Advanced

Immediate versus delayed prostatectomy : Nationwide population-based study

Loeb, Stacy; Folkvaljon, Yasin; Robinson, David; Makarov, Danil V.; Bratt, Ola LU ; Garmo, Hans and Stattin, Pär (2016) In Scandinavian Journal of Urology2013-01-01+01:00 p.1-9
Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of immediate versus delayed radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with low-grade prostate cancer. Materials and methods: The study included a nationwide population-based cohort in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden, of 7608 men with clinically localized, biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer who underwent immediate or delayed RP in 1997–2007. Multivariable models compared RP pathology, use of salvage radiotherapy and prostate cancer mortality based on timing of RP (2 years after diagnosis). Median follow-up was 8.1 years. Results: Men undergoing RP more than 2 years after diagnosis had a higher risk of Gleason upgrading [odds ratio 2.93, 95% confidence interval (CI)... (More)

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of immediate versus delayed radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with low-grade prostate cancer. Materials and methods: The study included a nationwide population-based cohort in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden, of 7608 men with clinically localized, biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer who underwent immediate or delayed RP in 1997–2007. Multivariable models compared RP pathology, use of salvage radiotherapy and prostate cancer mortality based on timing of RP (2 years after diagnosis). Median follow-up was 8.1 years. Results: Men undergoing RP more than 2 years after diagnosis had a higher risk of Gleason upgrading [odds ratio 2.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.34–3.68] and an increased risk of salvage radiotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) 1.90, 95% CI 1.41–2.55], but no significant increase in prostate cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.85, 95% CI 0.57–5.99). In competing risk analysis, 7 year prostate cancer-specific cumulative mortality was similar, at less than 1%, for immediate RP and active surveillance regardless of later intervention. Limitations of this study include the lack of data on follow-up biopsies and the limited follow-up time. Conclusion: Men undergoing RP more than 2 years after diagnosis had more adverse pathological features and second line therapy, highlighting the trade-off in deferring immediate curative therapy. However, men with delayed RP constitute a minority with higher risk cancer among the much larger group of low-risk men initially surveilled, and the overall risk of prostate cancer mortality at 7 years was similarly low with immediate RP or active surveillance.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
in press
subject
keywords
Active surveillance, outcomes, prognosis, prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy, surgical delay
in
Scandinavian Journal of Urology2013-01-01+01:00
pages
9 pages
publisher
Taylor & Francis
external identifiers
  • Scopus:84963622988
ISSN
2168-1805
DOI
10.3109/21681805.2016.1166153
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
ef7fe3bd-de56-421c-8eb1-cc2c60be8ca8
date added to LUP
2016-06-17 14:21:02
date last changed
2016-10-27 09:23:29
@misc{ef7fe3bd-de56-421c-8eb1-cc2c60be8ca8,
  abstract     = {<p>Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of immediate versus delayed radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with low-grade prostate cancer. Materials and methods: The study included a nationwide population-based cohort in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden, of 7608 men with clinically localized, biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer who underwent immediate or delayed RP in 1997–2007. Multivariable models compared RP pathology, use of salvage radiotherapy and prostate cancer mortality based on timing of RP (2 years after diagnosis). Median follow-up was 8.1 years. Results: Men undergoing RP more than 2 years after diagnosis had a higher risk of Gleason upgrading [odds ratio 2.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.34–3.68] and an increased risk of salvage radiotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) 1.90, 95% CI 1.41–2.55], but no significant increase in prostate cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.85, 95% CI 0.57–5.99). In competing risk analysis, 7 year prostate cancer-specific cumulative mortality was similar, at less than 1%, for immediate RP and active surveillance regardless of later intervention. Limitations of this study include the lack of data on follow-up biopsies and the limited follow-up time. Conclusion: Men undergoing RP more than 2 years after diagnosis had more adverse pathological features and second line therapy, highlighting the trade-off in deferring immediate curative therapy. However, men with delayed RP constitute a minority with higher risk cancer among the much larger group of low-risk men initially surveilled, and the overall risk of prostate cancer mortality at 7 years was similarly low with immediate RP or active surveillance.</p>},
  author       = {Loeb, Stacy and Folkvaljon, Yasin and Robinson, David and Makarov, Danil V. and Bratt, Ola and Garmo, Hans and Stattin, Pär},
  issn         = {2168-1805},
  keyword      = {Active surveillance,outcomes,prognosis,prostate cancer,radical prostatectomy,surgical delay},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {04},
  pages        = {1--9},
  publisher    = {ARRAY(0x89fd9a0)},
  series       = {Scandinavian Journal of Urology2013-01-01+01:00},
  title        = {Immediate versus delayed prostatectomy : Nationwide population-based study},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2016.1166153},
  year         = {2016},
}