SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Utökad sökning

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(Palmgren Juni) ;pers:(Garmo Hans)"

Sökning: WFRF:(Palmgren Juni) > Garmo Hans

  • Resultat 1-6 av 6
Sortera/gruppera träfflistan
   
NumreringReferensOmslagsbildHitta
1.
  • Bill-Axelson, Anna, et al. (författare)
  • Radical Prostatectomy or Watchful Waiting in Early Prostate Cancer
  • 2014
  • Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - Massachusetts Medical Society. - 0028-4793. ; 370:10, s. 932-942
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • BackgroundRadical prostatectomy reduces mortality among men with localized prostate cancer; however, important questions regarding long-term benefit remain. MethodsBetween 1989 and 1999, we randomly assigned 695 men with early prostate cancer to watchful waiting or radical prostatectomy and followed them through the end of 2012. The primary end points in the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SPCG-4) were death from any cause, death from prostate cancer, and the risk of metastases. Secondary end points included the initiation of androgen-deprivation therapy. ResultsDuring 23.2 years of follow-up, 200 of 347 men in the surgery group and 247 of the 348 men in the watchful-waiting group died. Of the deaths, 63 in the surgery group and 99 in the watchful-waiting group were due to prostate cancer; the relative risk was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.77; P=0.001), and the absolute difference was 11.0 percentage points (95% CI, 4.5 to 17.5). The number needed to treat to prevent one death was 8. One man died after surgery in the radical-prostatectomy group. Androgen-deprivation therapy was used in fewer patients who underwent prostatectomy (a difference of 25.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 17.7 to 32.3). The benefit of surgery with respect to death from prostate cancer was largest in men younger than 65 years of age (relative risk, 0.45) and in those with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (relative risk, 0.38). However, radical prostatectomy was associated with a reduced risk of metastases among older men (relative risk, 0.68; P=0.04). ConclusionsExtended follow-up confirmed a substantial reduction in mortality after radical prostatectomy; the number needed to treat to prevent one death continued to decrease when the treatment was modified according to age at diagnosis and tumor risk. A large proportion of long-term survivors in the watchful-waiting group have not required any palliative treatment. (Funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and others.) The randomized Swedish trial of prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in disease detected mainly clinically (not by PSA screening) continues to show a benefit for early prostatectomy. The number of men younger than 65 needed to treat to prevent one death is now four. The Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SPCG-4), a randomized trial of radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in men with localized prostate cancer diagnosed before the era of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, showed a survival benefit of radical prostatectomy as compared with observation at 15 years of follow-up.(1) By contrast, the Prostate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Trial (PIVOT), initiated in the early era of PSA testing, showed that radical prostatectomy did not significantly reduce prostate cancer-specific or overall mortality after 12 years.(2) PSA screening profoundly changes the clinical domain of study. Among other considerations, the substantial additional lead time ...
  •  
2.
  • Bill-Axelson, Anna, et al. (författare)
  • Radical Prostatectomy versus Watchful Waiting in Early Prostate Cancer
  • 2011
  • Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793. ; 364:18, s. 1708-1717
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • BACKGROUNDIn 2008, we reported that radical prostatectomy, as compared with watchful waiting, reduces the rate of death from prostate cancer. After an additional 3 years of follow-up, we now report estimated 15-year results.METHODSFrom October 1989 through February 1999, we randomly assigned 695 men with early prostate cancer to watchful waiting or radical prostatectomy. Follow-up was complete through December 2009, with histopathological review of biopsy and radical-prostatectomy specimens and blinded evaluation of causes of death. Relative risks, with 95% confidence intervals, were estimated with the use of a Cox proportional-hazards model.RESULTSDuring a median of 12.8 years, 166 of the 347 men in the radical-prostatectomy group and 201 of the 348 in the watchful-waiting group died (P=0.007). In the case of 55 men assigned to surgery and 81 men assigned to watchful waiting, death was due to prostate cancer. This yielded a cumulative incidence of death from prostate cancer at 15 years of 14.6% and 20.7%, respectively (a difference of 6.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2 to 12.0), and a relative risk with surgery of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.44 to 0.87; P=0.01). The survival benefit was similar before and after 9 years of follow-up, was observed also among men with low-risk prostate cancer, and was confined to men younger than 65 years of age. The number needed to treat to avert one death was 15 overall and 7 for men younger than 65 years of age. Among men who underwent radical prostatectomy, those with extracapsular tumor growth had a risk of death from prostate cancer that was 7 times that of men without extracapsular tumor growth (relative risk, 6.9; 95% CI, 2.6 to 18.4).CONCLUSIONSRadical prostatectomy was associated with a reduction in the rate of death from prostate cancer. Men with extracapsular tumor growth may benefit from adjuvant local or systemic treatment.
