No abstract

Purpose Generalizable, updated, and easy‐to‐use prognostic models for patients with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are lacking. We developed a nomogram predicting the overall survival (OS) of mCRPC patients receiving standard chemotherapy using data from five randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods Patients enrolled in the control arm of five RCTs (ASCENT 2, VENICE, CELGENE/MAINSAIL, ENTHUSE 14, and ENTHUSE 33) were randomly split between training (n = 1636, 70%) and validation cohorts (n = 700, 30%). In the training cohort, Cox regression tested the prognostic significance of all available variables as a predictor of OS. Independent predictors of OS on multivariable analysis were used to construct a novel multivariable model (nomogram). The accuracy of this model was tested in the validation cohort using time‐dependent area under the curve (tAUC) and calibration curves. Results Most of the patients were aged 65–74 years (44.5%) and the median (interquartile range) follow‐up time was 13.9 (8.9–20.2) months. At multivariable analysis, the following were independent predictors of OS in mCRPC patients: sites of metastasis (visceral vs. bone metastasis, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.24), prostate‐specific antigen (HR: 1.00), aspartate transaminase (HR: 1.01), alkaline phosphatase (HR: 1.00), body mass index (HR: 0.97), and hemoglobin (≥13 g/dl vs. <11 g/dl, HR: 0.41; all p < 0.05). A nomogram based on these variables was developed and showed favorable discrimination (tAUC at 12 and 24 months: 73% and 72%, respectively) and calibration characteristics on external validation. Conclusion A new prognostic model to predict OS of patients with mCRPC undergoing first line chemotherapy was developed. This can help urologists/oncologists in counseling patients and might be useful to better stratify patients for future clinical trials.

Objectives To assess and compare peri‐operative outcomes of patients undergoing robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for imperative vs elective indications. Patient and Methods We retrospectively reviewed a multinational database of 3802 adults who underwent RAPN for elective and imperative indications. Laparoscopic or open partial nephrectomy (PN) were excluded. Baseline data for age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score and PADUA score were examined. Patients undergoing RAPN for an imperative indication were matched to those having surgery for an elective indication using propensity scores in a 1:3 ratio. Primary outcomes included organ ischaemic time, operating time, estimated blood loss (EBL), rate of blood transfusions, Clavien–Dindo complications, conversion to radical nephrectomy (RN) and positive surgical margin (PSM) status. Results After propensity‐score matching for baseline variables, a total of 304 patients (76 imperative vs 228 elective indications) were included in the final analysis. No significant differences were found between groups for ischaemia time (19.9 vs 19.8 min; P = 0.94), operating time (186 vs 180 min; P = 0.55), EBL (217 vs 190 mL; P = 0.43), rate of blood transfusions (2.7% vs 3.7%; P = 0.51), or Clavien–Dindo complications (P = 0.31). A 38.6% (SD 47.9) decrease in Day‐1 postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate was observed in the imperative indication group and an 11.3% (SD 45.1) decrease was observed in the elective indication group (P < 0.005). There were no recorded cases of permanent or temporary dialysis. There were no conversions to RN in the imperative group, and seven conversions (5.6%) in the elective group (P = 0.69). PSMs were seen in 1.4% (1/76) of the imperative group and in 3.3% of the elective group (7/228; P = 0.69). Conclusion We conclude that RAPN is feasible and safe for imperative indications and demonstrates similar outcomes to those achieved for elective indications.

If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.