两种不同手术加放疗治疗前列腺癌患者的预后比较:基于倾向评分匹配的生存分析。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Yushui Chen, Gen Fan, Yinyu Wu, Yu Wang, Songzhi Cai, Yang Li, Tielong Tang
{"title":"两种不同手术加放疗治疗前列腺癌患者的预后比较:基于倾向评分匹配的生存分析。","authors":"Yushui Chen, Gen Fan, Yinyu Wu, Yu Wang, Songzhi Cai, Yang Li, Tielong Tang","doi":"10.1007/s11255-025-04489-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The association between different surgical methods combined with radiotherapy and the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer is still unclear. We retrospectively analyzed and compared the prognosis of TURP combined with radiotherapy and RP combined with radiotherapy for prostate cancer based on the SEER database.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed the SEER database for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2010 to 2015. After propensity score matching, we performed IPTW on the data and performed a survival analysis on the data. KM curve and Cox survival analysis were used to report the association between different surgical methods combined with chemotherapy and the prognosis of prostate cancer patients. Subgroup analysis was used to report the consistency and stability of the results between different patient characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 11,782 patients with prostate cancer were included in this study, Among them, there were 1758 cases (6.52%) in the TURP group and 10,024 cases (92.97%) in the RP group. A total of 928 patients were included in the study after PSM. Cox regression after PSM and IPTW showed that the prognosis of patients in the TURP group combined with radiotherapy was worse. Compared with the RP group combined with radiotherapy group, the TURP group combined with radiotherapy group had a 253% higher risk of death (HR = 3.53, 95%CI2.37-4.59, P < 0.001), and the prognosis of patients in the Gleason ≥ 8 subgroup was even worse. Compared with the Gleason ≤ 7 subgroup, the Gleason ≥ 8 subgroup had a 58% higher risk of death (HR = 158, 95% CI 1.43-1.59, P < 0.001). In addition, subgroup analysis and forest plots after PSM and IPTW showed that there was no significant difference between RP combined with radiotherapy and TURP combined with radiotherapy in the high-, medium-, and low-risk groups, the T staging subgroup without lymph node and distant metastasis, and the Gleason subgroup. It benefited more in patients aged 45-74 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RP combined with radiotherapy is associated with a better prognosis than TURP combined with radiotherapy, Patients in the Gleason ≤ 7 subgroup had a better prognosis than those in the Gleason ≥ 8 subgroup, and both surgical approaches combined with radiotherapy benefited more patients aged 45-74 years.</p>","PeriodicalId":14454,"journal":{"name":"International Urology and Nephrology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the prognoses after two different surgical procedures plus radiotherapy in the treatment of patients with prostate cancer: survival analysis based on propensity score matching.\",\"authors\":\"Yushui Chen, Gen Fan, Yinyu Wu, Yu Wang, Songzhi Cai, Yang Li, Tielong Tang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11255-025-04489-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The association between different surgical methods combined with radiotherapy and the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer is still unclear. We retrospectively analyzed and compared the prognosis of TURP combined with radiotherapy and RP combined with radiotherapy for prostate cancer based on the SEER database.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed the SEER database for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2010 to 2015. After propensity score matching, we performed IPTW on the data and performed a survival analysis on the data. KM curve and Cox survival analysis were used to report the association between different surgical methods combined with chemotherapy and the prognosis of prostate cancer patients. Subgroup analysis was used to report the consistency and stability of the results between different patient characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 11,782 patients with prostate cancer were included in this study, Among them, there were 1758 cases (6.52%) in the TURP group and 10,024 cases (92.97%) in the RP group. A total of 928 patients were included in the study after PSM. Cox regression after PSM and IPTW showed that the prognosis of patients in the TURP group combined with radiotherapy was worse. Compared with the RP group combined with radiotherapy group, the TURP group combined with radiotherapy group had a 253% higher risk of death (HR = 3.53, 95%CI2.37-4.59, P < 0.001), and the prognosis of patients in the Gleason ≥ 8 subgroup was even worse. Compared with the Gleason ≤ 7 subgroup, the Gleason ≥ 8 subgroup had a 58% higher risk of death (HR = 158, 95% CI 1.43-1.59, P < 0.001). In addition, subgroup analysis and forest plots after PSM and IPTW showed that there was no significant difference between RP combined with radiotherapy and TURP combined with radiotherapy in the high-, medium-, and low-risk groups, the T staging subgroup without lymph node and distant metastasis, and the Gleason subgroup. It benefited more in patients aged 45-74 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RP combined with radiotherapy is associated with a better prognosis than TURP combined with radiotherapy, Patients in the Gleason ≤ 7 subgroup had a better prognosis than those in the Gleason ≥ 8 subgroup, and both surgical approaches combined with radiotherapy benefited more patients aged 45-74 years.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14454,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Urology and Nephrology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Urology and Nephrology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-025-04489-z\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urology and Nephrology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-025-04489-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:不同手术方式联合放疗与前列腺癌患者预后的关系尚不清楚。我们基于SEER数据库,回顾性分析比较TURP联合放疗与RP联合放疗治疗前列腺癌的预后。方法:我们回顾了2010年至2015年诊断为前列腺癌的SEER数据库。倾向评分匹配后,我们对数据进行IPTW,并对数据进行生存分析。采用KM曲线和Cox生存分析报告不同手术方式联合化疗与前列腺癌患者预后的关系。采用亚组分析来报告不同患者特征之间结果的一致性和稳定性。结果:本研究共纳入11782例前列腺癌患者,其中TURP组1758例(6.52%),RP组10024例(92.97%)。PSM后共纳入928例患者。经PSM和IPTW后Cox回归分析显示,TURP联合放疗组患者预后较差。与RP组联合放疗组相比,TURP组联合放疗组的死亡风险高253% (HR = 3.53, 95% ci2.37 ~ 4.59, P)。结论:RP联合放疗比TURP联合放疗预后好,Gleason≤7亚组患者预后好于Gleason≥8亚组患者,45-74岁患者两种手术入路联合放疗获益更多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the prognoses after two different surgical procedures plus radiotherapy in the treatment of patients with prostate cancer: survival analysis based on propensity score matching.

