WOS
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11443/932
Browse
21 results
Search Results
Item What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021 (vol 82, pg 6, 2022)(ELSEVIER, 2022-01-01) Turco, Fabio; Armstrong, Andrew; Attard, Gerhardt; Beer, Tomasz M.; Beltran, Himisha; Bjartell, Anders; Bossi, Alberto; Briganti, Alberto; Bristow, Rob G.; Bulbul, Muhammad; Caffo, Orazio; Chi, Kim N.; Clarke, Caroline; Clarke, Noel; Davis, Ian D.; de Bono, Johann; Duran, Ignacio; Eeles, Ros; Efstathiou, Eleni; Efstathiou, Jason; Evans, Christopher P.; Fanti, Stefano; Feng, Felix Y.; Fizazi, Karim; Frydenberg, Mark; George, Dan; Gleave, Martin; Halabi, Susan; Heinrich, Daniel; Higano, Celestia; Hofman, Michael S.; Hussain, Maha; James, Nicholas; Jones, Rob; Kanesvaran, Ravindran; Khauli, Raja B.; Klotz, Laurence; Leibowitz, Raya; Logothetis, Christopher; Maluf, Fernando; Millman, Robin; Morgans, Alicia K.; Morris, Michael J.; Mottet, Nicolas; Mrabti, Hind; Murphy, Declan G.; Murthy, Vedang; Oh, William K.; Ekeke, Onyeanunam Ngozi; Ost, Piet; O'Sullivan, Joe M.; Padhani, Anwar R.; Parker, Christopher; Poon, Darren M. C.; Pritchard, Colin C.; Rabah, Danny M.; Rathkopf, Dana; Reiter, Robert E.; Rubin, Mark; Ryan, Charles J.; Saad, Fred; Sade, Juan Pablo; Sartor, Oliver; Scher, Howard I.; Shore, Neal; Skoneczna, Iwona; Small, Eric; Smith, Matthew; Soule, Howard; Spratt, Daniel; Sternberg, Cora N.; Suzuki, Hiroyoshi; Sweeney, Christopher; Sydes, Matthew; Taplin, Mary-Ellen; Tilki, Derya; Tombal, Bertrand; Turkeri, Levent; Uemura, Hiroji; Uemura, Hirotsugu; van Oort, Inge; Yamoah, Kosj; Ye, Dingwei; Zapatero, Almudena; Gillessen, Silke; Omlin, AureliusItem What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021(ELSEVIER, 2022-01-01) Turco, Fabio; Armstrong, Andrew; Attard, Gerhardt; Beer, Tomasz M.; Beltran, Himisha; Bjartell, Anders; Bossi, Alberto; Briganti, Alberto; Bristow, Rob G.; Bulbul, Muhammad; Caffo, Orazio; Chi, Kim N.; Clarke, Caroline; Clarke, Noel; Davis, Ian D.; de Bono, Johann; Duran, Ignacio; Eeles, Ros; Efstathiou, Eleni; Efstathiou, Jason; Evans, Christopher P.; Fanti, Stefano; Feng, Felix Y.; Fizazi, Karim; Frydenberg, Mark; George, Dan; Gleave, Martin; Halabi, Susan; Heinrich, Daniel; Higano, Celestia; Hofman, Michael S.; Hussain, Maha; James, Nicholas; Jones, Rob; Kanesvaran, Ravindran; Khauli, Raja B.; Klotz, Laurence; Leibowitz, Raya; Logothetis, Christopher; Maluf, Fernando; Millman, Robin; Morgans, Alicia K.; Morris, Michael J.; Mottet, Nicolas; Mrabti, Hind; Murphy, Declan G.; Murthy, Vedang; Oh, William K.; Onyeanunam, Ngozi Ekeke; Ost, Piet; O'Sullivan, Joe M.; Padhani, Anwar R.; Parker, Christopher; Poon, Darren M. C.; Pritchard, Colin C.; Rabah, Danny M.; Rathkopf, Dana; Reiter, Robert E.; Rubin, Mark; Ryan, Charles J.; Saad, Fred; Pablo Sade, Juan; Sartor, Oliver; Scher I, Howard; Shore, Neal; Skoneczna, Iwona; Small, Eric; Smith, Matthew; Soule, Howard; Spratt, Daniel; Sternberg, Cora N.; Suzuki, Hiroyoshi; Sweeney, Christopher; Sydes, Matthew; Taplin, Mary-Ellen; Tilki, Derya; Tombal, Bertrand; Turkeri, Levent; Uemura, Hiroji; Uemura, Hirotsugu; van Oort, Inge; Yamoah, Kosj; Ye, Dingwei; Zapatero, Almudena; Gillessen, Silke; Omlin, AureliusPatients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70\% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25\% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71\%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77\%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55\% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. Patient summary: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients. (c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Item Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021(ELSEVIER, 2022-01-01) Gillessen, Silke; Armstrong, Andrew; Attard, Gert; Beer, Tomasz M.; Beltran, Himisha; Bjartell, Anders; Bossi, Alberto; Briganti, Alberto; Bristow, Robert G.; Bulbul, Muhammad; Caffo, Orazio; Chi, Kim N.; Clarke, Caroline S.; Clarke, Noel; Davis, Ian D.; de Bono, Johann S.; Duran, Ignacio; Eeles, Ros; Efstathiou, Eleni; Efstathiou, Jason; Ekeke, Onyeanunam Ngozi; Evans, Christopher P.; Fanti, Stefano; Feng, Felix Y.; Fizazi, Karim; Frydenberg, Mark; George, Dan; Gleave, Martin; Halabi, Susan; Heinrich, Daniel; Higano, Celesta; Hofman, Michael S.; Hussain, Maha; James, Nick; Jones, Robert; Kanesvaran, Ravindran; Khauli, Raja B.; Klotz, Laurence; Leibowitz, Raya; Logothetis, Chris; Maluf, Fernando; Millman, Robin; Morgans, Alicia K.; Morris, Michael J.; Mottet, Nicolas; Mrabti, Hind; Murphy, Declan G.; Murthy, Vedang; Oh, William K.; Ost, Piet; O'Sullivan, Joe M.; Padhani, Anwar R.; Parker, Chris; Poon, Darren M. C.; Pritchard, Colin C.; Rabah, Danny M.; Rathkopf, Dana; Reiter, Rob E.; Rubin, Mark; Ryan, Charles J.; Saad, Fred; Sade, Juan P.; Sartor, Oliver; Scher I, Howard; Shore, Neal; Skoneczna, Iwona; Small, Eric; Smith, Matthew; Soule, Howard; Spratt, Daniel E.; Sternberg, Cora N.; Suzuki, Hiroyoshi; Sweeney, Christopher; Sydes, Matthew R.; Taplin, Mary-Ellen; Tilki, Derya; Tombal, Bertrand; Turkeri, Levent; Uemura, Hiroji; Uemura, Hirotsugu; van Oort, Inge; Yamoah, Kosj; Ye, Dingwei; Zapatero, Almudena; Omlin, AureliusBackground: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: To present the voting results from APCCC 2021. Design, setting, and participants: The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. Results and limitations: The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. Conclusions: These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making. (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Item Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019(ELSEVIER, 2020-01-01) Gillessena, Silke; Attard, Gerhardt; Beer, Tomasz M.; Beltran, Himisha; Bjartell, Anders; Bossi, Alberto; Briganti, Alberto; Bristow, Rob G.; Chi, Kim N.; Clarke, Noel; Davis, Ian D.; de Bono, Johann; Drake, Charles G.; Duran, Ignacio; Eeles, Ros; Efstathiou, Eleni; Evans, Christopher P.; Fanti, Stefano; Feng, Felix Y.; Fizazi, Karim; Frydenberg, Mark; Gleave, Martin; Halabi, Susan; Heidenreich, Axel; Heinrich, Daniel; Higano, Celestia (Tia) S.; Hofman, Michael S.; Hussain, Maha; James, Nicolas; Kanesvaran, Ravindran; Kantoff, Philip; Khauli, Raja B.; Leibowitz, Raya; Logothetis, Chris; Maluf, Fernando; Millman, Robin; Morgans, Alicia K.; Morris, Michael J.; Mottet, Nicolas; Mrabti, Hind; Murphy, Declan G.; Murthy, Vedang; Oh, William K.; Ost, Piet; OSullivan, Joe M.; Padhani, Anwar R.; Parker, Chris; Poon, Darren M. C.; Pritchard, Colin C.; Reiter, Robert E.; Roach, Mack; Rubin, Mark; Ryan, Charles J.; Saad, Fred; Sade, Juan Pablo; Sartor, Oliver; Scher I, Howard; Shore, Neal; Small, Eric; Smith, Matthew; Soule, Howard; Sternberg, Cora N.; Steuber, Thomas; Suzuki, Hiroyoshi; Sweeneyh, Christopher; Sydes, Matthew R.; Taplinh, Mary-Ellen; Tombal, Bertrand; Turkeri, Levent; van Oort, Inge; Zapatero, Almudena; Omlind, AureliusBackground: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: To present the results from the APCCC 2019. Design, setting, and participants: Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naive prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. Results and limitations: Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. Conclusions: These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.Item Managing advanced prostate cancer in the Asia Pacific region: ``Real-world'' application of Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019 statements(WILEY, 2022-01-01) Chiong, Edmund; Murphy, Declan G.; Buchan, Nicholas C.; Chua, Melvin L. K.; Hakim, Lukman; Hamid, Agus Rizal; Hong, Sung K.; Horvath, Lisa G.; Kanesvaran, Ravi; Khochikar, Makarand; Letran, Jason; Lojanapiwat, Bannakij; Malek, Rohan; Ng, Anthony C. F.; Vinh, Nguyen Tuan; Pang, See-Tong; Poon, Darren M. C.; Ong, Teng Aik; Saad, Marniza; Schubach, Kathryn; Shiroki, Ryoichi; Turkeri, Levent; Williams, Scott; Wong, Alvin; Ye, Dingwei; Davis, Ian D.; Grp, A.N.Z.U.P. Canc TrialsAim The second Asia-Pacific Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APAC APCCC 2020) gathered insights into the real-world application in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region of consensus statements from the 3rd Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2019). Methods The 4-h our virtual meeting in October 2020 brought together 26 experts from 14 APAC countries to discuss APCCC 2019 recommendations. Presentations were prerecorded and viewed prior to the meeting. A postmeeting survey gathered views on current practice. Results The meeting and survey highlighted several developments since APAC APCCC 2018. Increased access and use in the region of PSMA PET/CT