et al. addressed the risk of upstaging to ≥pT3 in cT1 clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) by using characteristics of the R.E.N.A.L and PADUA score (age, tumor size, rim location, exophytic rate, polar involvement) developing an accurate nomogram. However, this nomogram has never been externally validated yet.
Material and methods: The study cohort consisted of 288 patients with cT1a-b ccRCC, diagnosed between 2008-2021 at the University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany. Analyses addressed clinical, tumor and radiographic characteristics. The external validation of the nomogram relied on accuracy calculations derived from the area under the curve of the receiver operator characteristic analysis.
Results: Overall, 11.8% (n=34) patients harbored ≥pT3 ccRCC. Median radiographic tumor size (3.6 vs. 5.3cm), R.E.N.A.L. (8 vs. 9 points) and PADUA score (9 vs. 11 points), as well as proportions of renal sinus involvement (82.4% vs. 51.6%), renal hilus involvement (44.1 vs. 13.0%), and medial rim location significantly differed between the pT1-2 and ≥pT3 group (all p ≤ 0.01). In subgroup analyses of small renal mass ccRCC patients (<4cm, cT1a), only 3.8% (n=6) patients had ≥pT3 pathology. Upstaged patients were significantly older and more frequently had endophytic tumor than pT1-2 counterparts (p<0.05). The external validation of the Nocera nomogram showed a good accuracy of 76.6%. Using the suggested cut-off of 21%, 26.5% of patients exhibited ≥pT3 ccRCC. Conversely, within patients below cut-off, 5.9% patients exhibited ≥pT3 ccRCC.
Conclusion: We reported the first external validation of the nomogram addressing the risk of ≥pT3 in cT1 ccRCC patients, demonstrating a good accuracy, with a low false-negative rate. Therefore, the nomogram can accurately be used for patients’ counselling and treatment decision making.
Background: To test for differences in complication rates, in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS) and total hospital costs (THCs) in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) prior to radical cystectomy (RC). Methods: Within the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2016–2019), we identified RC-treated, non-metastatic, lymph-node negative bladder cancer patients, stratified by NAC status. Trend analyses, multivariable logistic, multivariable Poisson and multivariable linear regression models were used. Results: We identified 4347 RC-treated bladder cancer patients. Of those, 805 (19%) received NAC prior to RC. Overall, complications rates did not differ (65 vs. 66%; p = 0.7). However, NAC patients harbored lower rates of surgical site (6 vs. 9%), cardiac (13 vs. 19%) and genitourinary (5.5 vs. 9.7%) complications. In-hospital mortality (<1.7 vs. 1.8%) and LOS (6 vs. 7 days) was lower in NAC patients (all p < 0.05). Moreover, NAC was an independent predictor of shorter LOS in multivariable Poisson regression models (Risk ratio: 0.86; p < 0.001) and an independent predictor for higher THCs in multivariable linear regression models (Odds ratio: 1474$; p = 0.02). Conclusion: NAC was not associated with higher complication rates and in-hospital mortality. Contrary, NAC was associated with shorter LOS, yet moderately higher THCs. The current analysis suggests no detriment from NAC in the context of RC.