  •  
3.
  • Bill-Axelson, Anna, et al. (författare)
  • Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer.
  • 2011
  • Ingår i: The New England journal of medicine. - 1533-4406. ; 364:18, s. 1708
  • Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
    • In 2008, we reported that radical prostatectomy, as compared with watchful waiting, reduces the rate of death from prostate cancer. After an additional 3 years of follow-up, we now report estimated 15-year results.
  •  
4.
  • Holmberg, Lars, et al. (författare)
  • Prognostic markers under watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy
  • 2006
  • Ingår i: Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America. - Elsevier. - 0889-8588. ; 20:4, s. 845-855
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • A suitable setting to analyze factors that determine prognosis or treatment response in prostate cancer is an unbiased comparison of radical prostatectomy and watchful waiting as in the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Trial number 4. In our previous presentation of 10-year results, we studied Gleason score, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at diagnosis, and age at diagnosis as modifiers of the effect of radical prostatectomy on survival. Because overall prognostic information obtained by these parameters or by tumor stage was not provided in our publication, we now present these data in the two study arms separately.
  •  
5.
  • Holmberg, Lars, et al. (författare)
  • Results from the scandinavian prostate cancer group trial number 4: a randomized controlled trial of radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting.
  • 2012
  • Ingår i: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs. - 1745-6614. ; 2012:45, s. 230-3
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • In the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Trial Number 4 (SPCG-4), 347 men were randomly assigned to radical prostatectomy and 348 to watchful waiting. In the most recent analysis (median follow-up time = 12.8 years), the cumulative mortality curves had been stable over the follow-up. At 15 years, the absolute risk reduction of dying from prostate cancer was 6.1% following randomization to radical prostatectomy, compared with watchful waiting. Hence, 17 need to be randomized to operation to avert one death. Data on self-reported symptoms, stress from symptoms, and quality of life were collected at 4 and 12.2 years of median follow-up. These questionnaire studies show an intricate pattern of symptoms evolving after surgery, hormonal treatments, signs of tumor progression, and also from natural aging. This article discusses some of the main findings of the SPCG-4 study.
  •  
6.
  • Vickers, Andrew, et al. (författare)
  • Individualized Estimation of the Benefit of Radical Prostatectomy from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Randomized Trial
  • 2012
  • Ingår i: European Urology. - 0302-2838. ; 62:2, s. 204-209
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background: Although there is randomized evidence that radical prostatectomy improves survival, there are few data on how benefit varies by baseline risk. Objective: We aimed to create a statistical model to calculate the decrease in risk of death associated with surgery for an individual patient, using stage, grade, prostate-specific antigen, and age as predictors. Design, setting, and participants: A total of 695 men with T1 or T2 prostate cancer participated in the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 trial (SPCG-4). Intervention: Patients in SPCG-4 were randomized to radical prostatectomy or conservative management. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Competing risk models were created separately for the radical prostatectomy and the watchful waiting group, with the difference between model predictions constituting the estimated benefit for an individual patient. Results and limitations: Individualized predictions of surgery benefit varied widely depending on age and tumor characteristics. At 65 yr of age, the absolute 10-yr risk reduction in prostate cancer mortality attributable to radical prostatectomy ranged from 4.5% to 17.2% for low-versus high-risk patients. Little expected benefit was associated with surgery much beyond age 70. Only about a quarter of men had an individualized benefit within even 50% of the mean. A limitation is that estimates from SPCG-4 have to be applied cautiously to contemporary patients. Conclusions: Our model suggests that it is hard to justify surgery in patients with Gleason 6, T1 disease or in those patients much above 70 yr of age. Conversely, surgery seems unequivocally of benefit for patients who have Gleason 8, or Gleason 7, stage T2. For patients with Gleason 6 T2 and Gleason 7 T1, treatment is more of a judgment call, depending on patient preference and other clinical findings, such as the number of positive biopsy cores and comorbidities. 
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Resultat 1-6 av 6
 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy