We have located open access text paper links.
Peri-operative outcomes following radical prostatectomy in the setting of advanced prostate cancer.
BJU International 2024 April 24
OBJECTIVE: To compare the peri-operative outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) for locally advanced, node-positive, and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa), as determined through pathological staging, using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project.
METHODS: We identified RP procedures performed between 2019 and 2021. Patients were stratified by pathological staging to compare the effect of locally advanced disease (T3-4), node positivity (N+) and metastasis (M+) vs localised PCa (T1-2 N0 M0). Baseline demographics and 30-day outcomes, including operating time, length of hospital stay (LOS), 30-day mortality, readmissions, reoperations, major complications, minor complications and surgery-specific complications, were compared between groups.
RESULTS: Pathological staging data were available for 9276 RPs. Baseline demographics were comparable. There was a slightly higher rate of minor complications in the locally advanced cohort, but no significant difference in major complications, 30-day mortality, readmissions, or rectal injuries. Node positivity was associated with longer operating time, LOS, and some slightly increased rates of 30-day complications. RP in patients with metastatic disease appeared to be similarly safe to RP in patients with M0 disease, although it was associated with a longer LOS and slightly increased rates of certain complications.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with pathologically determined locally advanced, node-positive, and metastatic PCa, RP appears to be safe, and is not associated with significantly higher rates of 30-day mortality or major complications compared to RP for localised PCa. This study adds to the growing body of literature investigating the role of RP for advanced PCa; further studies are needed to better characterise the risks and benefits of surgery in such patients.
METHODS: We identified RP procedures performed between 2019 and 2021. Patients were stratified by pathological staging to compare the effect of locally advanced disease (T3-4), node positivity (N+) and metastasis (M+) vs localised PCa (T1-2 N0 M0). Baseline demographics and 30-day outcomes, including operating time, length of hospital stay (LOS), 30-day mortality, readmissions, reoperations, major complications, minor complications and surgery-specific complications, were compared between groups.
RESULTS: Pathological staging data were available for 9276 RPs. Baseline demographics were comparable. There was a slightly higher rate of minor complications in the locally advanced cohort, but no significant difference in major complications, 30-day mortality, readmissions, or rectal injuries. Node positivity was associated with longer operating time, LOS, and some slightly increased rates of 30-day complications. RP in patients with metastatic disease appeared to be similarly safe to RP in patients with M0 disease, although it was associated with a longer LOS and slightly increased rates of certain complications.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with pathologically determined locally advanced, node-positive, and metastatic PCa, RP appears to be safe, and is not associated with significantly higher rates of 30-day mortality or major complications compared to RP for localised PCa. This study adds to the growing body of literature investigating the role of RP for advanced PCa; further studies are needed to better characterise the risks and benefits of surgery in such patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Haemodynamic monitoring during noncardiac surgery: past, present, and future.Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2024 April 31
Obesity pharmacotherapy in older adults: a narrative review of evidence.International Journal of Obesity 2024 May 7
2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Circulation 2024 May 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app