Refine
Document Type
- Article (19)
Language
- English (19)
Has Fulltext
- yes (19)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (19)
Keywords
- prostate cancer (6)
- radical prostatectomy (5)
- metastatic prostate cancer (3)
- Radical prostatectomy (2)
- chemotherapy (2)
- radical prostatecomy (2)
- survival (2)
- upgrading (2)
- ASAP (1)
- CRPC (1)
Institute
- Medizin (19)
Background: Since January 2018 performance of urethroplasties is done on regular basis at the University Hospital Frankfurt (UKF). We aimed to implement and transfer an institutional standardized perioperative algorithm for urethral surgery (established at the University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf—UKE) using a validated Urethral Stricture Surgery Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (USS-PROM) in patients undergoing urethroplasty at UKF. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent urethroplasty for urethral stricture disease between January 2018 and January 2020 at UKF. All patients were offered to revisit for clinical follow-up (FU) and completion of USS-PROM. Primary end point was stricture recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints were functional outcomes, quality of life (QoL), and patient satisfaction. Results: In total, 50 patients underwent urethroplasty and 74 and 24% had a history of previous urethrotomy or urethroplasty, respectively. A buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty was performed in 86% (n = 43). After patient's exclusion due to lost of FU, FU <3 months, and/or a pending second stage procedure, 40 patients were eligible for final analysis. At median FU of 10 months (interquartile-range 5.0–18.0), RFS was 83%. After successful voiding trial, the postoperative median Qmax significantly improved (24.0 vs. 7.0 mL/s; p < 0.01). Conversely, median residual urine decreased significantly (78 vs. 10 mL; p < 0.01). Overall, 95% of patients stated that QoL improved and 90% were satisfied by the surgical outcome. Conclusions: We demonstrated a successful implementation and transfer of an institutional standardized perioperative algorithm for urethral surgery from one location (UKE) to another (UKF). In our short-term FU, urethroplasty showed excellent RFS, low complication rates, good functional results, improvement of QoL and high patient satisfaction. PROMs allow an objective comparison between different centers.
Introduction: Over the last decade, multiple clinical trials demonstrated improved survival after chemotherapy for metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). However, real-world data validating this effect within large-scale epidemiological data sets are scarce. We addressed this void. Materials and Methods: Men with de novo mPCa were identified and systemic chemotherapy status was ascertained within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004–2016). Patients were divided between historical (2004–2013) versus contemporary (2014–2016). Chemotherapy rates were plotted over time. Kaplan–Meier plots and Cox regression models with additional multivariable adjustments addressed overall and cancer-specific mortality. All tests were repeated in propensity-matched analyses. Results: Overall, 19,913 patients had de novo mPCa between 2004 and 2016. Of those, 1838 patients received chemotherapy. Of 1838 chemotherapy-exposed patients, 903 were historical, whereas 905 were contemporary. Chemotherapy rates increased from 5% to 25% over time. Median overall survival was not reached in contemporary patients versus was 24 months in historical patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.55, p < 0.001). After propensity score matching and additional multivariable adjustment (age, prostate-specific antigen, GGG, cT-stage, cN-stage, cM-stage, and local treatment) a HR of 0.55 (p < 0.001) was recorded. Analyses were repeated for cancer-specific mortality after adjustment for other cause mortality in competing risks regression models and recorded virtually the same findings before and after propensity score matching (HR: 0.55, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In mPCa patients, chemotherapy rates increased over time. A concomitant increase in survival was also recorded.
Purpose: To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates in Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients according to treatment type, radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).
Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010–2016), we identified 2290 NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) high-risk (HR) Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients. Of those, 893 (39.0%) were treated with RP vs 1397 (61.0%) with EBRT. First, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models tested for CSM differences after adjustment for other cause mortality (OCM). Second, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models were refitted after 1:1 propensity score matching (according to age, PSA, biopsy Gleason score, cT-stage, cN-stage).
Results: In NCCN HR patients, 5-year CSM rates for RP vs EBRT were 2.4 vs 4.7%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% CI 0.19–0.73, p = 0.004) favoring RP. However, after propensity score matching, the hazard ratio of 0.54 was no longer statistically significant (95% CI 0.21–1.39, p = 0.2).
Conclusion: Without the use of strictest adjustment for population differences, NCCN high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients appear to benefit more of RP than EBRT. However, after strictest adjustment for baseline patient and tumor characteristics between RP and EBRT cohorts, the apparent CSM benefit of RP is no longer statistically significant. In consequence, in Hispanic/Latino NCCN high-risk patients, either treatment modality results in similar CSM outcome.
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: No North-American study tested the survival benefit of chemotherapy in de novo metastatic prostate cancer according to race/ethnicity. We addressed this void.
Methods: We identified de novo metastatic prostate cancer patients within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2014–2015). Separate and specific Kaplan–Meier plots and Cox regression models tested for overall survival differences between chemotherapy-exposed versus chemotherapy-naïve patients in four race/ethnicity groups: Caucasian versus African-American versus Hispanic/Latino vs Asian. Race/ethnicity specific propensity score matching was applied. Here, additional landmark analysis was performed.
Results: Of 4232 de novo metastatic prostate cancer patients, 2690 (63.3%) were Caucasian versus 783 (18.5%) African-American versus 504 (11.8%) Hispanic/Latino versus 257 (6.1%) Asian. Chemotherapy rates were: 21.3% versus 20.8% versus 21.0% versus 20.2% for Caucasians versus African-Americans versus Hispanic/Latinos versus Asians, respectively. At 30 months of follow-up, overall survival rates between chemotherapy-exposed versus chemotherapy-naïve patients were 61.5 versus 53.2% (multivariable hazard ratio [mHR]: 0.76, 95 confidence interval [CI]: 0.63–0.92, p = 0.004) in Caucasians, 55.2 versus 51.6% (mHR: 0.76, 95 CI: 0.54–1.07, p = 0.11) in African-Americans, 62.8 versus 57.0% (mHR: 1.11, 95 CI: 0.73–1.71, p = 0.61) in Hispanic/Latinos and 77.7 versus 65.0% (mHR: 0.31, 95 CI: 0.11–0.89, p = 0.03) in Asians. Virtually the same findings were recorded after propensity score matching within each race/ethnicity group.
Conclusions: Caucasian and Asian de novo metastatic prostate cancer patients exhibit the greatest overall survival benefit from chemotherapy exposure. Conversely, no overall survival benefit from chemotherapy exposure could be identified in either African-Americans or Hispanic/Latinos. Further studies are clearly needed to address these race/ethnicity specific disparities.
Objective: To investigate temporal trends in prostate cancer (PCa) radical prostatectomy (RP) candidates.
Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent RP for PCa between January 2014 and December 2019 were identified form our institutional database. Trend analysis and logistic regression models assessed RP trends after stratification of PCa patients according to D'Amico classification and Gleason score. Patients with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation or radiotherapy prior to RP were excluded from the analysis.
Results: Overall, 528 PCa patients that underwent RP were identified. Temporal trend analysis revealed a significant decrease in low-risk PCa patients from 17 to 9% (EAPC: −14.6%, p < 0.05) and GS6 PCa patients from 30 to 14% (EAPC: −17.6%, p < 0.01). This remained significant even after multivariable adjustment [low-risk PCa: (OR): 0.85, p < 0.05 and GS6 PCa: (OR): 0.79, p < 0.001]. Furthermore, a trend toward a higher proportion of intermediate-risk PCa undergoing RP was recorded.
Conclusion: Our results confirm that inverse stage migration represents an ongoing phenomenon in a contemporary RP cohort in a European tertiary care PCa center. Our results demonstrate a significant decrease in the proportion of low-risk and GS6 PCa undergoing RP and a trend toward a higher proportion of intermediate-risk PCa patients undergoing RP. This indicates a more precise patient selection when it comes to selecting suitable candidates for definite surgical treatment with RP.
Objective: This study aims to evaluate catheter management in acute epididymitis (AE) patients requiring inpatient treatment and risk factors predicting severity of disease.
