Adjuvant versus salvage radiotherapy: treatment effectiveness comparison of locally advanced prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy

Aim. To compare adjuvant versus salvage radiotherapy effectiveness of locally advanced (high-risk) prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Objectives. 1) To find out which factors are important for progression. 2) To estimate relapse time after sST; 3) To estimate relapse time after aST; 4) To find out which aST or sST is more effective; 5) To find out which early or delay sST is more effective. Methods. It is retrospective analysis. It was used MS Office Excel 2016 for data collection and MS IBM SPSS 23.0 Statistics analysis. The data were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses. Study participants. 105 patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) and adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy (aRT or sRT) between 2003-2015 in the Department of Urology, Hospital of Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Kaunas Clinics. Results. Median patients age was 64 years, interquartile range (IQR) (60-69) and median PSA was 9.48 ng/ml, IQR (7,5-10,6). aRT was initiated to 30 (29.5%) and salvage to 75 (70.5%) men. Median radiation dose was 70 (66-70) Gy. Men underwent aRT had higher GS (p=0.031), pT (0.0001), more high-risk PCa factors (p=0,015) comparing to men in sRT group. There were no differences comparing other parameters between groups. GS was only significant parameter in multivariate Cox regression analysis: hazard ratio (HR) 1,886, 95% confidence intervals (CI, 1,02-3,48), p = 0,043. Estimated 5 and 10-year CPFS was 93.3 and 74.3% with median calculated time to CP 134 (95%CI, 119.1-148.9) months. Estimated CPFS at 5 and 10-years was not different comparing aRT vs. sRT - 91.2 and 73% vs. 94.3 and 74.8%, respectively (p = 0.13). RT effectiveness was not different comparing early sRT and delay sRT, p=0.67. Conclusions. For locally advanced prostate cancer aRT and sRT shows equal efficacy on clinical disease progression. Safety and quality of life could be important parameters to make decision on radiation treatment modality

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit