Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 27
Filter
1.
Medicina (Kaunas) ; 58(10)2022 Oct 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2066254

ABSTRACT

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) ablation is a novel treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Here, we present a case of an abrupt and fatal arrhythmia during the IRE procedure in a prostate cancer patient with an implanted permanent pacemaker. A 78-year-old male patient with a pacemaker due to sick sinus syndrome and syncope was scheduled for IRE prostate ablation surgery under general anesthesia. He had a history of recovering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after having been vaccinated against it and recovered without sequalae. Pacemaker interrogation and reprogramming to asynchronous AOO mode was carried out before surgery, however, sinus pause occurred repeatedly during ablation pulse delivery. After the first sinus pause of 2.25 s there was a decrease in continuous arterial blood pressure (ABP). During the delivery of the second and third pulses, identical sinus pauses were observed due to failure to capture. However, the atrial-paced rhythm recovered instantly, and vital signs became acceptable. Although sinus pause recovered gradually, the duration thereof was increased by the delivery of more IRE pulses, with a subsequent abrupt decrease seen in blood pressure. The pacemaker was urgently reprogrammed to DOO mode, after which there were no further pacing failures and no hemodynamic adverse events. For patients with pacemakers, close cardiac monitoring in addition to the interrogation of the pacemaker during the electromagnetic interference (EMI) procedure is recommended, especially in the case of having a disease that may aggravate cardiac vulnerability, such as COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pacemaker, Artificial , Prostatic Neoplasms , Male , Humans , Aged , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Prostate , Pacemaker, Artificial/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications , Electroporation/methods
3.
Curr Oncol ; 29(4): 2768-2775, 2022 04 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1792786

ABSTRACT

We aimed to assess whether the ongoing course of the COVID-19 epidemic has been associated with an increased risk of adverse pathology (AP) findings in prostate cancer (PC) patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). We performed a retrospective data analysis which included 408 consecutive, non-metastatic, previously untreated PC patients who underwent RP in our institution between March 2020 and September 2021. Patients were divided into two equally numbered groups in regard to the median surgery date (Early Epidemic [EE] and Late Epidemic [LE]) and compared. Adverse pathology was defined as either grade group (GG) ≥ 4, pT ≥ 3a or pN+ at RP. Patients in the LE group demonstrated significantly higher rates of AP than in the EE group (61 vs. 43% overall and 50 vs. 27% in preoperative non-high-risk subgroup, both p < 0.001), mainly due to higher rates of upgrading. On multivariable analysis, consecutive epidemic week (odds ratio: 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.00-1.03, p = 0.009) as well as biopsy GG ≥ 2 and a larger prostate volume (mL) were associated with AP in non-high-risk patients. The study serves as a warning call for increased awareness of risk underassessment in contemporarily treated PC patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Prostatic Neoplasms , Humans , Male , Neoplasm Grading , Prostate/pathology , Prostatectomy/adverse effects , Prostatic Neoplasms/epidemiology , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Retrospective Studies
5.
Clin Nucl Med ; 47(2): e187-e189, 2022 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1684923

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: A 79-year-old man with a history of prostate adenocarcinoma treated with prostatectomy underwent 18F-FCH PET/CT for restaging purpose, which was negative for relapse but showed the presence of choline-positive lymph nodes in the left axilla. The patient underwent a COVID-19 vaccination in the left arm 6 days prior. Thus, PET/CT findings were considered as inflammatory lymph nodes. With the current drive of global COVID-19 immunization, this case underlines the importance of knowing vaccination history to interpret correctly the findings and to avoid false-positive reports.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lymphadenopathy , Prostatic Neoplasms , Aged , COVID-19 Vaccines , Choline/analogs & derivatives , Humans , Male , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local , Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography , Positron-Emission Tomography , Prostate-Specific Antigen , Prostatectomy , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
7.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 21526, 2021 11 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1500514