Material and Methods: Patients with diagnosed AE and inpatient treatment between 2004 and 2019 at the University Hospital Frankfurt were analyzed. A risk score, rating severity of AE, including residual urine > 100 ml, fever > 38.0°C, C-reactive protein (CRP) > 5 mg/dl, and white blood count (WBC) > 10/nl was introduced.
Results: Of 334 patients, 107 (32%) received a catheter (transurethral (TC): n = 53, 16%, suprapubic (SPC): n = 54, 16%). Catheter patients were older, exhibited more comorbidities, and had higher CRP and WBC compared with the non-catheter group (NC). Median length of stay (LOS) was longer in the catheter group (7 vs. 6 days, p < 0.001), whereas necessity of abscess surgery and recurrent epididymitis did not differ. No differences in those parameters were recorded between TC and SPC. According to our established risk score, 147 (44%) patients exhibited 0–1 (low-risk) and 187 (56%) 2–4 risk factors (high-risk). In the high-risk group, patients received a catheter significantly more often than with low-risk (TC: 22 vs. 9%; SPC: 19 vs. 12%, both p ≤ 0.01). Catheter or high-risk patients exhibited positive urine cultures more frequently than NC or low-risk patients. LOS was comparable between high-risk patients with catheter and low-risk NC patients.
Conclusion: Patients with AE who received a catheter at admission were older, multimorbid, and exhibited more severe symptoms of disease compared with the NC patients. A protective effect of catheters might be attributable to patients with adverse risk constellations or high burden of comorbidities. The introduced risk score indicates a possibility for risk stratification.
Background: To compare severe infectious complication rates after transrectal prostate biopsies between cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones for antibiotic monoprophylaxis.
Material and Methods: In the multi-institutional cohort, between November 2014 and July 2020 patients received either cefotaxime (single dose intravenously), cefpodoxime (multiple doses orally) or fluoroquinolones (multiple-doses orally or single dose intravenously) for transrectal prostate biopsy prophylaxis. Data were prospectively acquired and retrospectively analyzed. Severe infectious complications were evaluated within 30 days after biopsy. Logistic regression models predicted biopsy-related infectious complications according to antibiotic prophylaxis, application type and patient- and procedure-related risk factors.
Results: Of 793 patients, 132 (16.6%) received a single dose of intravenous cefotaxime and were compared to 119 (15%) who received multiple doses of oral cefpodoxime and 542 (68.3%) who received fluoroquinolones as monoprophylaxis. The overall incidence of severe infectious complications was 1.0% (n=8). No significant differences were observed between the three compared groups (0.8% vs. 0.8% vs. 1.1%, p=0.9). The overall rate of urosepsis was 0.3% and did not significantly differ between the three compared groups as well.
Conclusion: Monoprophylaxis with third generation cephalosporins was efficient in preventing severe infectious complications after prostate biopsy. Single intravenous dose of cefotaxime and multiday regimen of oral cefpodoxime showed a low incidence of infectious complications <1%. No differences were observed in comparison to fluoroquinolones.
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.
Background: To test the value of immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining in prostate biopsies for changes in biopsy results and its impact on treatment decision-making. Methods: Between January 2017–June 2020, all patients undergoing prostate biopsies were identified and evaluated regarding additional IHC staining for diagnostic purpose. Final pathologic results after radical prostatectomy (RP) were analyzed regarding the effect of IHC at biopsy. Results: Of 606 biopsies, 350 (58.7%) received additional IHC staining. Of those, prostate cancer (PCa) was found in 208 patients (59.4%); while in 142 patients (40.6%), PCa could be ruled out through IHC. IHC patients harbored significantly more often Gleason 6 in biopsy (p < 0.01) and less suspicious baseline characteristics than patients without IHC. Of 185 patients with positive IHC and PCa detection, IHC led to a change in biopsy results in 81 (43.8%) patients. Of these patients with changes in biopsy results due to IHC, 42 (51.9%) underwent RP with 59.5% harboring ≥pT3 and/or Gleason 7–10. Conclusions: Patients with IHC stains had less suspicious characteristics than patients without IHC. Moreover, in patients with positive IHC and PCa detection, a change in biopsy results was observed in >40%. Patients with changes in biopsy results partly underwent RP, in which 60% harbored significant PCa.
