본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy Using the Multicenter Korean Prostate Cancer Registry (KPCR) Database

최인영|김청수|이지열|최문주|서성일|변석수|정창욱|홍준혁|유성혜
한국보건정보통계학회 (The Korean Society of Health informatics statistics)|2018.08|보건정보통계학회지 (Journal of Health Informatics and Statistics)|제43권 제3호|pp. 175-183|DOI https://doi.org/10.21032/jhis.2018.43.3.175

2

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

PrognosisProstatectomyProstatic neoplasmsRegistries예후근치적 전립샘 절제술전립샘 암레지스트리

초록

Objectives: Prostate cancer, commonly is rapidly increasing the incidence of prostate cancer among Korean men. Primary treatment of localized prostate cancer involves radical prostatectomy, and surgery techniques are divided into the abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. Different surgical techniques differ in quality of life, economic aspect, and outcome of surgery and prognosis. Therefore we compared the outcomes and prognosis of patients who underwent surgery for localized prostate cancer using the multicenter Korean Prostate Cancer Registry (KPCR) database. Methods: The KPCR database collected data of 6,032 patients from five medical institutions, and data standardization and quality management were performed to ensure data integrity. We extracted data necessary for analysis from the KPCR database. We analyzed data for 3,262 patients during the period from January 2006 to December 2011. The demographic characteristics, surgical outcomes, and prognosis of patients with localized prostate cancer were analyzed. All statistical analyses were performed using one-way ANOVA, chi-square test, and post-hoc analysis. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model for biochemical recurrence-free survival rate (BCR-FS) analysis. Results: The analysis results showed that the average initial prostate specific antigen value was 10.30 ng/mL. A total of 56.7% of the patients had clinical stage T2, 43.3% had stage T1, and 64.4% of the patients had a Gleason score of more than 7. The rate of positive surgical margin was radical retropubic prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) as 33.6%, 27% and 28.8%, respectively (p<0.001). The RALP gave excellent results for postoperative complication, and estimated blood loss (EBL). The 5-year overall BCR-FS was 77.0%, and the three surgical techniques did not differ in clinical outcomes. Cox regression analysis showed that the surgical technique did not affect the biochemical recurrence rate. Conclusions: Our study describes the characteristics of patients with localized prostate cancer and their prognosis. These results indicate that patients and medical staff can rely on information from the KPCR database for decision-making.

Abstract

Objectives: Prostate cancer, commonly is rapidly increasing the incidence of prostate cancer among Korean men. Primary treatment of localized prostate cancer involves radical prostatectomy, and surgery techniques are divided into the abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. Different surgical techniques differ in quality of life, economic aspect, and outcome of surgery and prognosis. Therefore we compared the outcomes and prognosis of patients who underwent surgery for localized prostate cancer using the multicenter Korean Prostate Cancer Registry (KPCR) database. Methods: The KPCR database collected data of 6,032 patients from five medical institutions, and data standardization and quality management were performed to ensure data integrity. We extracted data necessary for analysis from the KPCR database. We analyzed data for 3,262 patients during the period from January 2006 to December 2011. The demographic characteristics, surgical outcomes, and prognosis of patients with localized prostate cancer were analyzed. All statistical analyses were performed using one-way ANOVA, chi-square test, and post-hoc analysis. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model for biochemical recurrence-free survival rate (BCR-FS) analysis. Results: The analysis results showed that the average initial prostate specific antigen value was 10.30 ng/mL. A total of 56.7% of the patients had clinical stage T2, 43.3% had stage T1, and 64.4% of the patients had a Gleason score of more than 7. The rate of positive surgical margin was radical retropubic prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) as 33.6%, 27% and 28.8%, respectively (p<0.001). The RALP gave excellent results for postoperative complication, and estimated blood loss (EBL). The 5-year overall BCR-FS was 77.0%, and the three surgical techniques did not differ in clinical outcomes. Cox regression analysis showed that the surgical technique did not affect the biochemical recurrence rate. Conclusions: Our study describes the characteristics of patients with localized prostate cancer and their prognosis. These results indicate that patients and medical staff can rely on information from the KPCR database for decision-making.