ABSTRACT

Earlier in 2020, seven Italian regions, which cover 62% of the Italian population, set up the Mimico-19 network to monitor the side effects of the restrictive measures against Covid-19 on volumes and quality of care. To this aim, we retrospectively analysed hospital discharges data, computing twelve indicators of volume and performance in three clinical areas: cardiology, oncology, and orthopaedics. Weekly indicators for the period January-July 2020 were compared with the corresponding average for 2018-2019; comparisons were performed within 3 sub-periods: pre-lockdown, lockdown, and post-lockdown. The weekly trend of hospitalisations for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) showed a 40% reduction, but the proportion of STEMI patients with a primary PTCA did not significantly change from previous years. Malignant neoplasms surgery volumes differed substantially by site, with a limited reduction for lung cancer (< 20%) and greater declines (30-40%) for breast and prostate cancers. The percentage of timely surgery for femoral neck in the elderly remained constantly higher than the previous 2 years whereas hip and knee replacements fell dramatically. Hospitalisations have generally decreased, but the capacity of a timely and effective response in time-dependent pathways of care was not jeopardized throughout the period. General trends did not show important differences across regions, regardless of the different burden of Covid-19. Preventive and primary care services should adopt a pro-active approach, moving towards the identification of at-risk conditions that were neglected during the pandemic and timely addressing patients to the secondary care system.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/statistics & numerical data , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/statistics & numerical data , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/virology , Female , Hospitalization/trends , Humans , Italy , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Lung Neoplasms/surgery , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Quarantine , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/pathology , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/therapy
8.
World J Urol ; 40(1): 263-269, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1437258

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To assess differences in referral and pathologic outcomes for uro-oncology cases prior to and during the COVID pandemic, comparing clinical and pathological data of cancer surgeries performed at an academic referral center between 2019 and 2020. METHODS: We collected data of 880 prostate biopsies, 393 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies (RARP) for prostate cancer (PCa), 767 trans-urethral resections of bladder tumor (TURB) and 134 radical cystectomies (RC) for bladder cancer (BCa), 29 radical nephro-ureterectomies (RNU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma, 130 partial nephrectomies (PN) and 12 radical nephrectomies (RN) for renal cancer, and 41 orchifunicolectomies for testicular cancer. Data of patients treated in 2019 (before COVID-19 pandemic) were compared to patients treated in 2020 (during pandemic). RESULTS: No significant decline in uro-oncological surgical activity was seen between 2019 and 2020. No significant increase in time between diagnosis and surgery was observed for all considered cancers. No differences in terms of main pathologic features were observed in patients undergoing RARP, TURB, RNU, RN/PN, or orchifunicolectomy. A higher proportion of ISUP grade 3 and 4 PCa were diagnosed in 2020 at biopsy (p = 0.001), but this did not translate into worse pathological grade/stage at RARP. In 2020, more advanced disease features were seen after RC, including lymph node involvement (p = 0.01) and non-organ confined disease (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Neither decline in uro-oncologic activity nor delay between diagnosis and treatment was observed at our institution during the first year of COVID-19 pandemic. No significant worsening of cancer disease features was found in 2020 except for muscle-invasive BCa.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Testicular Neoplasms/pathology , Urologic Neoplasms/pathology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Communicable Disease Control , Cystectomy , Female , Humans , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Nephroureterectomy , Orchiectomy , Prostatectomy , Prostatic Neoplasms/epidemiology , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Referral and Consultation , Retrospective Studies , Tertiary Care Centers , Testicular Neoplasms/epidemiology , Testicular Neoplasms/surgery , Time-to-Treatment , Urologic Neoplasms/epidemiology , Urologic Neoplasms/surgery
9.
JAMA Oncol ; 7(10): 1467-1473, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1320053

ABSTRACT

Importance: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, racial/ethnic minority communities disproportionately experienced poor outcomes; however, the association of the pandemic with prostate cancer (PCa) care is unknown. Objective: To assess the association between race and PCa care delivery for Black and White patients during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, regional, collaborative, retrospective cohort study compared prostatectomy rates between Black and White patients with untreated nonmetastatic PCa during the COVID-19 pandemic (269 patients from March 16 to May 15, 2020) and prior (378 patients from March 11 to May 10, 2019). Main Outcomes and Measures: Prostatectomy rates. Results: Of the 647 men with nonmetastatic PCa, 172 (26.6%) were non-Hispanic Black men, and 475 (73.4%) were non-Hispanic White men. Black men were significantly less likely to undergo prostatectomy during the pandemic compared with White patients (1 of 76 [1.3%] vs 50 of 193 [25.9%]; P < .001), despite similar COVID-19 risk factors, biopsy Gleason grade groups, and comparable prostatectomy rates prior to the pandemic (17 of 96 [17.7%] vs 54 of 282 [19.1%]; P = .75). Black men had higher median prostate-specific antigen levels prior to biopsy (8.8 ng/mL [interquartile range, 5.3-15.2 ng/mL] vs 7.2 ng/mL [interquartile range, 5.1-11.1 ng/mL]; P = .04). A linear combination of regression coefficients with an interaction term for year demonstrated an odds ratio for likelihood of surgery of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.01-0.35; P = .002) for Black patients and 1.41 (95% CI, 0.81-2.44; P = .23) for White patients during the pandemic compared with prior to the pandemic. Changes in surgical volume varied by site (from a 33% increase to complete shutdown), with sites that experienced the largest reduction in cancer surgery caring for a greater proportion of Black patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large multi-institutional regional collaborative cohort study, the odds of PCa surgery were lower among Black patients compared with White patients during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although localized PCa does not require immediate treatment, the lessons from this study suggest systemic inequities within health care and are likely applicable across medical specialties. Public health efforts are needed to fully recognize the unintended consequence of diversion of cancer resources to the COVID-19 pandemic to develop balanced mitigation strategies as viral rates continue to fluctuate.


