Search

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest that active surveillance (AS) may be considered for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk (fIR) prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes between fIR prostate cancer patients included by Gleason score (GS) or prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Most patients are classified with fIR disease due to either a 3 + 4 = 7 GS (fIR-GS) or a PSA level of 10-20 ng/ml (fIR-PSA). Previous research suggests that inclusion by GS 7 may be associated with worse outcomes. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of US veterans diagnosed with fIR prostate cancer from 2001 to 2015. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We compared the incidence of metastatic disease, prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), all-cause mortality (ACM), and receipt of definitive treatment between fIR-PSA and fIR-GS patients managed with AS. Outcomes were compared with those of a previously published cohort of patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease using cumulative incidence function and Grays test for statistical significance. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The cohort included 663 men; 404 had fIR-GS (61%) and 249 fIR-PSA (39%). There was no evidence of difference in the incidence of metastatic disease (8.6% vs 5.8%, p = 0.77), receipt of definitive treatment (77.6% vs 81.5%, p = 0.43), PCSM (5.7% vs 2.5%, p = 0.274), and ACM (16.8% vs 19.1%, p = 0.14) between the fIR-PSA and fIR-GS groups at 10 yr. On multivariate regression, unfavorable intermediate-risk disease was associated with higher rates of metastatic disease, PCSM, and ACM. Limitations included varying surveillance protocols. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of difference in oncological and survival outcomes between men with fIR-PSA and fIR-GS prostate cancer undergoing AS. Thus, presence of GS 7 disease alone should not exclude patients from consideration of AS. Shared decision-making should be utilized to optimize management for each patient. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we compared the outcomes of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer in the Veterans Health Administration. We found no significant difference between survival and oncological outcomes.

Compare ICU outcomes and respiratory system mechanics in patients with and without acute kidney injury during invasive mechanical ventilation.DesignsRetrospective cohort study.SettingsICUs of the University of California, San Diego, from January 1, 2014, to November 30, 2016.PatientsFive groups of patients were compared based on the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, presence or absence of acute kidney injury per the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes criteria, and the temporal relationship between the development of acute kidney injury and initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsA total of 9,704 patients were included and 4,484 (46%) required invasive mechanical ventilation; 2,009 patients (45%) had acute kidney injury while being treated with invasive mechanical ventilation, and the mortality rate for these patients was 22.4% compared with 5% in those treated with invasive mechanical ventilation without acute kidney injury (p < 0.01). Adjusted hazard of mortality accounting for baseline disease severity was 1.58 (95% CI, 1.22-2.03; p < 0.001]. Patients with acute kidney injury during invasive mechanical ventilation had a significant increase in total ventilator days and length of ICU stay with the same comparison (both p < 0.01). Acute kidney injury during mechanical ventilation was also associated with significantly higher plateau pressures, lower respiratory system compliance, and higher driving pressures (all p < 0.01). These differences remained significant in patients with net negative cumulative fluid balance.ConclusionsAcute kidney injury during invasive mechanical ventilation is associated with increased ICU mortality, increased ventilator days, increased length of ICU stay, and impaired respiratory system mechanics. These results emphasize the need for investigations of ventilatory strategies in the setting of acute kidney injury, as well as mechanistic studies of crosstalk between the lung and kidney in the critically ill.