局部局限性前列腺癌的治疗决策实践:手术与放疗——谁受益?:一项单中心、累积的长期研究的分配和结果]。

Der Urologe. Ausg. A Pub Date : 2022-03-01 Epub Date: 2021-08-02 DOI:10.1007/s00120-021-01601-w
W -D U Böhm, R Koch, S Latarius, A Mehnert, C Werner, Manfred P Wirth
{"title":"局部局限性前列腺癌的治疗决策实践:手术与放疗——谁受益?:一项单中心、累积的长期研究的分配和结果]。","authors":"W -D U Böhm,&nbsp;R Koch,&nbsp;S Latarius,&nbsp;A Mehnert,&nbsp;C Werner,&nbsp;Manfred P Wirth","doi":"10.1007/s00120-021-01601-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The goal of this two-armed observational study was to map the clinical therapy effectiveness of radical prostatovesiculectomy (RPVE) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in locally limited prostate cancer (PCA) in direct comparison over 20 years under clinical conditions. Retrospectively, the various variables and predictors for the individual therapy decision were identified, and the preference was to compared with studies on survival and recurrence characteristics. The presentation of toxicity was not the focus of this work.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>In all, 743 patients from a single center were enrolled according to biopsy/staging chronologically in the sequence of the initial consultation after clarification and informed consent: 494 patients were in the RPVE arm and 249 patients in the EBRT arm. We used retrospective data analysis with univariate and multivariate comparisons in the alternative therapy arms. Multivariate logical regression models were developed to objectify the allocation process. Univariate processing of survival analyses, the comparison of tumor- and comorbidity-specific mortality rates was co-founded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Predictive variables for RPVE vs. EBRT therapy decision are significantly age, Gleason score, D'Amico index, Charlson index, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and prostate volume. There was no significance level for the biopsy score. The age gap was in the median 67 (RPVE) and 73 (EBRT) years. Overall survival (n = 734, 20 years, all risks) in the RPVE arm was 56.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 45.1-67.0%) and in the EBRT arm 19.2% (95%CI 9.2-31.8%). Comorbid risk was highly significantly (p < 0.0001) different (27.1% [95%CI 18.0-36.1%] in the RPVE arm, and 60.4% [95%CI 47.3-73.5%] in the EBRT arm). The risk of tumor-specific death at 16.2% (95%CI 8.1-24.4%) after RPVE and 20.5% (95%CI 11.7-29.3%) after EBRT was not significantly different (p = 0.2122, overlapping 95%CI). After stratification, a clear advantage can be demonstrated for the high-risk tumors after allocation to the RPVE arm.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The complexity of the predictive variables of the PCA further complicates the individual therapy decision. According to our data, the higher D'Amico score, the rather low Charlson index, a high Gleason score and a higher organ volume speak for a valid therapy for RPVE.</p>","PeriodicalId":11123,"journal":{"name":"Der Urologe. Ausg. A","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00120-021-01601-w","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[On the practice of therapy decision in locally limited prostate cancer: surgery vs. radiation-who benefits? : Allocation and results of a monocentric, cumulative long-term study].\",\"authors\":\"W -D U Böhm,&nbsp;R Koch,&nbsp;S Latarius,&nbsp;A Mehnert,&nbsp;C Werner,&nbsp;Manfred P Wirth\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00120-021-01601-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The goal of this two-armed observational study was to map the clinical therapy effectiveness of radical prostatovesiculectomy (RPVE) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in locally limited prostate cancer (PCA) in direct comparison over 20 years under clinical conditions. Retrospectively, the various variables and predictors for the individual therapy decision were identified, and the preference was to compared with studies on survival and recurrence characteristics. The presentation of toxicity was not the focus of this work.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>In all, 743 patients from a single center were enrolled according to biopsy/staging chronologically in the sequence of the initial consultation after clarification and informed consent: 494 patients were in the RPVE arm and 249 patients in the EBRT arm. We used retrospective data analysis with univariate and multivariate comparisons in the alternative therapy arms. Multivariate logical regression models were developed to objectify the allocation process. Univariate processing of survival analyses, the comparison of tumor- and comorbidity-specific mortality rates was co-founded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Predictive variables for RPVE vs. EBRT therapy decision are significantly age, Gleason score, D'Amico index, Charlson index, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and prostate volume. There was no significance level for the biopsy score. The age gap was in the median 67 (RPVE) and 73 (EBRT) years. Overall survival (n = 734, 20 years, all risks) in the RPVE arm was 56.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 45.1-67.0%) and in the EBRT arm 19.2% (95%CI 9.2-31.8%). Comorbid risk was highly significantly (p < 0.0001) different (27.1% [95%CI 18.0-36.1%] in the RPVE arm, and 60.4% [95%CI 47.3-73.5%] in the EBRT arm). The risk of tumor-specific death at 16.2% (95%CI 8.1-24.4%) after RPVE and 20.5% (95%CI 11.7-29.3%) after EBRT was not significantly different (p = 0.2122, overlapping 95%CI). After stratification, a clear advantage can be demonstrated for the high-risk tumors after allocation to the RPVE arm.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The complexity of the predictive variables of the PCA further complicates the individual therapy decision. According to our data, the higher D'Amico score, the rather low Charlson index, a high Gleason score and a higher organ volume speak for a valid therapy for RPVE.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11123,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Der Urologe. Ausg. A\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00120-021-01601-w\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Der Urologe. Ausg. A\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-021-01601-w\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/8/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Der Urologe. Ausg. A","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-021-01601-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/8/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:这项双臂观察性研究的目的是在临床条件下直接比较20多年来根治性前列腺膀胱切除术(RPVE)和外束放射治疗(EBRT)治疗局部局限性前列腺癌(PCA)的临床疗效。回顾性地,确定了个体治疗决策的各种变量和预测因素,并将偏好与生存和复发特征的研究进行比较。毒性的表现并不是这项工作的重点。方法:在澄清和知情同意后,根据最初咨询的顺序按时间顺序进行活检/分期,来自单个中心的743例患者入组:494例患者在RPVE组,249例患者在EBRT组。我们采用回顾性数据分析,对替代疗法组进行单因素和多因素比较。建立了多变量逻辑回归模型,使分配过程客观化。对生存分析进行单变量处理,比较肿瘤和合并症特异性死亡率。结果:年龄、Gleason评分、D'Amico指数、Charlson指数、前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)和前列腺体积是RPVE与EBRT治疗决策的显著预测变量。活检评分无显著性差异。年龄差距中位数为67岁(RPVE)和73岁(EBRT)。RPVE组的总生存率(n = 734,20年,所有风险)为56.8%(95%可信区间[CI] 45.1-67.0%), EBRT组为19.2%(95%可信区间[CI] 9.2-31.8%)。结论:PCA预测变量的复杂性进一步使个体治疗决策复杂化。根据我们的数据,较高的D'Amico评分,较低的Charlson指数,较高的Gleason评分和较高的器官体积说明RPVE治疗有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[On the practice of therapy decision in locally limited prostate cancer: surgery vs. radiation-who benefits? : Allocation and results of a monocentric, cumulative long-term study].

