BJU international · 2020
A risk calculator predicting recurrence in lymph node metastatic penile cancer.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bandini Marco, Spiess Philippe E, Pederzoli Filippo, Marandino Laura, Brouwer Oscar R, Albersen Maarten, Roussel Eduard, de Vries Hielke M, Chipollini Juan, Zhu Yao, Ye Ding-Wei, Ornellas Antonio A, Catanzaro Mario, Hakenberg Oliver W, Heidenreich Axel, Haidl Friederike, Watkin Nick, Ager Michael, Ahmed Mohamed E, Karnes Jeffrey R, Briganti Alberto, Salvioni Roberto, Montorsi Francesco, Azizi Mounsif, Necchi Andrea
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To develop and externally validate a risk calculator for prediction of any cancer recurrence in patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma (pSCC) and inguinal lymph node metastases (ILNM), as to date no validated prognostic tool is available for patients with pSCC and ILNM.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The development cohort included 234 patients from seven referral centres. The external validation cohort included 273 patients from two additional referral centres. Cox regression identified predictors of any recurrence, which were used to develop a risk calculator. The risk-calculator grouped the development and the validation cohorts according to the individual risk of any recurrence at 24 months (24m-R). Adjuvant treatment effects were tested on overall survival (OS) according to the derived tertiles, within the development and validation cohorts.
RESULTS: Positive surgical margins, pN3 , and ILNM ratio were associated with higher recurrence rate. The 2-year OS rates were lower for patients with high (>37%) and intermediate (19-37%) compared to low (<19%) 24m-R risk of recurrence, for both the development (43% and 58% vs 83%, P < 0.001) and validation cohort (44% and 50% vs 85%, P < 0.001). Results were confirmed in the subgroup of patients who did not receive adjuvant treatment (P < 0.001), but not in patients who did receive adjuvant treatments in both the development and validation cohorts (P > 0.1).
CONCLUSION: Adjuvant treatment planning is crucial in patients with pSCC with ILNM, where only weak evidence is available. The current tool proved to successfully stratify patients according to their individual risk, potentially allowing better tailoring of adjuvant treatments.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The development cohort included 234 patients from seven referral centres. The external validation cohort included 273 patients from two additional referral centres. Cox regression identified predictors of any recurrence, which were used to develop a risk calculator. The risk-calculator grouped the development and the validation cohorts according to the individual risk of any recurrence at 24 months (24m-R). Adjuvant treatment effects were tested on overall survival (OS) according to the derived tertiles, within the development and validation cohorts.
RESULTS: Positive surgical margins, pN3 , and ILNM ratio were associated with higher recurrence rate. The 2-year OS rates were lower for patients with high (>37%) and intermediate (19-37%) compared to low (<19%) 24m-R risk of recurrence, for both the development (43% and 58% vs 83%, P < 0.001) and validation cohort (44% and 50% vs 85%, P < 0.001). Results were confirmed in the subgroup of patients who did not receive adjuvant treatment (P < 0.001), but not in patients who did receive adjuvant treatments in both the development and validation cohorts (P > 0.1).
CONCLUSION: Adjuvant treatment planning is crucial in patients with pSCC with ILNM, where only weak evidence is available. The current tool proved to successfully stratify patients according to their individual risk, potentially allowing better tailoring of adjuvant treatments.