imaging is providing additional diagnostic and staging information for advanced prostate cancer and influencing local and systemic therapy choices. Awareness of oligometastatic disease, although not clearly defined, is increasing. Novel androgen receptor pathway antagonists are expanding treatment options. Cost and access to contemporary treatments and technologies continue to be a significant factor influencing therapeutic decisions in the region. With treatment options increasing, multidisciplinary treatment planning, shared decision making, and informed choice remain critical. A discussion on the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted challenges for diagnosis, treatment, and clinical trials and new service delivery models that will continue beyond the pandemic. Conclusion APAC-specific prostate cancer research and data are important to ensure that treatment guidelines and recommendations reflect local populations and resources. Facilitated approaches to collaboration across the region such as that achieved through APAC APCCC meetings continue to be a valuable mechanism to ensure the relevance of consensus guidelines within the region.Item Predicting intra-operative and postoperative consequential events using machine-learning techniques in patients undergoing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative database study(WILEY, 2020-01-01) Bhandari, Mahendra; Nallabasannagari, Anubhav Reddy; Reddiboina, Madhu; Porter, James R.; Jeong, Wooju; Mottrie, Alexandre; Dasgupta, Prokar; Challacombe, Ben; Abaza, Ronney; Rha, Koon Ho; Parekh, Dipen J.; Ahlawat, Rajesh; Capitanio, Umberto; Yuvaraja, Thyavihally B.; Rawal, Sudhir; Moon, Daniel A.; Buffi, Nicolo M.; Sivaraman, Ananthakrishnan; Maes, Kris K.; Porpiglia, Francesco; Gautam, Gagan; Turkeri, Levent; Meyyazhgan, Kohul Raj; Patil, Preethi; Menon, Mani; Rogers, CraigObjective To predict intra-operative (IOEs) and postoperative events (POEs) consequential to the derailment of the ideal clinical course of patient recovery. Materials and Methods The Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative is a multi-institutional dataset of patients who underwent robot-assisted partial nephectomy for kidney tumours. Machine-learning (ML) models were constructed to predict IOEs and POEs using logistic regression, random forest and neural networks. The models to predict IOEs used patient demographics and preoperative data. In addition to these, intra-operative data were used to predict POEs. Performance on the test dataset was assessed using area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (PR-AUC). Results The rates of IOEs and POEs were 5.62\% and 20.98\%, respectively. Models for predicting IOEs were constructed using data from 1690 patients and 38 variablesItem Perioperative outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal masses: A Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative database study(WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS, 2022-01-01) Sharma, Gopal; Shah, Milap; Ahluwalia, Puneet; Dasgupta, Prokar; Challacombe, Benjamin J.; Bhandari, Mahendra; Ahlawat, Rajesh; Rawal, Sudhir; Buffi, Nicolo M.; Sivaraman, Ananthakrishnan; Porter, James R.; Rogers, Craig; Mottrie, Alexandre; Abaza, Ronney; Rha, Khoon Ho; Moon, Daniel; Thyavihally, Yuvaraja B.; Parekh, Dipen J.; Capitanio, Umberto; Maes, Kris K.; Porpiglia, Francesco; Turkeri, Levent; Gautam, GaganIntroduction: Outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) depend on tumor complexity, surgeon experience and patient profile among other variables. We aimed to study the perioperative outcomes of RAPN for patients with complex renal masses using the Vattikuti Collective Quality Initiative (VCQI) database that allowed evaluation of multinational data. Methods: From the VCQI, we extracted data for all the patients who underwent RAPN with preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) score of >= 10. