Tag Archive for: cause of death

Posts

Article of the week: Survival and causes of death after RP

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects the Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Dr. Røder discussing his paper.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one

Survival after radical prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer: a population-based study

Martin Andreas Røder1, Klaus Brasso1, Ib Jarle Christensen2, Jørgen Johansen3, Niels Christian Langkilde4, Helle Hvarness1, Steen Carlsson5, Henrik Jakobsen6, Michael Borre7 and Peter Iversen1

1Copenhagen Prostate Cancer Center and Department of Urology, 2The Finsen Laboratory, Copenhagen Biotech Research and Innovation Centre (BRIC), Rigshospitalet Copenhagen University Hospital, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Copenhagen, 3Department of Urology, Regional Hospital West Jutland, Holstebro, 4Department of Urology, Aalborg University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg, 5Department of Urology, Odense University Hospital, Faculty of Health Sciences, Odense, 6Department of Urology, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Herlev and 7Department of Urology, Skejby, Aarhus University Hospital, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus, Denmark

 

OBJECTIVES

• To describe survival and cause of death in a nationwide cohort of Danish patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).

• To describe risk factors associated with prostate cancer mortality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• Observational study of 6489 men with localised prostate cancer treated with RP at six different hospitals in Denmark between 1995 and 2011.

• Survival was described using Kaplan–Meier estimates. Causes of death were obtained from the national registry and cross-checked with patient files.

• Cumulative incidence of death, any cause and prostate cancer-specific, was described using Nelson–Aalen estimates.

• Risk for prostate cancer death was analysed in a Cox multivariate regression model using the covariates: age, cT-category, PSA level and biopsy Gleason score.

RESULTS

• The median follow-up was 4 years. During follow-up, 328 patients died, 109 (33.2%) from prostate cancer and 219 (66.8%) from other causes. Six patients (0.09%) died ≤30 days of RP.

• In multivariate analysis, cT-category was a predictor of prostate cancer death (P < 0.001). Compared with T1 disease, both cT2c (hazard ratio [HR] 2.2) and cT3 (HR 7.2) significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer death. For every doubling of PSA level the risk of prostate cancer death was increased by 34.8% (P < 0.001). Biopsy Gleason score 4 + 3 and ≥8 were associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer death compared with biopsy Gleason score ≤ 6 of 2.3 and 2.7 (P = 0.003), respectively.

• The cumulative hazard of all-cause and prostate cancer-specific mortality after 10 years was 15.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 13.2–17.7) and 6.6% (95% CI 4.9–8.2) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

• We present the first survival analysis of a complete, nationwide cohort of men undergoing RP for localised prostate cancer.

• The main limitation of the study was the relatively short follow-up.

• Interestingly, our national results are comparable to high-volume, single institution, single surgeon series.

 

Editorial: Nationwide prostatectomy practice

Surgical management of prostate cancer is one of the most frequently performed urological procedures [1]. Available data suggests that surgeons’ experience is correlated with both oncological and functional outcome [2]. These initial observations stress the importance of concentration of prostatectomy in high-volume institutes. This centralisation could improve documentation and monitoring of outcome. The data presented by Røder et al. [1] from Denmark show a rapid increase in registered prostatectomy procedures in recent years in six institutes. It remains to be studied whether this is caused by centralisation and better registration or the results of an increased overtreatment. For that, data on the incidence of low-risk disease over time in their series needs analysis.

At least one-third of the population was treated since 2008. The relatively short follow-up and associated few events, and high number of low-risk patients (47% had biopsy Gleason ≤6) make outcome analysis of less value. It is therefore not surprising that in their analysis low- and intermediate-risk tumors had similar outcome. On the other hand, despite prostatectomy, one-third of deaths during follow-up were prostate cancer related in their population. Consistent with reported data at 15 years after prostatectomy more patients died from prostate cancer than from other causes [3]. But still a considerable number of men died from prostate cancer. This also seems the case in the group of men often soothed for having indolent, low-risk disease. At 15 years Røder et al., reported 8.9% of these men with low-risk disease still dying from prostate cancer in Denmark, despite prostatectomy. And although this percentage was lower than that of the prostatectomy group in the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SCPG-4) study (14.6%) [4], most men will still find it disturbingly high and it is three-times higher than the 3% life-time risk of dying from prostate cancer for all men. In other words, it may be perceived that prostatectomy does only partly reverse the risk of dying from prostate cancer, even in men with low-risk disease.

