| 1. |
- Carlsson, Stefan, et al.
(författare)
-
Salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: functional outcomes in the LAPPRO trial after 8-year follow-up.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian journal of urology. - 2168-1813. ; 58, s. 11-19
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Radical prostatectomy reduces mortality among patients with localized prostate cancer, however up to 35% of patients will experience biochemical recurrence, often treated with salvage radiotherapy. The objective of the study was to investigate long-term effects of salvage radiotherapy.A prospective, controlled, non-randomized trial at 14 Swedish center's including 4,003 patients scheduled for radical prostatectomy 2008-2011. A target trial emulation approach was used to identify eligible patients that was treated with salvage radiotherapy. The control group received no salvage radiotherapy. Outcomes were assessed by patient questionnaires on ordinal scales and statistical group comparisons were made using ordered logit regression with adjustment for baseline outcome and confounding factors. The primary endpoints were bowel, urinary and sexual function and bothering due to dysfunction at 8 years.Eleven percent (330/3,139) of the analyzed study population received salvage radiotherapy. Fecal leakage, leakage of mucus and hematochezia were more common after receiving salvage radiotherapy compared with the control group; 4.5% versus 2.6% odds ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]): (1.90 [1.38; 2.62]), 6.8% versus 1.5% 4.14 (2.98; 5.76) and 8.6% versus 1.2% 4.14 (2.98; 5.76), respectively. Urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction and hematuria were more common after receiving salvage radiotherapy, 34% versus 23% 2.23 (2.65; 3.00), 65% versus 57% 1.65 (1.18; 2.29) and 16% versus 1.6% 11.17 (5.68; 21.99), respectively.Salvage radiotherapy was associated with increased risk for fecal leakage, hematochezia, urinary incontinence and hematuria. Our results emphasize the importance of selecting patients for salvage radiotherapy to avoid overtreatment and to give high quality pre-treatment information to ensure patients' preparedness for late side-effects.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Lantz, Anna, et al.
(författare)
-
Functional and Oncological Outcomes After Open Versus Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Localised Prostate Cancer : 8-Year Follow-up
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 80:5, s. 650-660
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Radical prostatectomy reduces mortality among patients with localised prostate cancer. Evidence on whether different surgical techniques can affect mortality rates is lacking. Objective: To evaluate functional and oncological outcomes 8 yr after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). Design, setting, and participants: We enrolled 4003 patients in a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial comparing RALP and RRP in 14 Swedish centres between 2008 and 2011. Data for functional outcomes were assessed via validated patient questionnaires administered preoperatively and at 12 and 24 mo and 8 yr after surgery. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary endpoint was urinary incontinence. Functional outcomes at 8 yr were analysed using the modified Poisson regression approach. Results and limitations: Urinary incontinence was not significantly different at 8 yr after surgery between RALP and RRP (27% vs 29%; adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90–1.23). Erectile dysfunction was significantly lower in the RALP group (66% vs 70%; aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87–0.99). Prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM) was significantly lower in the RALP group at 8 yr after surgery (40/2699 vs 25/885; aRR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34–0.93). Differences in oncological outcomes were mainly seen in the group with high D'Amico risk, with a lower risk of positive surgical margins (21% vs 34%), biochemical recurrence (51% vs 69%), and PCSM (14/220 vs 11/77) for RALP versus RRP. The main limitation is the nonrandomised design. Conclusions: In this prospective multicentre controlled trial, PCSM at 8 yr after surgery was lower for RALP in comparison to RRP. A causal relationship between surgical technique and mortality cannot be inferred, but the result confirms that RALP is oncologically safe. Taken together with better short-term results reported elsewhere, our findings confirm that implementation of RALP may continue. Patient summary: Our study comparing two surgical techniques for removal of the prostate for localised prostate cancer shows that a robot-assisted minimally invasive technique is safe in the long term. Together with previous results showing some better short-term effects with this approach, our findings support continued use of robot-assisted surgery.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Stranne, Johan, 1970, et al.
(författare)
-
Single institution followed by national implementation of systematic surgical quality control and feedback for radical prostatectomy: a 20-year journey
- 2020
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Urology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0724-4983 .- 1433-8726. ; 38, s. 1397-1411
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: The demand for objective and outcome-based facts about surgical results after radical prostatectomy (RP) is increasing. Systematic feedback is also essential for each surgeon to improve his/her performance. Methods: RP outcome data (e.g., pT-stage and margin status) have been registered at Sahlgrenska University Hospital (SUH) since 1988 and patient-related outcome measures (PROM) have been registered since 2001. The National Prostate Cancer Registry (NPCR) has covered all Regions in Sweden since 1998 and includes PROM-data from 2008. Initially PROM was on-paper questionnaires but due since 2018 all PROMs are collected electronically. In 2014 an on-line “dashboard” panel was introduced, showing the results for ten quality-control variables in real-time. Since 2017 all RP data on hospital, regional, and national levels are publicly accessible on-line on “www.npcr.se/RATTEN”. Results: The early PROM-data from SUH have been used for internal quality control. As national clinical and PROM-data from the NPCR have been made accessible on-line and in real-time we have incorporated this into our pre-existing protocol. Our data are now internally available as real-time NPCR reports on the individual surgeons’ results, as well as ePROM data. We can compare the results of each surgeon internally and to other departments’ aggregated data. The public can access data and compare hospital level data on “RATTEN”. Conclusions: The process of quality control of RP locally at SUH, and nationally through the NPCR, has been long but fruitful. The online design, with direct real-time feedback to the institutions that report the data, is essential.
|
|
