MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.4065/76.12.1199

Медицинская библиотека · Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2001

Decline in bilateral orchiectomy for prostate cancer in Olmsted county, Minnesota, 1956-2000.

Melton L J, Alothman K I, Achenbach S J, O'Fallon W M, Zincke H

СтатьяПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

OBJECTIVE

To assess long-term secular trends in the utilization of bilateral compared with unilateral orchiectomy in the community.

PATIENTS AND

METHODS

This population-based descriptive study reviewed medical records of all Olmsted County, Minnesota, men undergoing orchiectomy between 1956 and 2000.

RESULTS

Over the 45-year study period, 381 Olmsted County men had a first unilateral orchiectomy, while 431 underwent bilateral orchiectomy (including 8 with a second unilateral orchiectomy). There was no change over time in the age-adjusted utilization of unilateral orchiectomy, which was performed for a wide range of indications, mostly cryptorchidism and testicular malignancy. Most bilateral procedures, on the other hand, were in elderly men for castration, and trends over time generally paralleled those reported for prostate cancer in this community.

CONCLUSION

The declining incidence of prostate cancer in recent years, combined with a shift to earlier stages and younger ages at diagnosis, and the development of pharmacological approaches to hormonal manipulation have led to a dramatic decline in the utilization of bilateral orchiectomy, while unilateral orchiectomy rates have remained unchanged.

Для цитирования: Melton L J, Alothman K I, Achenbach S J, O'Fallon W M, Zincke H. Decline in bilateral orchiectomy for prostate cancer in Olmsted county, Minnesota, 1956-2000.. Mayo Clinic proceedings. 2001. DOI: 10.4065/76.12.1199.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.