[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To examine socioeconomic and clinical factors that may predict a longer interval between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP).
The Columbia University Urologic Oncology Database was queried for patients who underwent RP from 1990-2010. Time to surgery (TTS) was defined as the period between the most recent positive prostate biopsy and date of surgery. Clinical factors examined included: age, D'Amico risk group, year of surgery, body mass index, and comorbidities. Socioeconomic factors included race/ethnicity, relationship status, income, and distance to treatment center. The relationship between clinical/socioeconomic factors and TTS was evaluated using univariate and multivariate regression models.
Two-thousand five-hundred seventy-three patients were included in the analysis. Median TTS was 48 days (IQR 35-70, range 43-1103), and 71% of patients underwent RP within 60 days after the most recent positive biopsy. On multivariate analysis, living further from the medical center was associated with shorter TTS (P = .01), whereas more recent year of surgery (P = .01), comorbid cardiovascular disease (P = .007), African-American (P = .005) or Hispanic race (P = .005), divorced relationship status (P = .01), and lower income (P = .003) were all associated with longer TTS.
Patients often experience widely variable intervals between the diagnosis and treatment of localized prostate cancer. Longer intervals before surgery may point to disparities in access to prostate cancer care, and not increased decision-making time by the patient.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Study Type – Therapy (case series)
Level of Evidence 4
What's known on the subject? and What does the study add?
For patients electing surgical treatment, the question of the effect of surgical delay on clinical outcomes in prostate cancer is controversial. In this study we examined the effect of delay from diagnosis to surgery on outcomes in men with localized prostate cancer and found no association between time to surgery and risk of biochemical recurrence, even for patients with longer delays and high-risk disease. Men with localized prostate cancer can be reassured that reasonable delays in treatment will not influence disease outcomes.
BJU International 11/2011; 110(2):211-6. DOI:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10666.x · 3.53 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Vitamin D has a well-known role in calcium metabolism and bone health. It may also help prevent a number of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and malignancies such as breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. To our knowledge the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency has never been reported in the general urological population. We evaluated the vitamin D status of this population at a large academic center.
We retrospectively reviewed the records of 3,763 male and female patients from a urology database at a single academic institution. Patients were identified whose levels of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D were measured for the first time between 1997 and 2010. We determined the prevalence of normal--greater than 30, insufficient--20 to 29 and deficient--less than 20 ng/ml 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for vitamin D deficiency.
Overall 2,559 patients (68%) had suboptimal 25-hydroxyvitamin D (less than 30 ng/ml), of whom 1,331 (52%) were frankly deficient (less than 20 ng/ml) in the vitamin. Vitamin D deficiency was more common in patients younger than age 50 years (44.5%), black (53.2%) and Hispanic (41.6%) patients (p <0.001), and patients without an existing urological malignancy (35.4%, p <0.001). On multivariate analysis race, age, season and cancer diagnosis were independent predictors of vitamin D status.
Vitamin D deficiency is extremely common in urological patients at a major urban medical center. Urologists should consider recommending appropriate supplementation during the initial assessment of all patients.
The Journal of urology 08/2011; 186(4):1395-9. DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.072 · 4.47 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: We used a large, population based registry to assess whether a difference in overall and cardiovascular survival may exist between radical nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma 2 cm or less.
From the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results) registry we identified 4,216 patients with histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma 2 cm or less who were treated with partial or radical nephrectomy. Patient and tumor characteristics were compared between the 2 patient groups. Multivariate logistic regression was done to predict the odds of undergoing radical nephrectomy. Cardiovascular survival and overall survival were compared between the 2 cohorts, adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics.
Overall 2,301 patients (55%) underwent partial nephrectomy. Partial nephrectomy use steadily increased during the study period from 27% of all cases in 1998 to 66% in 2007. Patients who underwent partial nephrectomy were an average of 2.5 years younger than those treated with radical nephrectomy (56.4 vs 58.9 years, p <0.001). They were more likely to be white and from the western or northeastern United States. Older age was the only independent predictor of radical nephrectomy (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03). When controlling for patient characteristics and surgery year, radical nephrectomy was associated with worse overall mortality (HR 2.24, 95% CI 1.75-2.84) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 2.53, 95% CI 1.51-4.23).
Radical nephrectomy is associated with worse overall and cardiovascular survival compared to partial nephrectomy in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma 2 cm or less. These findings justify the widespread application of nephron sparing techniques to treat localized kidney cancer.
The Journal of urology 08/2011; 186(4):1247-53. DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.054 · 4.47 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To analyze the use of radical nephrectomy (RN) and partial nephrectomy during a 10-year period in patients aged≥75 years compared with their younger counterparts.
Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry, we identified 18 045 cases of localized renal cell carcinoma of ≤4 cm diagnosed from 1998 to 2007. The baseline differences in demographic and tumor characteristics were compared between the 2 age cohorts (<75 vs ≥75 years), and the rates of RN were determined, stratified by tumor size. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to predict the odds of undergoing radical nephrectomy for clinical Stage T1a disease.
Overall, 2733 patients (15%) were aged≥75 years. The use of radical nephrectomy for clinical Stage T1a renal cell carcinoma decreased during the study period for all patients (79% in 1998 to 49% in 2007). Overall, 66% of patients aged≥75 years underwent RN for their disease compared with 59% of patients aged<75 years (P<.001). For patients with tumors of ≤2 cm, 51% of those aged≥75 years underwent RN compared with 41% of the younger cohort. In a multivariate logistic regression model, age≥75 years independently predicted the use of radical nephrectomy (odds ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.08-1.29). A 1-year increase in age was associated with a 1% increase in the risk of undergoing RN (odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.01).
Elderly patients with clinically localized small renal masses are treated with RN more frequently than younger patients. Additional studies should address the medical implications of the increased use of radical surgery within the geriatric population.