Subject(s)
African Americans/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , Prostatectomy/statistics & numerical data , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Whites/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Grading , Pandemics , Prostatic Neoplasms/ethnology , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Retrospective Studies , United States/ethnology
10.
Int J Clin Pract ; 75(8): e14278, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1319297

ABSTRACT

AIM: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the anxiety and depression status of prostate cancer (PCa) patients whose planned operations in the urology clinic of our hospital, which is serving as a pandemic hospital in Turkey have been postponed because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: This survey study was conducted at urology clinic of Ankara City Hospital between March 1 and June 1, 2020, and included 24 male patients who agreed to answer the questionnaires (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory [STAI] I and II and Beck Depression Inventory [BDI]). Demographical and clinical data (age, time since diagnosis, total serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, risk groups according to the D'Amico classification system, smoking, alcohol habitus, major surgical history and comorbidities) of the patients were collected from hospital software. RESULTS: The mean STAI-I score of the patients (46.7 ± 1.4 [44-49]) was significantly higher than their STAI-II score (41.7 ± 2.4 [39-47]) (P < .001). The negative correlation between the decrease in age and STAI-I score was found to be statistically significant (r = 0.439, P < .05). The mean BDI score of the patients was 4.3 ± 3.2 (0-13), which was compatible with mild depression. There was no statistically significant difference among the time elapsed from diagnosis, PSA levels, smoking and alcohol habitus, major surgical history and comorbidity status and STAI-I, STAI-II and BDI scores (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Prostate cancer patients with postponed operations should be guided properly in order to manage their anxiety status especially young patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Prostatic Neoplasms , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/etiology , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/etiology , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Prostatic Neoplasms/complications , Prostatic Neoplasms/epidemiology , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , SARS-CoV-2 , Turkey
12.
Ann Surg Oncol ; 28(13): 8688-8696, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1282289

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the height of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, elective surgeries, including oncologic surgeries, were delayed. Little prospective data existed to guide practice, and professional surgical societies issued recommendations grounded mainly in common sense and expert consensus, such as medical therapy for early-stage breast and prostate cancer patients. To understand the patient experience of delay in cancer surgery during the pandemic, we interviewed breast and prostate cancer patients whose surgeries were delayed due to the pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with early-stage breast or prostate cancer who suffered surgical postponement at Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) were invited to participate. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 21 breast and prostate cancer patients. Interviews were transcribed, and qualitative analysis using ground-theory approach was performed. RESULTS: Most patients reported significant distress due to cancer and COVID. Key themes that emerged included the lack of surprise and acceptance of the surgical delays but endorsed persistent cancer- and delay-related worries. Satisfaction with patient-physician communication and the availability of a delay strategy were key factors in patients' acceptance of the situation; perceived lack of communication prompted a few patients to seek care elsewhere. DISCUSSION: The clinical effect of delay in cancer surgery will take years to fully understand, but there are immediate steps that can be taken to improve the patient experience of delays in care, including elicitation of individual patient perspectives and ongoing communication. More work is needed to understand the wider experiences of patients, especially minority, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and uninsured patients, who encounter delays in oncologic care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Prostatic Neoplasms , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , SARS-CoV-2
13.
BJU Int ; 127(6): 729-741, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1138102

