Low-risk prostate cancer in India: Is active surveillance a valid treatment option?
Carcinoma prostate is considered highly aggressive in Asian countries such as India. This raises an argument whether active surveillance (AS) gives a false sense of security as opposed to upfront radical prostatectomy (RP) in Indian males with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We analyzed our prospect...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Indian journal of urology 2020-07, Vol.36 (3), p.184-190 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 190 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 184 |
container_title | Indian journal of urology |
container_volume | 36 |
creator | Singh, Shanky Patil, Saurabh Tamhankar, Ashwin Sunil Ahluwalia, Puneet Gautam, Gagan |
description | Carcinoma prostate is considered highly aggressive in Asian countries such as India. This raises an argument whether active surveillance (AS) gives a false sense of security as opposed to upfront radical prostatectomy (RP) in Indian males with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We analyzed our prospectively maintained robot-assisted RP (RARP) database to address this question.
Five hundred and sixty-seven men underwent RARP by a single surgical team from September 2013 to September 2019. Of these, 46 (8.1%) were low risk considering the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Gleason grade group and stage were compared before and after surgery to ascertain the incidence of upgrading and upstaging. Preoperative clinical and pathological characteristics were analyzed for association with the probability of upstaging and upgrading.
The mean age was 60.8 ± 6.8 years. Average prostate-specific antigen level was 6.7 ± 2.0 ng/mL. 40 (86.9%) patients had a T1 stage disease and 6 (13%) patients were clinically in T2a stage. A total of 25 (54.3%) cases were either upstaged or upgraded, 19 (41.3%) showed no change, and the remaining 2 (4.3%) had no malignancy on the final RP specimen. Upstaging occurred in 8 (17.4%) cases: 5 (10.9%) to pT3a and 3 (6.5%) to pT3b. Upgrading occurred in 23 (50%) cases: 19 (41.3%) to Grade 2; 3 (6.5%) to Grade 3; and 1 (2.2%) to Grade 4.
There is a 50% likelihood of upstaging or upgrading in Indian males with low-risk PCa eligible for AS. Decision to proceed with AS should be taken carefully. |
doi_str_mv | 10.4103/iju.IJU_37_20 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7531380</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A628476700</galeid><sourcerecordid>A628476700</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-db7250bdbcfcff050c8b080fcb151e1ae6ed08eb6fa4a09465346ebba609b07b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkk2P0zAQhi0EYsvCkSuyxIVLyjh24oQDq9WKj6JKHGDPlu2Mi5ckLnZSxL_H0ZaKlSofxho_fsczfgl5yWAtGPC3_m5eb77cKi5VCY_IirVtU_CmFI_JCloJBatadkGepXQHIFhT1k_JBeeQN5yvyLdt-F1En37SfQxp0hNSq0eLkfqRbsbO63d0k6i2kz8gTXM8oO_7haCaHnTvOzpF1NOA40TDfvJhvHpOnjjdJ3xxjJfk9uOH7zefi-3XT5ub621hRVlORWdkWYHpjHXWOajANgYacNawiiHTWGMHDZraaaGhFXXFRY3G6BpaA9LwS_L-Xnc_mwE7m58Qda_20Q86_lFBe_XwZPQ_1C4clKw44w1kgTdHgRh-zZgmNfhkcekPw5xUKaqyla2sZEZf36M73aPyowtZ0S64uq7LRshawiJYnKF2OGIuH0Z0Pqcf8OszfF4dDt6evXAsYPNvpYju1C0DtfhBZT-okx8y_-r_EZ3ofwbgfwESErJu</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2452979757</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Low-risk prostate cancer in India: Is active surveillance a valid treatment option?</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Medknow Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Singh, Shanky ; Patil, Saurabh ; Tamhankar, Ashwin Sunil ; Ahluwalia, Puneet ; Gautam, Gagan</creator><creatorcontrib>Singh, Shanky ; Patil, Saurabh ; Tamhankar, Ashwin Sunil ; Ahluwalia, Puneet ; Gautam, Gagan</creatorcontrib><description>Carcinoma prostate is considered highly aggressive in Asian countries such as India. This raises an argument whether active surveillance (AS) gives a false sense of security as opposed to upfront radical prostatectomy (RP) in Indian males with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We analyzed our prospectively maintained robot-assisted RP (RARP) database to address this question.
