The primary therapy chosen for patients with localized prostate cancer between the university hospital and its affiliated hospitals in Nara Uro-oncological research group registration

BMC Urology

Research Article

Nobumichi Tanaka¹  Akihide Hirayama¹  Yoshihiko Hirao¹  Kiyohide Fujimoto¹  Shuji Watanabe²  Yoshiki Hayashi²  Yoshiteru Kaneko²  Masaki Haramoto²  Shoji Samma²  Hitoshi Momose²  Takeshi Otani²  Yoshinori Nakagawa² 

[1] Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Japan;Nara Uro-Oncological Research Group, Kashihara, Japan;

关键词: Prostate Cancer;    Radical Prostatectomy;    Gleason Score;    External Beam Radiation Therapy;    Affiliate Hospital;   

DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2490-11-6

 received in 2010-12-21, accepted in 2011-04-27,  发布年份 2011

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundWe investigated the differences between the preferential primary therapy conceived by the primary doctors and the primary therapy actually conducted for prostate cancer patients in Nara, Japan.MethodsThe distribution of primary therapy and clinical characteristics of 2303 prostate cancer patients - diagnosed between 2004 and 2006 at Nara Medical University and its 23 affiliated hospitals - were assessed. Moreover, the preferential primary therapy for the patients at each clinical stage (cT1-T3bN0M0) conceived by the primary doctors was investigated and compared to the actual therapy.ResultsOf all patients, 51% received primary androgen deprivation therapy (PADT), 30% underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), and 14% received radiation therapy (RT). The preferential primary therapy for cT1-2N0M0 was RP (92%) while 38% of the patients actually received PADT (RP: 40%). For cT3aN0M0, the preferential primary therapy was both RP and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) while 58% of the patients actually received PADT (RP: 16%, EBRT: 24%). For cT3bN0M0, the most preferential primary therapy was EBRT (46%) while 67% of the patients actually received PADT (EBRT: 21%). This trend was more notable in the affiliated hospitals than in the University hospital. The hospitals with lower volume of RP per year significantly conducted PADT compared with those with higher volume of RP.ConclusionsPADT was commonly used to treat localized prostate cancer as well as locally advanced prostate cancer in Japan. There was a definite discrepancy between the preferential primary therapy conceived by the primary doctors and the actual therapy provided to the patients.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Tanaka et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011