Aim: The goal of this two-armed observational study was to map the clinical therapy effectiveness of radical prostatovesiculectomy (RPVE) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in locally limited prostate cancer (PCA) in direct comparison over 20 years under clinical conditions. Retrospectively, the various variables and predictors for the individual therapy decision were identified, and the preference was to compared with studies on survival and recurrence characteristics. The presentation of toxicity was not the focus of this work.

Methodology: In all, 743 patients from a single center were enrolled according to biopsy/staging chronologically in the sequence of the initial consultation after clarification and informed consent: 494 patients were in the RPVE arm and 249 patients in the EBRT arm. We used retrospective data analysis with univariate and multivariate comparisons in the alternative therapy arms. Multivariate logical regression models were developed to objectify the allocation process. Univariate processing of survival analyses, the comparison of tumor- and comorbidity-specific mortality rates was co-founded.

Results: Predictive variables for RPVE vs. EBRT therapy decision are significantly age, Gleason score, D'Amico index, Charlson index, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and prostate volume. There was no significance level for the biopsy score. The age gap was in the median 67 (RPVE) and 73 (EBRT) years. Overall survival (n = 734, 20 years, all risks) in the RPVE arm was 56.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 45.1-67.0%) and in the EBRT arm 19.2% (95%CI 9.2-31.8%). Comorbid risk was highly significantly (p < 0.0001) different (27.1% [95%CI 18.0-36.1%] in the RPVE arm, and 60.4% [95%CI 47.3-73.5%] in the EBRT arm). The risk of tumor-specific death at 16.2% (95%CI 8.1-24.4%) after RPVE and 20.5% (95%CI 11.7-29.3%) after EBRT was not significantly different (p = 0.2122, overlapping 95%CI). After stratification, a clear advantage can be demonstrated for the high-risk tumors after allocation to the RPVE arm.

Conclusions: The complexity of the predictive variables of the PCA further complicates the individual therapy decision. According to our data, the higher D'Amico score, the rather low Charlson index, a high Gleason score and a higher organ volume speak for a valid therapy for RPVE.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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