根治性前列腺切除术与放射治疗对非转移性前列腺癌特异性死亡率的影响:其他原因死亡率匹配队列分析》。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Marco Finati , Nicholas James Corsi , Alex Stephens , Giuseppe Chiarelli , Giuseppe Ottone Cirulli , Matthew Davis , Shane Tinsley , Akshay Sood , Nicolò Buffi , Giovanni Lughezzani , Andrea Salonia , Alberto Briganti , Francesco Montorsi , Carlo Bettocchi , Giuseppe Carrieri , Craig Rogers , Firas Abdollah
{"title":"根治性前列腺切除术与放射治疗对非转移性前列腺癌特异性死亡率的影响:其他原因死亡率匹配队列分析》。","authors":"Marco Finati ,&nbsp;Nicholas James Corsi ,&nbsp;Alex Stephens ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Chiarelli ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Ottone Cirulli ,&nbsp;Matthew Davis ,&nbsp;Shane Tinsley ,&nbsp;Akshay Sood ,&nbsp;Nicolò Buffi ,&nbsp;Giovanni Lughezzani ,&nbsp;Andrea Salonia ,&nbsp;Alberto Briganti ,&nbsp;Francesco Montorsi ,&nbsp;Carlo Bettocchi ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Carrieri ,&nbsp;Craig Rogers ,&nbsp;Firas Abdollah","doi":"10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Studies comparing radical prostatectomy (RP) to radiation therapy (RT) have consistently shown that patients undergoing RT have a higher risk of other-cause mortality (OCM) compared to RP, signifying poor health status of the former patients. We aimed to evaluate the impact of RP versus RT on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) over a cohort with equivalent OCM risk.</p></div><div><h3>Patients and Methods</h3><p>The SEER database was queried to identify patients with nonmetastatic PCa between 2004 and 2009. Patients were matched based on their calculated 10-year OCM risk and further stratified for D'Amico Risk Score and Gleason Grade. A Cox-regression model was used to calculate the 10-year OCM risk. Propensity-score based on the calculated OCM risk were used to match RP and RT patients. Cumulative incidence curves and Competing-risk regression analyses were used to examine the impact of treatment on CSM in the matched cohort.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We identified 55,106 PCa patients treated with RP and 36,674 treated with RT. After match, 6,506 patients were equally distributed for RT versus RP, with no difference in OCM rates (<em>P</em> = .2). The 10-year CSM rates were 8.8% versus 0.6% (<em>P</em> = .01) for RT versus RP in patients with unfavorable-intermediate-risk (Gleason Score 4 + 3) and 7.9% versus 3.9% (<em>P</em> = .003) for high-risk disease. There was no difference in CSM among RT and RP patients for favorable-intermediate-risk (Gleason Score 3 + 4) and low-risk disease.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In a matched cohort of PCa patients with comparable OCM between the 2 arms, RP yielded a more favorable CSM rate compared to RT only for unfavorable-intermediate- and high-risk groups.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10380,"journal":{"name":"Clinical genitourinary cancer","volume":"22 6","pages":"Article 102201"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Impact of Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiation Therapy on Cancer-Specific Mortality for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: Analysis of an Other-Cause Mortality Matched Cohort\",\"authors\":\"Marco Finati ,&nbsp;Nicholas James Corsi ,&nbsp;Alex Stephens ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Chiarelli ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Ottone Cirulli ,&nbsp;Matthew Davis ,&nbsp;Shane Tinsley ,&nbsp;Akshay Sood ,&nbsp;Nicolò Buffi ,&nbsp;Giovanni Lughezzani ,&nbsp;Andrea Salonia ,&nbsp;Alberto Briganti ,&nbsp;Francesco Montorsi ,&nbsp;Carlo Bettocchi ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Carrieri ,&nbsp;Craig Rogers ,&nbsp;Firas Abdollah\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102201\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Studies comparing radical prostatectomy (RP) to radiation therapy (RT) have consistently shown that patients undergoing RT have a higher risk of other-cause mortality (OCM) compared to RP, signifying poor health status of the former patients. We aimed to evaluate the impact of RP versus RT on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) over a cohort with equivalent OCM risk.</p></div><div><h3>Patients and Methods</h3><p>The SEER database was queried to identify patients with nonmetastatic PCa between 2004 and 2009. Patients were matched based on their calculated 10-year OCM risk and further stratified for D'Amico Risk Score and Gleason Grade. A Cox-regression model was used to calculate the 10-year OCM risk. Propensity-score based on the calculated OCM risk were used to match RP and RT patients. Cumulative incidence curves and Competing-risk regression analyses were used to examine the impact of treatment on CSM in the matched cohort.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We identified 55,106 PCa patients treated with RP and 36,674 treated with RT. After match, 6,506 patients were equally distributed for RT versus RP, with no difference in OCM rates (<em>P</em> = .2). The 10-year CSM rates were 8.8% versus 0.6% (<em>P</em> = .01) for RT versus RP in patients with unfavorable-intermediate-risk (Gleason Score 4 + 3) and 7.9% versus 3.9% (<em>P</em> = .003) for high-risk disease. There was no difference in CSM among RT and RP patients for favorable-intermediate-risk (Gleason Score 3 + 4) and low-risk disease.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In a matched cohort of PCa patients with comparable OCM between the 2 arms, RP yielded a more favorable CSM rate compared to RT only for unfavorable-intermediate- and high-risk groups.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10380,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical genitourinary cancer\",\"volume\":\"22 6\",\"pages\":\"Article 102201\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical genitourinary cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155876732400171X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical genitourinary cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155876732400171X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:对根治性前列腺切除术(RP)和放射治疗(RT)进行比较的研究一致表明,与RP相比,接受RT治疗的患者因其他原因死亡(OCM)的风险更高,这表明前者的健康状况较差。我们的目的是评估在具有同等 OCM 风险的人群中,RP 与 RT 相比对癌症特异性死亡率(CSM)的影响:我们查询了 SEER 数据库,以确定 2004 年至 2009 年间的非转移性 PCa 患者。根据计算出的 10 年 OCM 风险对患者进行配对,并根据 D'Amico 风险评分和 Gleason 等级对患者进一步分层。Cox回归模型用于计算10年OCM风险。基于计算出的 OCM 风险的倾向分数用于匹配 RP 和 RT 患者。累积发病率曲线和竞争风险回归分析用于研究匹配队列中治疗对 CSM 的影响:我们确定了 55,106 名接受 RP 治疗的 PCa 患者和 36,674 名接受 RT 治疗的患者。匹配后,6506 名患者接受 RT 和 RP 治疗的比例相同,OCM 率没有差异(P = .2)。在不利-中度风险(Gleason 评分 4 + 3)患者中,RT 与 RP 的 10 年 CSM 率分别为 8.8% 与 0.6% (P = .01);在高风险疾病患者中,RT 与 RP 的 10 年 CSM 率分别为 7.9% 与 3.9% (P = .003)。对于中危(Gleason评分3 + 4)和低危疾病,RT和RP患者的CSM没有差异:结论:在一个匹配的 PCa 患者队列中,两组患者的 OCM 相当,与 RT 相比,RP 对中危和高危患者的 CSM 更有利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Impact of Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiation Therapy on Cancer-Specific Mortality for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: Analysis of an Other-Cause Mortality Matched Cohort

