Loading…

Rethinking 30-day mortality risk after radical prostatectomy

Although radical prostatectomy (RP) is associated with greater 30-day mortality in older men, the magnitude of the excess risk in older age groups compared with younger ones has not been well characterized. Using data from the Ontario Cancer Registry, we identified 11,010 men who underwent RP from 1...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) N.J.), 2006-11, Vol.68 (5), p.1057-1060
Main Authors: Alibhai, Shabbir M.H., Leach, Marc, Tomlinson, George, Krahn, Murray D., Fleshner, Neil, Naglie, Gary
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Although radical prostatectomy (RP) is associated with greater 30-day mortality in older men, the magnitude of the excess risk in older age groups compared with younger ones has not been well characterized. Using data from the Ontario Cancer Registry, we identified 11,010 men who underwent RP from 1990 to 1999 in Ontario, Canada and compared the 30-day mortality risk immediately after RP with the 1-month mortality risk in the same population of men 7 to 12 months after RP and that of an age-matched general population of men. Overall, 53 men (0.48%) died within 30 days of surgery. The absolute excess 30-day mortality risk associated with RP was 0.18%, 0.51%, and 0.59% for men aged 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and 70 to 79 years, respectively, and was similar for men aged 60 to 69 and 70 to 79 years ( P >0.05). The relative mortality risk within 30 days of RP was approximately nine times the baseline risk (95% confidence interval 3 to 38) and was similar for men in all three age groups ( P >0.05). The results of our study indicate that men aged 70 to 79 years do not have a greater absolute excess or relative risk of 30-day mortality after RP compared with men aged 60 to 69 years.
ISSN:0090-4295
1527-9995
DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2006.06.016