The data from Røder et al. [1] can, with longer follow-up, set the standard for oncological outcome on a national level. Of interest is the observation that, although not significant in the multivariate analysis, variation among institutes for outcome seems to exist but not clearly dependent on institutes volume. Variations of case-mix and patient selection could be topics of further study. With the short follow-up available we are also looking forward to data on functional outcome and perioperative complications that may be more mature. Comparison with now also available registries in Belgium and the Netherlands would be of interest.

It always strikes me that prostate cancer seems to be a systemic disease from the start even in assumed ‘low-risk’ disease, yet surgical management is only focused at loco-regional control. Perhaps the mortality improvement shown in the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SPCG-4) trial by prostatectomy is merely caused by disease delay provided by local control even in the presence of systemic disease. Initial encouraging data from an ongoing study evaluating the role of radiotherapy to the prostate in the presence of bone metastases seem supportive of this notion. Is prostatectomy a debulking management of a systemic disease at most, and an unneeded cure for many, or is there this sub-sub group of men that is eventually fully benefiting from the intervention reversing not only death but also the debilitating effects of androgen ablation.

Henk G. van der Poel
Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

References

  1. Røder MA, Brasso K, Christensen IB et al. Survival after radical prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer: a population-based study. BJU Int 2014; 113: 541–547
  2. Vickers A, Savage C, Bianco F et al. Cancer control and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy as markers of surgical quality: analysis of heterogeneity between surgeons at a single cancer center. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 317–322
  3. Shikanov S, Kocherginsky M, Shalhav AL, Eggener SE. Cause-specific mortality following radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2012; 15: 106–110
  4. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 1708–1717

 

Video: Survival after RP for clinically localised prostate cancer

Survival after radical prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer: a population-based study

Martin Andreas Røder1, Klaus Brasso1, Ib Jarle Christensen2, Jørgen Johansen3, Niels Christian Langkilde4, Helle Hvarness1, Steen Carlsson5, Henrik Jakobsen6, Michael Borre7 and Peter Iversen1

1Copenhagen Prostate Cancer Center and Department of Urology, 2The Finsen Laboratory, Copenhagen Biotech Research and Innovation Centre (BRIC), Rigshospitalet Copenhagen University Hospital, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Copenhagen, 3Department of Urology, Regional Hospital West Jutland, Holstebro, 4Department of Urology, Aalborg University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg, 5Department of Urology, Odense University Hospital, Faculty of Health Sciences, Odense, 6Department of Urology, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Herlev and 7Department of Urology, Skejby, Aarhus University Hospital, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus, Denmark

 

OBJECTIVES

• To describe survival and cause of death in a nationwide cohort of Danish patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).

• To describe risk factors associated with prostate cancer mortality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• Observational study of 6489 men with localised prostate cancer treated with RP at six different hospitals in Denmark between 1995 and 2011.

• Survival was described using Kaplan–Meier estimates. Causes of death were obtained from the national registry and cross-checked with patient files.

• Cumulative incidence of death, any cause and prostate cancer-specific, was described using Nelson–Aalen estimates.

• Risk for prostate cancer death was analysed in a Cox multivariate regression model using the covariates: age, cT-category, PSA level and biopsy Gleason score.

RESULTS

• The median follow-up was 4 years. During follow-up, 328 patients died, 109 (33.2%) from prostate cancer and 219 (66.8%) from other causes. Six patients (0.09%) died ≤30 days of RP.

• In multivariate analysis, cT-category was a predictor of prostate cancer death (P < 0.001). Compared with T1 disease, both cT2c (hazard ratio [HR] 2.2) and cT3 (HR 7.2) significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer death. For every doubling of PSA level the risk of prostate cancer death was increased by 34.8% (P < 0.001). Biopsy Gleason score 4 + 3 and ≥8 were associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer death compared with biopsy Gleason score ≤ 6 of 2.3 and 2.7 (P = 0.003), respectively.

• The cumulative hazard of all-cause and prostate cancer-specific mortality after 10 years was 15.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 13.2–17.7) and 6.6% (95% CI 4.9–8.2) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

• We present the first survival analysis of a complete, nationwide cohort of men undergoing RP for localised prostate cancer.

• The main limitation of the study was the relatively short follow-up.

• Interestingly, our national results are comparable to high-volume, single institution, single surgeon series.

 

© 2019 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.