The comparison of survival between active surveillance or watchful waiting and focal therapy for low-risk prostate cancer: a real-world study from the SEER database / 亚洲男科学杂志(英文版)

To reduce treatment-related side effects in low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), both focal therapy and deferred treatments, including active surveillance (AS) and watchful waiting (WW), are worth considering over radical prostatectomy (RP). Therefore, this study aimed to compare long-term survival outcomes between focal therapy and AS/WW. Data were obtained and analyzed from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Patients with low-risk PCa who received focal therapy or AS/WW from 2010 to 2016 were included. Focal therapy included cryotherapy and laser ablation. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare overall mortality (OM) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) between AS/WW and focal therapy, and propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce the influence of bias and unmeasured confounders. A total of 19 292 patients with low-risk PCa were included in this study. In multivariate Cox proportional hazards model analysis, the risk of OM was higher in patients receiving focal therapy than those receiving AS/WW (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.79, P = 0.037), whereas no significant difference was found in CSM (HR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.23-4.11, P = 0.977). After PSM, the OM and CSM of focal therapy and AS/WW showed no significant differences (HR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.92-1.74, P = 0.149; and HR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.24-6.51, P = 0.782, respectively). For patients with low-risk PCa, focal therapy was no match for AS/WW in decreasing OM, suggesting that AS/WW could bring more overall survival benefits.

Factores pronósticos de recurrencia y mortalidad en pacientes con tumor de urotelio superior tratados con cirugía / Prognostic Factors of Recurrence and Mortality in Patients with Upper Urothelial Tumor Treated with Surgery

Objetivos: Identificación de factores pronósticos de recurrencia y mortalidad cáncer-específica en pacientes con tumor de urotelio superior tratados con cirugía. Materiales y métodos: Análisis retrospectivo de pacientes con tumor de urotelio superior operados entre 1999 y 2011 en nuestro centro (139 pacientes). Se recogieron variables demográficas, clínicas, diagnósticas y patológicas, así como el tratamiento realizado, complicaciones y evolución. Análisis descriptivo mediante la prueba de chi cuadrado (X2 ) para variables categóricas y el test ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) para variables continuas. Análisis univariante y multivariante mediante modelo de riesgos proporcionales de Cox. La significación estadística se consideró con un valor de p<0,05. Todos los cálculos fueron realizados con el paquete estadístico IBM® SPSS® Statistics v-21. Resultados: En el análisis multivariante se identificaron como factores predictores independientes de recurrencia el crecimiento sólido tumoral (cociente de riesgo [hazard ratio, HR]=4,02; p<0,001) y el alto grado citológico (G3) (HR=3,42; p=0,01). La presencia de tumor vesical previo o concomitante (HR=1,84; p=0,07) presentó una tendencia a la significación. Se identificaron como factores predictores independientes de mortalidad cáncer-específica la presencia de tumor vesical previo o concomitante (HR=2,23; p=0,02), el crecimiento sólido tumoral (HR=2,73; p=0,008), la presencia de hidronefrosis (HR=2,46; p=0,02) y el estadío patológico avanzado pT3-pT4 (HR=2,74; p=0,01). Conclusiones: En nuestra serie, la existencia de tumor vesical previo o sincrónico, el crecimiento tumoral sólido y el alto grado citológico se comportaron como factores pronósticos de recurrencia. La hidronefrosis, el tumor vesical previo o sincrónico, el estadío pT3-4 y el crecimiento tumoral sólido se comportaron como factores pronósticos de mortalidad cáncer-específica. (AU)

Objectives: Identification of prognostic factors for recurrence and cancer-specific mortality in patients with upper urothelial tumor treated with surgery. Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis of patients with upper urothelial tumor operated between 1999 and 2011 in our center (139 patients). Demographic, clinical, diagnostic and pathological variables were collected, as well as the treatment performed, complications and evolution. Descriptive analysis using the chi-square test (X2 ) for categorical variables and the ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) test for continuous variables. Univariate and multivariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model. Statistical significance was considered with a value of p<0.05. All calculations were made with the statistical package IBM® SPSS® Statistics v-21. Results: In the multivariate analysis, solid tumor growth (hazard ratio, HR=4.02, p<0.001) and high cytological grade (G3) (HR=3, were identified as independent predictors of recurrence. 42, p=0.01). The presence of a previous or concomitant bladder tumor (HR=1.84, p= 0.07) presented a tendency towards significance. The presence of a previous or concomitant bladder tumor (HR=2.23, p=0.02), the solid tumor growth (HR=2.73, p=0.008), the presence of hydronephrosis (HR =2.46, p=0.02) and the advanced pathological stage pT3-pT4 (HR=2.74, p=0.01). Conclusions: In our series, the existence of previous or synchronic bladder tumor, solid tumor growth and high cytological grade behaved as prognostic factors of recurrence. Hydronephrosis, previous or synchronous bladder tumor, stage pT3-4 and solid tumor growth behaved as prognostic factors for cancer-specific mortality.(AU)