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic caused delays in definitive treatment of patients with prostate cancer. Beyond the immediate delay a backlog for future patients is expected. The objective of this work is to develop guidance on criteria for prioritisation of surgery and reconfiguring management pathways for patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer who opt for surgical treatment. A second aim was to identify the infection prevention and control (IPC) measures to achieve a low likelihood of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hazard if radical prostatectomy (RP) was to be carried out during the outbreak and whilst the disease is endemic. METHODS: We conducted an accelerated consensus process and systematic review of the evidence on COVID-19 and reviewed international guidance on prostate cancer. These were presented to an international prostate cancer expert panel (n = 34) through an online meeting. The consensus process underwent three rounds of survey in total. Additions to the second- and third-round surveys were formulated based on the answers and comments from the previous rounds. The Consensus opinion was defined as ≥80% agreement and this was used to reconfigure the prostate cancer pathways. RESULTS: Evidence on the delayed management of patients with prostate cancer is scarce. There was 100% agreement that prostate cancer pathways should be reconfigured and measures developed to prevent nosocomial COVID-19 for patients treated surgically. Consensus was reached on prioritisation criteria of patients for surgery and management pathways for those who have delayed treatment. IPC measures to achieve a low likelihood of nosocomial COVID-19 were coined as 'COVID-19 cold' sites. CONCLUSION: Reconfiguring management pathways for patients with prostate cancer is recommended if significant delay (>3-6 months) in surgical management is unavoidable. The mapped pathways provide guidance for such patients. The IPC processes proposed provide a framework for providing RP within an environment with low COVID-19 risk during the outbreak or when the disease remains endemic. The broader concepts could be adapted to other indications beyond prostate cancer surgery.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Critical Pathways , Pandemics , Prostatectomy , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Delphi Technique , Health Care Rationing , Humans , Infection Control , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Time-to-Treatment
14.
Lancet Oncol ; 22(3): 294-296, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1111907
15.
Urologia ; 88(1): 3-8, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1105635

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically hit all Europe and Northern Italy in particular. The reallocation of medical resources has caused a sharp reduction in the activity of many medical disciplines, including urology. The restricted availability of resources is expected to cause a delay in the treatment of urological cancers and to negatively influence the clinical history of many cancer patients. In this study, we describe COVID-19 impact on uro-oncological management in Piedmont/Valle d'Aosta, estimating its future impact. METHODS: We performed an online survey in 12 urological centers, belonging to the Oncological Network of Piedmont/Valle d'Aosta, to estimate the impact of COVID-19 emergency on their practice. On this basis, we then estimated the medical working capacity needed to absorb all postponed uro-oncological procedures. RESULTS: Most centers (77%) declared to be "much"/"very much" affected by COVID-19 emergency. If uro-oncological consultations for newly diagnosed cancers were often maintained, follow-up consultations were more than halved or even suspended in around two out of three centers. In-office and day-hospital procedures were generally only mildly reduced, whereas major uro-oncological procedures were more than halved or even suspended in 60% of centers. To clear waiting list backlog, the urological working capacity should dramatically increase in the next months; delays greater than 1 month are expected for more than 50% of uro-oncological procedures. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 emergency has dramatically slowed down uro-oncological activity in Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta. Ideally, uro-oncological patients should be referred to COVID-19-free tertiary urological centers to ensure a timely management.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Continuity of Patient Care , Health Services Accessibility , Medical Oncology/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Urologic Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Urology/statistics & numerical data , Appointments and Schedules , Female , Health Care Surveys , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Kidney Neoplasms/epidemiology , Kidney Neoplasms/surgery , Male , Medical Oncology/organization & administration , Procedures and Techniques Utilization , Prostatic Neoplasms/epidemiology , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/epidemiology , Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/surgery , Urologic Neoplasms/epidemiology , Urologic Neoplasms/surgery , Urology/organization & administration
16.
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg ; 27(2): 180-186, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1102680

