| 1. |
- Carlsson, Sigrid, 1982, et al.
(author)
-
Pathological Features of Lymph Node Metastasis for Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer.
- 2013
-
In: The Journal of urology. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 1527-3792 .- 0022-5347. ; 189:4, s. 1314-1319
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- PURPOSE: Subclassification of nodal stage may have prognostic value in men with lymph node metastasis at radical prostatectomy. We explored the role of extranodal extension, size of the largest metastatic lymph node and the largest metastasis, and lymph node density as predictors of biochemical recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed pathological material from 261 patients with node positive prostate cancer. We examined the predictive value when adding the additional pathology findings to a base model including extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, radical prostatectomy Gleason score, prostate specific antigen and number of positive lymph nodes using the Cox proportional hazards regression and Harrell concordance index. RESULTS: The median number of lymph nodes removed was 14 (IQR 9, 20) and the median number of positive lymph nodes was 1 (IQR 1, 2). At a median followup of 4.6 years (IQR 3.2, 6.0) 155 of 261 patients experienced biochemical recurrence. The mean 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rate was 39% (95% CI 33-46). Median diameter of the largest metastatic lymph node was 9 mm (IQR 5, 16). On Cox regression radical prostatectomy specimen Gleason score (greater than 7 vs 7 or less), number of positive lymph nodes (3 or greater vs 1 or 2), seminal vesicle invasion and prostate specific antigen were associated with significantly increased risks of biochemical recurrence. On subset analysis metastasis size significantly improved model discrimination (base model Harrell concordance index 0.700 vs 0.655, p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that the number of positive lymph nodes is a predictor of biochemical recurrence in men with node positive disease. The improvement in prognostic value of measuring the metastatic focus warrants further investigation.
|
|
| 2. |
- Romero-Otero, Javier, et al.
(author)
-
Active surveillance for prostate cancer.
- 2016
-
In: International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association. - : Wiley. - 1442-2042. ; 23:3, s. 211-8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- It is worth distinguishing between the two strategies of expectant management for prostate cancer. Watchful waiting entails administering non-curative androgen deprivation therapy to patients on development of symptomatic progression, whereas active surveillance entails delivering curative treatment on signs of disease progression. The objectives of the two management strategies and the patients enrolled in either are different: (i) to review the role of active surveillance as a management strategy for patients with low-risk prostate cancer; and (ii) review the benefits and pitfalls of active surveillance. We carried out a systematic review of active surveillance for prostate cancer in the literature using the National Center for Biotechnology Information's electronic database, PubMed. We carried out a search in English using the terms: active surveillance, prostate cancer, watchful waiting and conservative management. Selected studies were required to have a comprehensive description of the demographic and disease characteristics of the patients at the time of diagnosis, inclusion criteria for surveillance, and a protocol for the patients' follow up. Review articles were included, but not multiple papers from the same datasets. Active surveillance appears to reduce overtreatment in patients with low-risk prostate cancer without compromising cancer-specific survival at 10years. Therefore, active surveillance is an option for select patients who want to avoid the side-effects inherent to the different types of immediate treatment. However, inclusion criteria for active surveillance and the most appropriate method of monitoring patients on active surveillance have not yet been standardized.
|
|
| 3. |
- Secin, Fernando P., et al.
(author)
-
The Learning Curve for Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: An International Multicenter Study
- 2010
-
In: Journal of Urology. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 1527-3792 .- 0022-5347. ; 184:6, s. 2291-2296
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: It is not yet possible to estimate the number of cases required for a beginner to become expert in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. We estimated the learning curve of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for positive surgical margins compared to a published learning curve for open radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods: We reviewed records from 8,544 consecutive patients with prostate cancer treated laparoscopically by 51 surgeons at 14 academic institutions in Europe and the United States. The probability of a positive surgical margin was calculated as a function of surgeon experience with adjustment for pathological stage, Gleason score and prostate specific antigen. A second model incorporated prior experience with open radical prostatectomy and surgeon generation. Results: Positive surgical margins occurred in 1,862 patients (22%). There was an apparent improvement in surgical margin rates up to a plateau at 200 to 250 surgeries. Changes in margin rates once this plateau was reached were relatively minimal relative to the CIs. The absolute risk difference for 10 vs 250 prior surgeries was 4.8% (95% CI 1.5, 8.5). Neither surgeon generation nor prior open radical prostatectomy experience was statistically significant when added to the model. The rate of decrease in positive surgical margins was more rapid in the open vs laparoscopic learning curve. Conclusions: The learning curve for surgical margins after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy plateaus at approximately 200 to 250 cases. Prior open experience and surgeon generation do not improve the margin rate, suggesting that the rate is primarily a function of specifically laparoscopic training and experience.
|
|
