MP54-14 TIME TRENDS IN USE OF RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY BY TUMOR RISK AND LIFE EXPECTANCY IN A NATIONAL VA COHORT FROM 2000 TO 2017
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized: Surgical Therapy III (MP54)1 Apr 2019MP54-14 TIME TRENDS IN USE OF RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY BY TUMOR RISK AND LIFE EXPECTANCY IN A NATIONAL VA COHORT FROM 2000 TO 2017 Kristina Vaculik, Michael Luu, Lauren Howard, William Aronson, Martha Terris, Christopher Kane, Christopher Amling, Matthew Cooperberg, Stephen Freedland, and Timothy Daskivich* Kristina VaculikKristina Vaculik More articles by this author , Michael LuuMichael Luu More articles by this author , Lauren HowardLauren Howard More articles by this author , William AronsonWilliam Aronson More articles by this author , Martha TerrisMartha Terris More articles by this author , Christopher KaneChristopher Kane More articles by this author , Christopher AmlingChristopher Amling More articles by this author , Matthew CooperbergMatthew Cooperberg More articles by this author , Stephen FreedlandStephen Freedland More articles by this author , and Timothy Daskivich*Timothy Daskivich* More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000556681.16460.b3AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Current prostate cancer (PC) treatment guidelines endorse active surveillance (AS) for most men with low-risk PC and select men with favorable intermediate-risk PC among those with ≥10-year life expectancy (LE), while recommending observation (or non-surgical management) for those with <10-year LE. We sought to identify time trends in the use of radical prostatectomy (RP) for non-metastatic PC across subgroups of tumor risk and LE. METHODS: We sampled 4,902 men from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database treated with radical prostatectomy for non-metastatic PC at 8 Veterans Affairs hospitals between 2000 and 2017. LE was calculated using age and Charlson comorbidity index scores. Stratified linear regression was used to calculate trends in proportion of men treated with RP by D'Amico tumor risk and LE (≥10 vs. <10 years) subgroups. RESULTS: Across all men, from 2000 to 2017, the proportion of low-risk tumors treated with RP decreased from 51% to 8% (43% decrease, 95% CI -50% to -37%, p<0.001), while the proportion of intermediate- and high-risk tumors increased from 32% to 60% (28% increase, 95% CI 24% to 32%, p<0.001) and 17% to 33% (16% increase, 95% CI 9% to 23%, p=0.002), respectively. The proportion of favorable intermediate-risk tumors treated with RP decreased from 67% to 40% over the study period (27% decrease, 95% CI -47% to -6%, p=0.01). Among men older than 65 (n=1,398/4,902 (29%)), the proportion treated with RP did not differ over time between those with <10-year LE (44% to 49%, 5% increase, 95% CI -4% to 14%, p=0.2) and those with ≥10-year LE (56% to 51%, 5% decrease, 95% CI -14% to 4%, p=0.2). There was also no statistically significant difference in proportion treated with RP over time between men with <10 vs. ≥10-year LE within any tumor risk subgroup. However, the proportion treated with RP for favorable intermediate-risk disease appeared to decrease less markedly over time in men with <10-year LE compared with ≥10-year LE (9% decrease vs. 44% decrease, p=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: While VA urologists now are operating infrequently on low-risk tumors, rates of RP among men with limited LE appear to be stable over time. LE should play a greater role in triage and management of men with indolent PC. Source of Funding: NCI K08CA230155 Vancouver, Canada; Los Angeles, CA; Durham, NC; Los Angeles, CA; Augusta, GA; San Diego, CA; Portland, OR; San Francisco, CA; Los Angeles, CA© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e789-e790 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Kristina Vaculik More articles by this author Michael Luu More articles by this author Lauren Howard More articles by this author William Aronson More articles by this author Martha Terris More articles by this author Christopher Kane More articles by this author Christopher Amling More articles by this author Matthew Cooperberg More articles by this author Stephen Freedland More articles by this author Timothy Daskivich* More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».