Zaid Al-Kailani, Johannes Linxweiler, Stefan Siemer, Michael Stöckle, Matthias Saar
{"title":"主动监测后延迟前列腺切除术-来自单一中心的结果。","authors":"Zaid Al-Kailani, Johannes Linxweiler, Stefan Siemer, Michael Stöckle, Matthias Saar","doi":"10.1007/s00120-021-01705-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Follow-up during Active Surveillance (AS) may result in psychological burden and discomfort due to the constant clinical monitoring. Therefore, successful implementation of AS is to some extent a challenge for the patient and the caregiver.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this monocentric study, we analyzed the reasons for termination of AS and the rate of the postoperative adverse pathology (AP) in patients who underwent deferred radical prostatectomy (RP) after AS. These results were compared with AS candidates who underwent immediate RP. P-values were calculated with the Χ<sup>2</sup> test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After 21 months of follow-up during AS, a deferred RP was performed in 74 patients. On the other hand, 214 patients underwent immediate RP. AP (Gleason score ≥7b, ≥pT3a, R1 and N+) was common in the AS group and this was statistically significant (45% vs. 29%, P-value <0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings reflect many deficits in the current AS protocols. Using the available tools to apply AS in the routine clinical practice setting may be not adequate to afford oncological safety. This requires the development of new diagnostic tools like new imaging techniques and innovative biomarkers that provide the clinician with more accurate data about disease progression and subsequent help to achieve better outcomes in active surveillance candidates.</p>","PeriodicalId":319655,"journal":{"name":"Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany)","volume":" ","pages":"753-758"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Deferred prostatectomy after active surveillance-results from a single center].\",\"authors\":\"Zaid Al-Kailani, Johannes Linxweiler, Stefan Siemer, Michael Stöckle, Matthias Saar\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00120-021-01705-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Follow-up during Active Surveillance (AS) may result in psychological burden and discomfort due to the constant clinical monitoring. Therefore, successful implementation of AS is to some extent a challenge for the patient and the caregiver.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this monocentric study, we analyzed the reasons for termination of AS and the rate of the postoperative adverse pathology (AP) in patients who underwent deferred radical prostatectomy (RP) after AS. These results were compared with AS candidates who underwent immediate RP. P-values were calculated with the Χ<sup>2</sup> test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After 21 months of follow-up during AS, a deferred RP was performed in 74 patients. On the other hand, 214 patients underwent immediate RP. AP (Gleason score ≥7b, ≥pT3a, R1 and N+) was common in the AS group and this was statistically significant (45% vs. 29%, P-value <0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings reflect many deficits in the current AS protocols. Using the available tools to apply AS in the routine clinical practice setting may be not adequate to afford oncological safety. This requires the development of new diagnostic tools like new imaging techniques and innovative biomarkers that provide the clinician with more accurate data about disease progression and subsequent help to achieve better outcomes in active surveillance candidates.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":319655,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"753-758\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-021-01705-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/11/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-021-01705-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:主动监测(AS)期间的随访由于持续的临床监测可能导致心理负担和不适。因此,在某种程度上,成功实施AS对患者和护理人员来说都是一个挑战。材料与方法:在这项单中心研究中,我们分析了AS后延期根治性前列腺切除术(RP)患者终止AS的原因和术后不良病理(AP)的发生率。这些结果与接受即时RP的AS候选人进行了比较。p值通过Χ2检验计算。结果:在AS期间21个月的随访后,74例患者进行了延期RP。另一方面,214例患者接受了立即RP。AP (Gleason评分≥7b,≥pT3a, R1和N+)在AS组中很常见,这具有统计学意义(45% vs 29%, p值)。结论:这些发现反映了当前AS方案的许多缺陷。使用现有的工具在常规临床实践中应用AS可能不足以保证肿瘤的安全性。这需要开发新的诊断工具,如新的成像技术和创新的生物标志物,为临床医生提供更准确的疾病进展数据,并随后帮助在主动监测候选人中取得更好的结果。
[Deferred prostatectomy after active surveillance-results from a single center].
Background: Follow-up during Active Surveillance (AS) may result in psychological burden and discomfort due to the constant clinical monitoring. Therefore, successful implementation of AS is to some extent a challenge for the patient and the caregiver.
Materials and methods: In this monocentric study, we analyzed the reasons for termination of AS and the rate of the postoperative adverse pathology (AP) in patients who underwent deferred radical prostatectomy (RP) after AS. These results were compared with AS candidates who underwent immediate RP. P-values were calculated with the Χ2 test.
Results: After 21 months of follow-up during AS, a deferred RP was performed in 74 patients. On the other hand, 214 patients underwent immediate RP. AP (Gleason score ≥7b, ≥pT3a, R1 and N+) was common in the AS group and this was statistically significant (45% vs. 29%, P-value <0.001).
Conclusion: These findings reflect many deficits in the current AS protocols. Using the available tools to apply AS in the routine clinical practice setting may be not adequate to afford oncological safety. This requires the development of new diagnostic tools like new imaging techniques and innovative biomarkers that provide the clinician with more accurate data about disease progression and subsequent help to achieve better outcomes in active surveillance candidates.