참고문헌 (23)

  1. Torre LA, "Global cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends-an update", Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 25(1), pp.16~27 (2016)[DOI]
  2. Siegel RL, "Cancer statistics, 2016", CA Cancer J Clin, 66(1), pp.7~30 (2016)[DOI]
  3. Annual report of cancer statistics in Korea in 2014, "National Cancer Center", 26~27 (2016)
  4. Kim D, "The features and prognosis of korean who underwent radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer", Korean J Urol Oncol, 8, pp.40~46 (2010)
  5. Coelho RF, "Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers", J Endourol, 24(12), pp.2003~2015 (2010)[DOI]
  6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, "Prostate cancer, Version 3. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology", pp.ST~ (2016)
  7. 박준형, "근치적 회음부 전립선 절제술의 종양학적 성적 및 합병증: 20년간의 통계", Journal of Urologic Oncology, 14(3), pp.144~151 (2016), 대한비뇨기종양학회
  8. Porpiglia F, "Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy", Eur Urol Oncol, 63(4), pp.606~614 (2013)[DOI]
  9. Choi IY, "Development of prostate cancer research database with the clinical data warehouse technology for direct linkage with electronic medical record system", Prostate Int, 1(2), pp.59~64 (2013)[DOI]
  10. Dong Hoon Lee, "The Establishment of K-CaP (the Multicenter Korean Prostate Cancer Database)", Korean Journal of Urology, 54(4), pp.229~ (2013), The Korean Urological Association (KAMJE)[DOI]
  11. Herlemann A, "Communitybased outcomes of open versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy", Eur Urol Oncol, 73(2), pp.215~223 (2018)[DOI]
  12. Cookson MS, "Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes", J Urol, 177(2), pp.540~545 (2007)[DOI]
  13. The Korean Prostate Society, "Prostate cancer treatment. Tutorial", pp.35~37 (2012)
  14. The Korean Prostate Society, "Prostate Cancer", pp.288~289 (2017), Ilchokak
  15. Pound CR, "Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy", JAMA, 281(17), pp.1591~1597 (1999)
  16. 이정우, "근치적 전립선적출술 후 생화학적 재발의 예측인자로 Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor의 발현: 전향적 연구", Investigative and Clinical Urology, 49(11), pp.974~980 (2008), 대한비뇨의학회
  17. Magheli A, "Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching", BJU Int, 107(12), pp.1956~1962 (2011)[DOI]
  18. 김성철, "Biochemical Recurrence-Free and Cancer-Specific Survival after Radical Prostatectomy at a Single Institution", Investigative and Clinical Urology, 51(12), pp.836~842 (2010), 대한비뇨의학회
  19. Ploussard G, "Comparisons of the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus pure extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy", Eur Urol Oncol, 65(3), pp.610~619 (2014)[DOI]
  20. Tewari A, "Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy", Eur Urol Oncol, 62(1), pp.1~15 (2012)[DOI]
  21. Han M, "Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer", J Urol, 169(2), pp.517~523 (2003)[DOI]
  22. Menon M, "Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up", Eur Urol Oncol, 58(6), pp.838~846 (2010)[DOI]
  23. Goo WJ, "Analysis of urology robot surgery in Korea", pp.35~36 (2014)

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)

장기 혈액투석환자의 신체적, 심리적, 사회적 요인이 질병 부담감에 미치는 영향차지은pp. 159-166일반신뢰와 정부신뢰가 뇌사 후 장기 기증에 미치는 영향이수인pp. 167-174신장장애인의 자살생각 관련요인이은미, 이수진, 홍남수pp. 184-190청소년의 신체이미지 왜곡이 정신건강에 미치는 영향윤현정pp. 191-199항암화학요법을 받은 대장암환자의 증상, 피로 및 삶의 질의 종단적 경로분석서순림, 김은희pp. 200-207
원문 보기