Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/25959
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPolo Alonso, E-
dc.contributor.authorRamírez-Backhaus, M-
dc.contributor.authorWei, Gavin-
dc.contributor.authorMascarós, J M-
dc.contributor.authorAragón Rodríguez, F-
dc.contributor.authorGómez-Ferrer, A-
dc.contributor.authorCollado, A-
dc.contributor.authorCalatrava Fons, A-
dc.contributor.authorRubio-Briones, J-
dc.date2021-02-23-
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-03T21:46:55Z-
dc.date.available2021-03-03T21:46:55Z-
dc.date.issued2021-02-23-
dc.identifier.citationActas Urologicas Espanolas 2021; online first: 23 Februaryen
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/25959-
dc.description.abstractDetermine whether our institution's active surveillance (AS) protocol is a suitable strategy to minimise prostate cancer overtreatment. Retrospective analysis of 516 patients on AS after prostate cancer diagnosis. Population divided into «per-protocol» vs «induced» AS depending on fulfilment of protocol's inclusion criteria. Radical prostatectomies after AS were selected and stratified based on reclassification, progression or patient anxiety. Clinicopathological features and biochemical relapse-free survival were studied. Primary endpoint was overtreatment ratio based on the presence of insignificant prostate cancer and adverse pathological features in the surgical specimen. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the biochemical relapse-free survival and compared with log-rank test. 304 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria; 100 proceeded to radical prostatectomy (31% «induced», 69% «per-protocol» AS). Surgery indications were reclassification, progression and anxiety in 66%, 18% and 16% of patients, respectively. Rate of positive lymph nodes was higher in the progression group (11%) compared to reclassification and anxiety (5% and 0%, respectively; P=.002). Positive surgical margins were more frequently reported in the progression cohort compared to reclassification (28% vs 20%). Median follow-up from diagnosis until last radical prostatectomy was 48.3months (32.4-70). Three year biochemical relapse-free survival in the salvage radical prostatectomy was 85.4% (95%CI: 78.3-93.2). Insignificant cancer was noticed in 7% of patients (Epstein's vs 24% Wolters' criteria). Rate of patients with adverse pathological features was 36%. The majority of patients who underwent salvage surgery after AS were not overtreated. Radical prostatectomy should be considered a safe rescue treatment.en
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.subjectActive surveillanceen
dc.subjectDisease progressionen
dc.subjectNeoplasias Prostáticasen
dc.subjectProgresión de la enfermedaden
dc.subjectProstateen
dc.subjectProstatectomyen
dc.subjectProstatectomíaen
dc.subjectProstatic neoplasmsen
dc.subjectPróstataen
dc.subjectVigilancia activaen
dc.titleDoes active surveillance avoid overtreatment in prostate cancer? Lessons learned from salvage radical prostatectomies.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleActas Urologicas Espanolasen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartamento de Urología, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Españaen
dc.identifier.affiliationYoung Urology Researchers Organisation (YURO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationSurgery (University of Melbourne)en
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartamento de Patología, Fundacion Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Españaen
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.acuro.2020.09.010en
dc.type.contentTexten
dc.identifier.pubmedid33637376-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

4
checked on Jun 22, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.