Department of Urology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, The James Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland.
Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, The James Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland.
J Urol. 2017 Sep;198(3):608-613. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.122. Epub 2017 Mar 24.
We compared biochemical recurrence between men on active surveillance who underwent radical prostatectomy triggered by grade reclassification and men diagnosed with similar grade disease treated with immediate radical prostatectomy.
We retrospectively analyzed the records of men who underwent surgery from 1995 to 2015 at our institution. We identified 4 groups, including 94 and 56 men on active surveillance who underwent radical prostatectomy following reclassification to Gleason 7 (3 + 4) or greater (grade groups 2 or greater) and Gleason 7 (3 + 4) (grade group 2), and 3,504 and 1,979 in the immediate prostatectomy group diagnosed with grade group 2 or greater and 2, respectively. Biochemical recurrence was assessed by Kaplan-Meir analysis and a multivariable Cox model.
Men on active surveillance had a lower incidence of biochemical recurrence than men in the immediate radical prostatectomy groups for biopsy grade groups 2 or greater and 2 (each p <0.05). One, 5 and 10-year biochemical recurrence-free survival for men in the active surveillance group vs the immediate radical prostatectomy group was 97.9% vs 85.5%, 76.6% vs 65.1% and 69.0% vs 54.2% in biopsy grade groups 2 or greater (p = 0.009) and 96.4% vs 91.2%, 89.6% vs 74.0% and 89.6% vs 63.9%, respectively, in biopsy grade group 2 (p = 0.071). For biopsy grade groups 2 or greater there was no significant difference in the risk of biochemical recurrence between the groups after adjusting for age, biopsy extent of cancer and prostate specific antigen density.
Patients on active surveillance reclassified to grade groups 2 or greater are at no greater risk for treatment failure than men newly diagnosed with similar grades.
我们比较了因分级重新分类而接受根治性前列腺切除术和因相似分级疾病而接受即刻根治性前列腺切除术的主动监测男性之间的生化复发情况。
我们回顾性分析了 1995 年至 2015 年在我们机构接受手术的男性记录。我们确定了 4 个组,包括因重新分类为 Gleason 7(3+4)或更高(分级组 2 或更高)和 Gleason 7(3+4)(分级组 2)而接受根治性前列腺切除术的 94 名和 56 名主动监测男性,以及诊断为分级组 2 或更高和 2 的 3504 名和 1979 名即刻前列腺切除术男性。通过 Kaplan-Meier 分析和多变量 Cox 模型评估生化复发情况。
与即刻根治性前列腺切除术组相比,主动监测男性的生化复发率较低,适用于活检分级组 2 或更高和 2(各 p<0.05)。主动监测组与即刻根治性前列腺切除术组相比,1、5 和 10 年的生化无复发生存率分别为 97.9%对 85.5%、76.6%对 65.1%和 69.0%对 54.2%,活检分级组 2 或更高(p=0.009),96.4%对 91.2%、89.6%对 74.0%和 89.6%对 63.9%,分别在活检分级组 2(p=0.071)。在调整年龄、癌症活检范围和前列腺特异性抗原密度后,活检分级组 2 或更高的两组之间的生化复发风险没有显著差异。
因分级重新分类为 2 级或更高的患者与新诊断为相似分级的患者相比,治疗失败的风险没有增加。