Introduction

Studies comparing radical prostatectomy (RP) to radiation therapy (RT) have consistently shown that patients undergoing RT have a higher risk of other-cause mortality (OCM) compared to RP, signifying poor health status of the former patients. We aimed to evaluate the impact of RP versus RT on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) over a cohort with equivalent OCM risk.

Patients and Methods

The SEER database was queried to identify patients with nonmetastatic PCa between 2004 and 2009. Patients were matched based on their calculated 10-year OCM risk and further stratified for D'Amico Risk Score and Gleason Grade. A Cox-regression model was used to calculate the 10-year OCM risk. Propensity-score based on the calculated OCM risk were used to match RP and RT patients. Cumulative incidence curves and Competing-risk regression analyses were used to examine the impact of treatment on CSM in the matched cohort.

Results

We identified 55,106 PCa patients treated with RP and 36,674 treated with RT. After match, 6,506 patients were equally distributed for RT versus RP, with no difference in OCM rates (P = .2). The 10-year CSM rates were 8.8% versus 0.6% (P = .01) for RT versus RP in patients with unfavorable-intermediate-risk (Gleason Score 4 + 3) and 7.9% versus 3.9% (P = .003) for high-risk disease. There was no difference in CSM among RT and RP patients for favorable-intermediate-risk (Gleason Score 3 + 4) and low-risk disease.

Conclusions

In a matched cohort of PCa patients with comparable OCM between the 2 arms, RP yielded a more favorable CSM rate compared to RT only for unfavorable-intermediate- and high-risk groups.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical genitourinary cancer
Clinical genitourinary cancer 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
201
审稿时长
54 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Genitourinary Cancer is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes original articles describing various aspects of clinical and translational research in genitourinary cancers. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer is devoted to articles on detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of genitourinary cancers. The main emphasis is on recent scientific developments in all areas related to genitourinary malignancies. Specific areas of interest include clinical research and mechanistic approaches; drug sensitivity and resistance; gene and antisense therapy; pathology, markers, and prognostic indicators; chemoprevention strategies; multimodality therapy; and integration of various approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信