Five hundred and sixty-seven men underwent RARP by a single surgical team from September 2013 to September 2019. Of these, 46 (8.1%) were low risk considering the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Gleason grade group and stage were compared before and after surgery to ascertain the incidence of upgrading and upstaging. Preoperative clinical and pathological characteristics were analyzed for association with the probability of upstaging and upgrading.
The mean age was 60.8 ± 6.8 years. Average prostate-specific antigen level was 6.7 ± 2.0 ng/mL. 40 (86.9%) patients had a T1 stage disease and 6 (13%) patients were clinically in T2a stage. A total of 25 (54.3%) cases were either upstaged or upgraded, 19 (41.3%) showed no change, and the remaining 2 (4.3%) had no malignancy on the final RP specimen. Upstaging occurred in 8 (17.4%) cases: 5 (10.9%) to pT3a and 3 (6.5%) to pT3b. Upgrading occurred in 23 (50%) cases: 19 (41.3%) to Grade 2; 3 (6.5%) to Grade 3; and 1 (2.2%) to Grade 4.
There is a 50% likelihood of upstaging or upgrading in Indian males with low-risk PCa eligible for AS. Decision to proceed with AS should be taken carefully.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0970-1591</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1998-3824</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4103/iju.IJU_37_20</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33082633</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>India: Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</publisher><subject>Care and treatment ; Health aspects ; Original ; Prostate cancer ; Risk factors</subject><ispartof>Indian journal of urology, 2020-07, Vol.36 (3), p.184-190</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © 2020 Indian Journal of Urology.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright: © 2020 Indian Journal of Urology 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-db7250bdbcfcff050c8b080fcb151e1ae6ed08eb6fa4a09465346ebba609b07b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-db7250bdbcfcff050c8b080fcb151e1ae6ed08eb6fa4a09465346ebba609b07b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7531380/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7531380/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33082633$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Singh, Shanky</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patil, Saurabh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tamhankar, Ashwin Sunil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ahluwalia, Puneet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gautam, Gagan</creatorcontrib><title>Low-risk prostate cancer in India: Is active surveillance a valid treatment option?</title><title>Indian journal of urology</title><addtitle>Indian J Urol</addtitle><description>Carcinoma prostate is considered highly aggressive in Asian countries such as India. This raises an argument whether active surveillance (AS) gives a false sense of security as opposed to upfront radical prostatectomy (RP) in Indian males with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We analyzed our prospectively maintained robot-assisted RP (RARP) database to address this question.
Five hundred and sixty-seven men underwent RARP by a single surgical team from September 2013 to September 2019. Of these, 46 (8.1%) were low risk considering the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Gleason grade group and stage were compared before and after surgery to ascertain the incidence of upgrading and upstaging. Preoperative clinical and pathological characteristics were analyzed for association with the probability of upstaging and upgrading.
The mean age was 60.8 ± 6.8 years. Average prostate-specific antigen level was 6.7 ± 2.0 ng/mL. 40 (86.9%) patients had a T1 stage disease and 6 (13%) patients were clinically in T2a stage. A total of 25 (54.3%) cases were either upstaged or upgraded, 19 (41.3%) showed no change, and the remaining 2 (4.3%) had no malignancy on the final RP specimen. Upstaging occurred in 8 (17.4%) cases: 5 (10.9%) to pT3a and 3 (6.5%) to pT3b. Upgrading occurred in 23 (50%) cases: 19 (41.3%) to Grade 2; 3 (6.5%) to Grade 3; and 1 (2.2%) to Grade 4.
