Urologic oncology · 2025
Cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy in incidental prostate cancer.
СтатьяСравнительное 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.
Di Bello Francesco, Scheipner Lukas, Baudo Andrea, de Angelis Mario, Jannello Letizia Maria Ippolita, Siech Carolin, Tian Zhe, Vitucci Kira, Goyal Jordan A, Collà Ruvolo Claudia, Califano Gianluigi, Creta Massimiliano, Morra Simone, Acquati Pietro, Saad Fred, Shariat Shahrokh F, Carmignani Luca, de Cobelli Ottavio, Ahyai Sascha, Briganti Alberto, Chun Felix K H, Longo Nicola, Karakiewicz Pierre I
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: To test for cancer specific mortality (CSM) differences after either radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT) in incidental prostate cancer (IPCa) patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2015), IPCa patients were identified. Cumulative incidence plots as well as competing risks regression (CRR) models were fitted to address CSM after adjustment for other-cause mortality (OCM). Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed to test for CSM differences between RP and RT according to Gleason sum (GS 6,7, and 8-10).
RESULTS: Of 1,466 IPCa patients, 770 (53%) underwent RP vs. 696 (47%) RT. Incidental PCa RT patients were older, and exhibited higher PSA, higher proportion of Gleason sum 8-10, and higher clinical T stage. In cumulative incidence plots, 5-year CSM rates adjusted for OCM were 0.9 for RP vs. 6.8% for RT (Δ = 5.9%). After multivariable adjustment for clinical characteristics (age, PSA, Gleason sum, and clinical T stage) as well as for OCM, RP was associated with a protective hazard ratio (HR) of 0.35 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15 - 0.78, p value = .01). Within Gleason sum 8-10 IPCA patients, RP was associated with a protective HR of 0.31 (P = .039).
CONCLUSION: Incidental PCa RT-treated patients exhibited less favorable clinical characteristics than their RP counterparts. Despite full adjustment, RP was associated with a protective effect relative to RT. This effect exclusively applied to the Gleason sum 8-10 subgroup. In consequence, IPCa patients harboring Gleason sum 8-10 should ideally be considered for RP instead of RT.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2015), IPCa patients were identified. Cumulative incidence plots as well as competing risks regression (CRR) models were fitted to address CSM after adjustment for other-cause mortality (OCM). Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed to test for CSM differences between RP and RT according to Gleason sum (GS 6,7, and 8-10).
RESULTS: Of 1,466 IPCa patients, 770 (53%) underwent RP vs. 696 (47%) RT. Incidental PCa RT patients were older, and exhibited higher PSA, higher proportion of Gleason sum 8-10, and higher clinical T stage. In cumulative incidence plots, 5-year CSM rates adjusted for OCM were 0.9 for RP vs. 6.8% for RT (Δ = 5.9%). After multivariable adjustment for clinical characteristics (age, PSA, Gleason sum, and clinical T stage) as well as for OCM, RP was associated with a protective hazard ratio (HR) of 0.35 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15 - 0.78, p value = .01). Within Gleason sum 8-10 IPCA patients, RP was associated with a protective HR of 0.31 (P = .039).
CONCLUSION: Incidental PCa RT-treated patients exhibited less favorable clinical characteristics than their RP counterparts. Despite full adjustment, RP was associated with a protective effect relative to RT. This effect exclusively applied to the Gleason sum 8-10 subgroup. In consequence, IPCa patients harboring Gleason sum 8-10 should ideally be considered for RP instead of RT.