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This article aims to give practical information and concrete suggestions on what should be considered in emergency, semi-urgent and elective settings for common anorectal diseases in the hectic period of the COVID-19 pandemic, based on early results of a series of anorectal interventions. METHODS: Referring to other related guidelines, general considerations specific to the diagnosis and treatment of highly prevalent anorectal diseases were developed to target the correct patients, evaluate and orientate by telemedicine, adapt the Proctology Unit to the new pandemic, and control contamination and infection. Specific considerations for common anorectal diseases were cited, and our initial results were retrospectively documented. RESULTS: From March 1 to April 10, 2020, we contacted 240 patients with anorectal diseases in two centers. We evaluated the results retrospectively on 16-17 April. At the end of this survey, 14 patients (5.8%) were lost for further contact and follow-up. Thirty-one patients (12.9%) were evaluated as nondeferrable cases and invited to the Proctology Unit. Twenty-eight patients required interventions at the same session. Adhering to the principles described here, more than 90 percent of benign anorectal disorders could be treated successfully, with 2.1 percent of suspected contamination and no confirmed cases. None of the Proctology personnel or their close contacts developed COVID-19, either. CONCLUSION: By adhering to the principles outlined in this practical guide, it was possible to treat most of the benign anorectal diseases safely in the initial, hectic period of the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Surgery , Guideline Adherence , Pandemics , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , SARS-CoV-2 , Colorectal Neoplasms/surgery , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Spain
18.
Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed) ; 44(10): 659-664, 2020 Dec.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-986880

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused a pandemic of global impact that forced social-political measures to be taken, such as the declaration of the state of alarm in Spain. At the same time, the reorganization of the pediatric medical-surgical activities and infrastructures was carried out, with the consequent suspension of the non-urgent surgical activity of Pediatric Urology. We analyzed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical activity in a Pediatric Urology division, as well as surgical complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of epidemiological, clinical and surgical data was carried out, including complications and readmissions of all patients operated on in the division of Pediatric Urology within the duration of the state of alarm. Five time periods have been created according to the de-escalation phases. RESULTS: Forty-nine surgical procedures were carried out on 45 patients (8 prior to the implementation of the de-escalation phases). High priority pathologies were the most frequent in the first phases, being the ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction the most prevalent. Four complications were recorded (8.8%), none of them were respiratory. CONCLUSIONS: The EAU recommendations for the resumption of surgical activity have allowed a correct, safe and gradual transition to the routine surgical activity in Pediatric Urology. The Clavien-Dindo classification is useful and valid for application in this division. No respiratory complications have been reported that could be attributable to the pandemic situation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Urologic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , Postoperative Complications/classification , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Prune Belly Syndrome/surgery , Retrospective Studies , Rhabdomyosarcoma, Embryonal/surgery , Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/surgery , Urologic Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Urology Department, Hospital
19.
JAMA Netw Open ; 3(12): e2028320, 2020 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-970845

ABSTRACT

Importance: There is a lack of data evaluating the association of surgical delay time (SDT) with outcomes in patients with localized, high-risk prostate cancer. Objective: To investigate the association of SDT of radical prostatectomy and final pathological and survival outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the US National Cancer Database (NCDB) and identified all patients with clinically localized (cT1-2cN0cM0) high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2006 and 2016 who underwent radical prostatectomy. Data analyses were performed from April 1 to April 12, 2020. Exposures: SDT was defined as the number of days between the initial cancer diagnosis and radical prostatectomy. SDT was categorized into 5 groups: 31 to 60, 61 to 90, 91 to 120, 121 to 150, and 151 to 180 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were predetermined as adverse pathological outcomes after radical prostatectomy, including pT3-T4 disease, pN-positive disease, and positive surgical margin. The adverse pathological score (APS) was defined as an accumulated score of the 3 outcomes (0-3). An APS of 2 or higher was considered a separate outcome to capture cases with more aggressive pathological features. The secondary outcome was overall survival. Results: Of the 32 184 patients included in the study, the median (interquartile range) age was 64 (59-68) years, and 25 548 (79.4%) were non-Hispanic White. Compared with an SDT of 31 to 60 days, longer SDTs were not associated with higher risks of having any adverse pathological outcomes (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.80-1.12; P = .53), pT3-T4 disease (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.17; P = .87), pN-positive disease (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.59-1.06; P = .12), positive surgical margin (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74-1.05; P = .17), or APS greater than or equal to 2 (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.05; P = .17). Longer SDT was also not associated with worse overall survival (for SDT of 151-180 days, hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79-1.59, P = .53). Subgroup analyses performed for patients with very high-risk disease (primary Gleason score 5) and sensitivity analyses with SDT considered as a continuous variable yielded similar results. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy within 180 days of diagnosis for high-risk prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer could be safely delayed up to 6 months after diagnosis.


Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Prostate/pathology , Prostatectomy , Prostatic Neoplasms , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Adenocarcinoma/surgery , Cohort Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Grading , Neoplasm Staging , Prostatectomy/adverse effects , Prostatectomy/methods , Prostatic Neoplasms/epidemiology , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk Assessment/statistics & numerical data , Risk Factors , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL