336 IS A FATAL FAMILY HISTORY OR THE APPARENT MODE OF DISEASE TRANSMISSION OF PROSTATE CANCER A PROGNOSTIC FACTOR FOR SURVIVAL?

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Epidemiology & Natural History (II)1 Apr 2013336 IS A FATAL FAMILY HISTORY OR THE APPARENT MODE OF DISEASE TRANSMISSION OF PROSTATE CANCER A PROGNOSTIC FACTOR FOR SURVIVAL? Kathleen Herkommer, Elsa Donel, Juergen Gschwend, and Martina Kron Kathleen HerkommerKathleen Herkommer Munich, Germany More articles by this author , Elsa DonelElsa Donel Munich, Germany More articles by this author , Juergen GschwendJuergen Gschwend Munich, Germany More articles by this author , and Martina KronMartina Kron Ulm, Germany More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.1722AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Little is known about familial clustering of fatal prostate cancer (pc) and an association between fatal family history (FH), apparent mode of disease transmission and survival. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of a fatal FH and the apparent mode of disease transmission on survival of prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy in Germany. METHODS 2883 patients after radical prostatectomy with at least one first-degree relative with pc of the nationwide database familial pc in Germany were stratified according to (1) family history (fatal vs. nonfatal) and (2) apparent mode of disease transmission (male to male vs. non male to male). Fatal FH was defined as patients who had at least one first-degree relative and/or one second-degree relative who died of pc. Biochemical progression free survival (BPFS), overall survival (OS) and cancer specific survival (CSS) for each epidemiological feature were analyzed according to the method of Kaplan and Meier and subgroups were compared in a proportional hazard regression calculating hazard ratio (HR) and p-value. RESULTS In the subgroup with fatal pc we observed less organ confined tumors (60.6% vs. 67.1%), higher rates of male to male transmission (66.9% vs. 54.4%), more hereditary patients (53.2% vs. 18.6%), more patients with more than 2 affected relatives (67.3% vs. 25.9%) and an earlier age of onset (median age of diagnosis 62.5 yr vs. 63.6 yr). Survival was comparable in the fatal subgroup and the nonfatal subgroup: BPFS HR=0.96 (p=0.695), OS HR=1.13 (p=0.506), CSS HR=0.92 (p=0.788). In the subgroup with male to male transmission we observed more patients with a fatal FH (13.9% vs. 8.7%), more patients with more than 2 affected relatives (38.6% vs 23.3%), an earlier age of onset (median age of diagnosis 63.0 yr vs 64.0 yr) and more hereditary patients (30.7% vs. 15.7%). Survival was comparable in the male to male subgroup and the non male to male subgroup: BPFS HR=1.02 (p=0.736), OS HR=0.94 (p=0.681), CSS HR=0.88 (p=0.561). CONCLUSIONS Survival was not remarkably different in familial patients with fatal family history compared to those with non-fatal FH as well as in patients with male to male vs. non male to male transmission. Our findings suggest that fatal FH and the apparent mode of disease transmission are not associated with poorer survival and worse clinical outcome. © 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 189Issue 4SApril 2013Page: e136 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Kathleen Herkommer Munich, Germany More articles by this author Elsa Donel Munich, Germany More articles by this author Juergen Gschwend Munich, Germany More articles by this author Martina Kron Ulm, Germany More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...