Purpose: The association between different surgical methods combined with radiotherapy and the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer is still unclear. We retrospectively analyzed and compared the prognosis of TURP combined with radiotherapy and RP combined with radiotherapy for prostate cancer based on the SEER database.

Methods: We reviewed the SEER database for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2010 to 2015. After propensity score matching, we performed IPTW on the data and performed a survival analysis on the data. KM curve and Cox survival analysis were used to report the association between different surgical methods combined with chemotherapy and the prognosis of prostate cancer patients. Subgroup analysis was used to report the consistency and stability of the results between different patient characteristics.

Results: A total of 11,782 patients with prostate cancer were included in this study, Among them, there were 1758 cases (6.52%) in the TURP group and 10,024 cases (92.97%) in the RP group. A total of 928 patients were included in the study after PSM. Cox regression after PSM and IPTW showed that the prognosis of patients in the TURP group combined with radiotherapy was worse. Compared with the RP group combined with radiotherapy group, the TURP group combined with radiotherapy group had a 253% higher risk of death (HR = 3.53, 95%CI2.37-4.59, P < 0.001), and the prognosis of patients in the Gleason ≥ 8 subgroup was even worse. Compared with the Gleason ≤ 7 subgroup, the Gleason ≥ 8 subgroup had a 58% higher risk of death (HR = 158, 95% CI 1.43-1.59, P < 0.001). In addition, subgroup analysis and forest plots after PSM and IPTW showed that there was no significant difference between RP combined with radiotherapy and TURP combined with radiotherapy in the high-, medium-, and low-risk groups, the T staging subgroup without lymph node and distant metastasis, and the Gleason subgroup. It benefited more in patients aged 45-74 years.

Conclusion: RP combined with radiotherapy is associated with a better prognosis than TURP combined with radiotherapy, Patients in the Gleason ≤ 7 subgroup had a better prognosis than those in the Gleason ≥ 8 subgroup, and both surgical approaches combined with radiotherapy benefited more patients aged 45-74 years.

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
International Urology and Nephrology
International Urology and Nephrology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
329
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: International Urology and Nephrology publishes original papers on a broad range of topics in urology, nephrology and andrology. The journal integrates papers originating from clinical practice.
×
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