Urology · 2008
Variations in surgeon volume and use of pelvic lymph node dissection with open and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Prasad Sandip M, Keating Nancy L, Wang Qin, Pashos Chris L, Lipsitz Stuart, Richie Jerome P, Hu Jim C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Although pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) during radical prostatectomy (RP) improves staging, controversy remains concerning its indications and benefits on cancer control. We examined the factors associated with PLND use among men undergoing open RP (ORP) and minimally invasive RP (MIRP).
METHODS: Using a 5% national sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2003 to 2005, we identified 2702 men who had undergone RP. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess whether the surgical approach, surgeon volume, patient demographics, comorbidity, and geographic region were associated with the likelihood of performing PLND.
RESULTS: Overall, 68% of men underwent PLND, although the rates varied by surgical approach (17% vs 83% for MIRP vs ORP, respectively, P <.001). In adjusted analyses, men undergoing MIRP vs ORP (odds ratio [OR] 0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.03), men > or = 75 vs 65-69 years old (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.17-0.31), and men with multiple vs no comorbidities (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.35-0.66 for Charlson score > or = 3 vs 0) were less likely to undergo PLND. High-volume minimally invasive surgeons were more likely to perform PLND (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.14-1.25). Finally, men in the Western vs Southern United States (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.19-2.17) were more likely to undergo PLND.
CONCLUSIONS: Men undergoing MIRP vs ORP were less likely to undergo PLND, although rates of the procedure increased with surgical volume. Additional studies are needed to determine the indications and benefits of this procedure for men with prostate cancer.
METHODS: Using a 5% national sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2003 to 2005, we identified 2702 men who had undergone RP. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess whether the surgical approach, surgeon volume, patient demographics, comorbidity, and geographic region were associated with the likelihood of performing PLND.
RESULTS: Overall, 68% of men underwent PLND, although the rates varied by surgical approach (17% vs 83% for MIRP vs ORP, respectively, P <.001). In adjusted analyses, men undergoing MIRP vs ORP (odds ratio [OR] 0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.03), men > or = 75 vs 65-69 years old (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.17-0.31), and men with multiple vs no comorbidities (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.35-0.66 for Charlson score > or = 3 vs 0) were less likely to undergo PLND. High-volume minimally invasive surgeons were more likely to perform PLND (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.14-1.25). Finally, men in the Western vs Southern United States (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.19-2.17) were more likely to undergo PLND.
CONCLUSIONS: Men undergoing MIRP vs ORP were less likely to undergo PLND, although rates of the procedure increased with surgical volume. Additional studies are needed to determine the indications and benefits of this procedure for men with prostate cancer.