首页> 外文期刊>Cureus. >Risk of Death from Prostate Cancer with and without Definitive Local Therapy when Gleason Pattern 5 is Present: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Analysis
【24h】

Risk of Death from Prostate Cancer with and without Definitive Local Therapy when Gleason Pattern 5 is Present: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Analysis

机译:存在格里森模式5时有或没有明确的局部治疗的前列腺癌死亡风险:监测,流行病学和最终结果分析

获取原文
       

摘要

Purpose The purpose is to evaluate the patterns of care and comparative effectiveness for cause-specific and overall survival of definitive local treatments versus conservatively managed men with a primary or secondary Gleason pattern of 5. Methods and materials Patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2012 with a primary or secondary Gleason pattern of 5 N0M0 prostate cancer were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to estimate the survival. Results We identified 20,560 men. Median age and follow-up were 68 years and 4.33 years, respectively. At eight years, cause-specific survival (CSS) was 86.6% and 57.4% of those receiving and not receiving definitive local treatments, respectively. For CSS multivariate analysis, the following were significant: age, race, insurance status, total Gleason Score, T-stage, and type or omission of definitive local treatments. Compared to prostatectomy alone, men not undergoing definitive local treatments had the highest risk of death (HR: 6.07; 95% CI: 5.19-7.10). Those undergoing external beam radiotherapy alone (HR: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.80-2.48) were also at elevated risk of death.?The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent a prostate cancer death at eight years was three persons. Conclusions Death from prostate cancer with a primary or secondary Gleason pattern of 5 histology without definitive local treatment is high. In this hypothesis-generating study, we found that men with a limited life expectancy (less than eight years) and non-metastatic Gleason pattern of 5 disease may benefit from definitive local treatments.?Given the high mortality in men with a Gleason pattern of 5, combined modality local therapies and consideration of chemotherapies may be warranted.
机译:目的目的是评估最终的局部治疗与主要或次要格里森模式为5的保守治疗男性相比,针对特定原因和最终生存率的护理模式和相对有效性,方法和材料2004年至2012年诊断为主要或从监测,流行病学和最终结果(SEER)数据库中提取了5种N0M0前列腺癌的Gleason或继发性Gleason模式。使用Kaplan-Meier和Cox回归分析来评估生存率。结果我们确定了20,560名男性。中位年龄和随访时间分别为68岁和4.33岁。在接受八年治疗的患者中,因特定原因生存(CSS)的比例分别为接受和不接受局部治疗的患者的86.6%和57.4%。对于CSS多变量分析,以下各项很重要:年龄,种族,保险状况,格里森总评分,T期以及明确的局部治疗的类型或遗漏。与仅进行前列腺切除术相比,未接受明确局部治疗的男性死亡风险最高(HR:6.07; 95%CI:5.19-7.10)。那些单独接受外部放射治疗的患者(HR:2.11; 95%CI:1.80-2.48)也有较高的死亡风险。预防八岁的前列腺癌死亡的治疗人数(NNT)为3人。结论前列腺癌的原发性或继发性格里森模式为5种组织学而未进行明确的局部治疗的死亡率较高。在这项假设产生的研究中,我们发现预期寿命有限(少于八年)且格里森模式为非转移性5种疾病的男性可能受益于明确的局部治疗。参照图5,可能需要结合模式的局部疗法和化学疗法的考虑。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号