The impact of age on pathological insignificant prostate cancer rates in contemporary robot-assisted prostatectomy patients despite active surveillance eligibility

被引:7
|
作者
Leyh-Bannurah, Sami-Ramzi [1 ]
Wagner, Christian [1 ]
Schuette, Andreas [1 ]
Addali, Mustapha [1 ]
Liakos, Nikolaos [1 ]
Urbanova, Katarina [1 ]
Mendrek, Mikolaj [1 ]
Oelke, Matthias [1 ]
Witt, Jorn H. [1 ]
机构
[1] St Antonius Hosp, Dept Urol Pediat Urol & Urooncol, Gronau, Germany
来源
MINERVA UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY | 2022年 / 74卷 / 04期
关键词
Prostatic neoplasms; Neoplasm grading; Neoplasm staging; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION; MEN; GUIDELINES; OUTCOMES; BIOPSY;
D O I
10.23736/S2724-6051.21.04174-4
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess insignificant prostate cancer (iPCa) rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in contemporary patients who were preoperatively eligible for active surveillance (AS). iPCa indicates no risk of PCa progression. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 2837 RARP patients (2010-2019) who fulfilled at least one AS entry criteria set: Prostate Cancer Research International - Active Surveillance (PRIAS), University of California San Francisco (UCSF) (San Francisco, CA, USA), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) or University of Toronto, ON, Canada. We utilized four different iPCa definitions: 1) based on pT2 and Gleason Score <= 6 and also cumulative tumorvolume; 2) <= 2.5mL; 3) <= 0.7mL; or 4) <= 0.5mL. For each AS set we tested the rates of iPCa and compared between age <70 vs. >= 70 years. This was complemented by multivariable logistic regression (LRM) predicting iPCa, adjusted for age and clinical AS variables. Finally, within the subgroup who had iPCa, we tested the rate of those who were deemed preoperatively AS ineligible. RESULTS: Between most (PRIAS) and least stringent (TORONTO) AS sets, iPCa was correctly predicted in 70-57%. Similarly, for iPCa definitions 2-4, rates were 59-42%, 34-19% and 27-14%. Senior patients harbored decreased proportions of iPCa. LRM confirmed that advanced age is associated with a lower chance of iPCa. More stringent AS sets lead to higher rates of AS ineligibility, e.g. 53% for PRIAS, despite iPCa. CONCLUSIONS: AS sets show limited accuracy for stricter iPCa definitions, which further declined with advanced age. Greater AS stringency resulted in more AS ineligible patients despite harboring iPCa. In consequence, patients are at risk for overtreatment. Clinicians must consider age and different AS sets that result in highly variable detection rates of iPCa.
引用
收藏
页码:437 / 444
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients after endoscopic surgeries on the prostate
    Guliev, B. G.
    Ilyin, D. M.
    Kharchenko, P. V.
    Talyshinskiy, A. E.
    Krylov, O. A.
    ONKOUROLOGIYA, 2023, 19 (04): : 77 - 85
  • [32] Low Prostate-specific Antigen and No Gleason Score Upgrade Despite More Extensive Cancer During Active Surveillance Predicts Insignificant Prostate Cancer at Radical Prostatectomy
    Han, Jeong S.
    Toll, Adam D.
    Amin, Ali
    Carter, H. Ballentine
    Landis, Patricia
    Lee, Stephen
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    UROLOGY, 2012, 80 (04) : 883 - 888
  • [33] Predicting trajectories of recovery in prostate cancer patients undergone Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP)
    Marzorati, Chiara
    Monzani, Dario
    Mazzocco, Ketti
    Pavan, Francesca
    Cozzi, Gabriele
    De Cobelli, Ottavio
    Monturano, Massimo
    Pravettoni, Gabriella
    PLOS ONE, 2019, 14 (04):
  • [34] Impact of Prostate Size on the Functional and Oncological Outcomes of Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy
    Jaber, Abdel Rahman
    Moschovas, Marcio Covas
    Saikali, Shady
    Gamal, Ahmed
    Perera, Roshane
    Rogers, Travis
    Patel, Ela
    Sandri, Marco
    Tilki, Derya
    Patel, Vipul
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2024, 10 (02): : 263 - 270
  • [35] Cumulative Prostate Cancer Length in Prostate Biopsy Cores Improves Prediction of Clinically Insignificant Cancer at Radical Prostatectomy in Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance
    Chen, D.
    Falzarano, S. M.
    McKenney, J.
    Przybycin, C.
    Reynolds, J.
    Roma, A.
    Klein, E.
    Magi-Galluzzi, C.
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2013, 93 : 201A - 201A
  • [36] Cumulative Prostate Cancer Length in Prostate Biopsy Cores Improves Prediction of Clinically Insignificant Cancer at Radical Prostatectomy in Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance
    Chen, D.
    Falzarano, S. M.
    McKenney, J.
    Przybycin, C.
    Reynolds, J.
    Roma, A.
    Klein, E.
    Magi-Galluzzi, C.
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2013, 26 : 201A - 201A
  • [37] SURGICAL EXPERTISE IS THE MAJOR DETERMINANT OF DECREASED COMPLICATION RATES IN CONTEMPORARY PATIENTS TREATED WITH ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
    Dell'Oglio, Paolo
    Stabile, Armando
    Zaffuto, Emanuele
    Gandaglia, Giorgio
    Fossati, Nicola
    Bandini, Marco
    Patruno, Giulio
    Brassetti, Aldo
    Deho, Federico
    Guazzoni, Giorgio
    D'Elia, Gianluca
    Suardi, Nazareno
    Gaboardi, Franco
    Montorsi, Francesco
    Briganti, Alberto
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 197 (04): : E286 - E286
  • [38] Concurrent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for patients with synchronous prostate cancer and small renal tumor: A case series of five patients
    Kanehira, Mitsugu
    Tamura, Daichi
    Matsuura, Tomohiko
    Maekawa, Shigekatsu
    Kato, Renpei
    Kato, Yoichiro
    Takata, Ryo
    Obara, Wataru
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY, 2022, 15 (03) : 700 - 704
  • [39] Technique of Pelvic Lymphadenectomy After Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer
    Png, Keng-Siang
    Koch, Michael O.
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2012, 26 (12) : 1600 - 1604
  • [40] Current Status of Salvage Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy for Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer
    Rocco, Bernardo
    Cozzi, Gabriele
    Spinelli, Matteo Giulio
    Grasso, Angelica
    Varisco, Daniela
    Coelho, Rafael F.
    Patel, Vipul R.
    CURRENT UROLOGY REPORTS, 2012, 13 (03) : 195 - 201