There is a 50% likelihood of upstaging or upgrading in Indian males with low-risk PCa eligible for AS. Decision to proceed with AS should be taken carefully.</description><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Prostate cancer</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><issn>0970-1591</issn><issn>1998-3824</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNptkk2P0zAQhi0EYsvCkSuyxIVLyjh24oQDq9WKj6JKHGDPlu2Mi5ckLnZSxL_H0ZaKlSofxho_fsczfgl5yWAtGPC3_m5eb77cKi5VCY_IirVtU_CmFI_JCloJBatadkGepXQHIFhT1k_JBeeQN5yvyLdt-F1En37SfQxp0hNSq0eLkfqRbsbO63d0k6i2kz8gTXM8oO_7haCaHnTvOzpF1NOA40TDfvJhvHpOnjjdJ3xxjJfk9uOH7zefi-3XT5ub621hRVlORWdkWYHpjHXWOajANgYacNawiiHTWGMHDZraaaGhFXXFRY3G6BpaA9LwS_L-Xnc_mwE7m58Qda_20Q86_lFBe_XwZPQ_1C4clKw44w1kgTdHgRh-zZgmNfhkcekPw5xUKaqyla2sZEZf36M73aPyowtZ0S64uq7LRshawiJYnKF2OGIuH0Z0Pqcf8OszfF4dDt6evXAsYPNvpYju1C0DtfhBZT-okx8y_-r_EZ3ofwbgfwESErJu</recordid><startdate>20200701</startdate><enddate>20200701</enddate><creator>Singh, Shanky</creator><creator>Patil, Saurabh</creator><creator>Tamhankar, Ashwin Sunil</creator><creator>Ahluwalia, Puneet</creator><creator>Gautam, Gagan</creator><general>Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</general><general>Wolters Kluwer - Medknow</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200701</creationdate><title>Low-risk prostate cancer in India: Is active surveillance a valid treatment option?</title><author>Singh, Shanky ; Patil, Saurabh ; Tamhankar, Ashwin Sunil ; Ahluwalia, Puneet ; Gautam, Gagan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-db7250bdbcfcff050c8b080fcb151e1ae6ed08eb6fa4a09465346ebba609b07b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Prostate cancer</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Singh, Shanky</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patil, Saurabh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tamhankar, Ashwin Sunil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ahluwalia, Puneet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gautam, Gagan</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Indian journal of urology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Singh, Shanky</au><au>Patil, Saurabh</au><au>Tamhankar, Ashwin Sunil</au><au>Ahluwalia, Puneet</au><au>Gautam, Gagan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Low-risk prostate cancer in India: Is active surveillance a valid treatment option?</atitle><jtitle>Indian journal of urology</jtitle><addtitle>Indian J Urol</addtitle><date>2020-07-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>184</spage><epage>190</epage><pages>184-190</pages><issn>0970-1591</issn><eissn>1998-3824</eissn><abstract>Carcinoma prostate is considered highly aggressive in Asian countries such as India. This raises an argument whether active surveillance (AS) gives a false sense of security as opposed to upfront radical prostatectomy (RP) in Indian males with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We analyzed our prospectively maintained robot-assisted RP (RARP) database to address this question.
Five hundred and sixty-seven men underwent RARP by a single surgical team from September 2013 to September 2019. Of these, 46 (8.1%) were low risk considering the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Gleason grade group and stage were compared before and after surgery to ascertain the incidence of upgrading and upstaging. Preoperative clinical and pathological characteristics were analyzed for association with the probability of upstaging and upgrading.
The mean age was 60.8 ± 6.8 years. Average prostate-specific antigen level was 6.7 ± 2.0 ng/mL. 40 (86.9%) patients had a T1 stage disease and 6 (13%) patients were clinically in T2a stage. A total of 25 (54.3%) cases were either upstaged or upgraded, 19 (41.3%) showed no change, and the remaining 2 (4.3%) had no malignancy on the final RP specimen. Upstaging occurred in 8 (17.4%) cases: 5 (10.9%) to pT3a and 3 (6.5%) to pT3b. Upgrading occurred in 23 (50%) cases: 19 (41.3%) to Grade 2; 3 (6.5%) to Grade 3; and 1 (2.2%) to Grade 4.
There is a 50% likelihood of upstaging or upgrading in Indian males with low-risk PCa eligible for AS. Decision to proceed with AS should be taken carefully.</abstract><cop>India</cop><pub>Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</pub><pmid>33082633</pmid><doi>10.4103/iju.IJU_37_20</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0970-1591 |
ispartof | Indian journal of urology, 2020-07, Vol.36 (3), p.184-190 |
issn | 0970-1591 1998-3824 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7531380 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; Medknow Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Care and treatment Health aspects Original Prostate cancer Risk factors |
title | Low-risk prostate cancer in India: Is active surveillance a valid treatment option? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T17%3A09%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Low-risk%20prostate%20cancer%20in%20India:%20Is%20active%20surveillance%20a%20valid%20treatment%20option?&rft.jtitle=Indian%20journal%20of%20urology&rft.au=Singh,%20Shanky&rft.date=2020-07-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=184&rft.epage=190&rft.pages=184-190&rft.issn=0970-1591&rft.eissn=1998-3824&rft_id=info:doi/10.4103/iju.IJU_37_20&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA628476700%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2452979757&rft_id=info:pmid/33082633&rft_galeid=A628476700&rfr_iscdi=true |