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to ascertain predictors of trifecta (absence of complications, negative surgical margins, and warm ischemia times {[}WIT] <25 min or zero ischemia) outcomes. Results: Of 3,801 patients, 514 with PADUA scores >= 10 were included. The median operative time, WIT, and blood loss were 173 (range 45-546) min, 21 (range 0-55) min, and 150 (range 50-3500) ml, respectively. Intraoperative complications and blood transfusions were reported in 2.1\% and 6\%, respectively. In 8.8\% of the patients, postoperative complications were noted, and surgical margins were positive in 10.3\% of the patients. Trifecta could be achieved in 60.7\% of patients. Clinical tumor size, duration of surgery, WIT, and complication rates were significantly higher in the group with a high (12 or 13) PADUA score while the trifecta was significantly lower in this group (48.4\%). On multivariate analysis, surgical approach (retroperitoneal vs. transperitoneal) and high PADUA score (12/13) were identified as predictors of the trifecta outcomes. Conclusion: RAPN may be a reasonable surgical option for patients with complex renal masses with acceptable perioperative outcomes.Item Are the Recommended Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Applicable to 12-core Prostate Biopsy Scheme? A Multicentre Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey(GALENOS PUBL HOUSE, 2021-01-01) Celik, Serdar; Kizilay, Fuat; Yorukoglu, Kutsal; Ozen, Haluk; Akdogan, Bulent; Izol, Volkan; Bayazit, Yildirim; Aslan, Guven; Sozen, Sinan; Baltaci, Sumer; Muezzinoglu, Talha; Narter, Fehmi; Turkeri, Levent; Assoc, UrooncologyObjective: The aim of this study is to investigate the relevance of the Epstein criteria for the 12-core transrectal prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) scheme with the evaluation of clinicopathologic data recorded in the Urologic Cancer Database - Prostate (UroCaD-P), Urooncology Association, Turkey (UOAT). Materials and Methods: Patients with detailed pathological 12-core TRUS-Bx data for each biopsy core and who underwent RP due to PCa were included in this study. A total of 1167 patients from seven different centres were analysed. TRUS-Bx pathological findings were separately evaluated in the areas matching the sextant biopsy (6-core paramedian-lateral) scheme and in all 12-core biopsy areas (12-core biopsy scheme). Overall detection rates of PCa and ratios of clinically significant (sPCa) and insignificant PCa (insPCa) after RP were defined and compared between the biopsy schemes. Biopsy findings, according to the Epstein criteria, were also compared between the two schemes. A model for each biopsy scheme was created, including the Epstein criteria and additional biopsy findings using logistic regression analysis to predict clinically sPCa after RP. Results: There was a high correlation for the prediction of clinically insPCa between the two biopsy schemes in the same population. However, 7.3\% of PCa could not be diagnosed in the 6-core TRUS-Bx scheme. Also, 69.4\% of these had clinically sPCa according to the Epstein criteria in 12-core TRUS-Bx scheme and 51.8\% of these were clinically sPCa after RP. The presence of perineural invasion (PNI) in 12-core biopsy was also significant regarding predicting sPCa (p<0.001). Conclusion: The Epstein criteria in 12-core prostate biopsy provide a better prediction of clinically sPCa than the 6-core biopsy scheme. Biopsy PNI findings appeared to improve the effectiveness of 12-core prostate biopsy, in addition to the Epstein criteria.Item Prognostic Significance of Surgical Margin Status and Gleason Grade at the Positive Surgical Margin in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in a Turkish Patient Cohort(GALENOS YAYINCILIK, 2021-01-01) Koparal, Murat Yavuz; Sozen, Tevfik Sinan; Aslan, Guven; Baltaci, Sumer; Suer, Evren; Muezzinoglu, Talha; Akdogan, Bulent; Turkeri, LeventObjective: To investigate the prognostic role of positive surgical margin (PSM) features in addition to well-defined risk factors in predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods: This study used the prostate cancer database from the Urooncology Association in Turkey. Clinical, surgical, pathological and follow-up data were recorded from the database. PSM features, including number, location, linear length and Gleason grade (GG) were also recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed to assess differences in BCR-free survival (BCR-FS). In order to identify prognostic factors affecting BCR-FS, univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed. Results: The study included 984 patients who met the eligibility criteria. The median follow-up time was 29 (minimum: 6, maximum: 210) months, and BCR was detected in 178 (18.1\%) patients. BCR-FS was found to be significantly lower in patients with higher total prostate-specific antigen, higher International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade, extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion, lymphovascular invasion, lymph node involvement, PSM and GG at PSM (PSMGG) >= 4 (log-rank p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001, p<0.001 and p=0.005). ISUP grade, EPE and PSM were identified as independent prognostic factors in predicting BCR-FS {[}Hazard ratio (HR): 1.89, p=0.035 and HR: 4.65, p<0.001, HR: 1.82, p=0.030, HR: 1.77, p=0.042, respectively]. Unlike the univariate analysis, in multivariate analysis, PSMGG did not prove to be an independent prognostic factor in predicting BCR-FS. Conclusion: PSM GG >= 4 was found to be significantly associated with shorter BCR-FS. There is a need for large, randomised prospective studies to clarify the role of PSMGG to be used in nomograms as an independent predictor to determine patients who would benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy.Item Turkey Prostate Cancer Map 2021: Turkish Urooncology Association Prostate Cancer Database Report(GALENOS YAYINCILIK, 2022-01-01) Sahin, Bahadir; Celik, Serdar; Tinay, Ilker; Eskicorapci, Saadettin; Aslan, Guven; Sozen, Sinan; Ataus, Suleyman; Turkeri, LeventObjective: This study aimed to present the data of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) whose detailed information was stored in the Urologic Cancer Database-Prostate, Urooncology Association, Turkey with the title of ``Turkey Prostate Cancer Map 2021.{''} Materials and Methods: Patient data between 1995 and 2020 were retrospectively scanned. The age of the patients, their distribution according to age groups, symptoms during diagnosis, examination findings {[}digital rectal examination (DRE)], prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values, biopsy methods in the diagnosis, metastatic disease rates, treatment methods, and progression rates at follow-up were examined. These results were compared with the results of the previous report, namely ``Prostate Cancer Incidence (Incidence) in Turkey,{''} by the Urooncology Association in Turkey in 2009. Results: This study analyzed the data of 5040 patients from 19 different centers. The mean patient age was 63.6 (37-97) years. The age distribution examination revealed that most patients (49.8\%) were aged 60-69 years. Of the patients, 51.8\% were symptomatic at the time of diagnosis. The presence of symptoms was determined in 88.6\% in 2009 data. The ORE of patients revealed that 25\% of patients had malignancy findings. The PSA distribution examination revealed a >10 ng/mL PSA value in 37.5\% of patients. With the increasing use of magnetic imaging resonance (MRI) in PCa diagnosis over the years, increased MR-fusion biopsy rates have been observed. Considering the biopsy data, 91\% of patients were diagnosed with a classical transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy, whereas 9\% were diagnosed with MR-Fusion biopsy. Fusion biopsies revealed that 23\% of patients with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 lesion and 57\% with PI-RADS 5 lesion were diagnosed with cancer. Of the patients, 8.9\% of patients had metastases during the initial diagnosis. This rate was 17\% in 2009 data. The treatment methods examination after the diagnosis revealed that 73.9\% of patients had undergone radical prostatectomy. This rate was 51.8\% in 2009. Robotic and laparoscopic approaches, which are among the surgical modalities, have increased over the years. However, the most frequently applied modality in our country was open radical prostatectomy with 62.6\%. Considering the follow-up data after treatment, 8.9\% of patients had progression, of which 62.6\% was biochemical, 30.2\% was radiological, and 6.9\% was a clinical progression. Conclusion: Technological advancements for PCa diagnosis (MRI and MR-guided biopsies) are becoming a routine part of daily practice compared to the results of the ``Prostate Cancer Incidence in Turkey{''} project in 2009. The comparative study results revealed that the rate of symptomatic and metastatic disease decreases at the time of diagnosis, and laparoscopic and robotic surgery methods are used at increasing rates for localized disease.
- «
- 1 (current)
- 2
- 3
- »