{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.056832427914751356, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04554951943167572, 'mean_word_length': 4.853300733496333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 2, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Radical prostatectomy (RP) in extreme ages: Clinical and pathologic evaluation of localized prostate cancer (PC).

109 Background: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the treatment of choice for patients with localized prostate cancer (PC). Previously, surgery was applied to patients with good clinical condition and aged <=70 years. Lately, with a better understanding of surgical technique, many centers have been performing RP in patients older than 70.


METHODS
The main objective of this cohort study is to evaluate clinical evolution according to localized PC submitted to RP in patients in extreme ages. We analysed age, PSA, ASA classification,pathological stages, Gleason scores, urinary continence, D'Amico risk classification (group 1:low; 2:intermediate; 3:high), biochemical recurrence and clinical progression. Descriptive analysis of the population was performed. Fisher's exact test or chi-square tests were used to evaluate association between clinicopathologic characteristics.Biochemical recurrence was defined by PSA more than 0.2 ng/mL post-RP.


RESULTS
In 262 patients, mean age was 63.4 years (SD 12.4; range: 41 to 83). In D'Amico's group 1 there were 96 patients (37.2%) with<=50 year old, and group 2 had 162 patients (62.8%) with age >=70. The mean follow-up in group 1 was 55.9 months (SD 41.7) and group 2 was 53.6 (SD 41.4), p=0.6770. Biochemical relapse occurred in 21 patients (15.44%) in D'Amico risk group 1, 27 (36.99%) in group 2 and 29 (59.18%) in group 3 (p<0.001). There was no difference among all the pathological variables evaluated (p>0.05). Clinical progression occurred in 2 patients (1.47%) in D'Amico risk group 1, in 3 patients (4.11%) in group 2 and in 3 patients (6.11%) in group 3 (p=0.230). There was no significant difference in relation to time to biochemical recurrence, as well as biochemical relapse rate and progression of this disease among the groups. Younger patients (in group 1) recovered earlier from urinary incontinence, as well as most were continent in final follow-up.


CONCLUSIONS
Based on our results, the differences in younger or more aged patients with PC are not related to pathological variables, or rates of biochemical recurrence and clinical disease, but better preoperative clinical features and better recovery of urinary continence are seen in younger patients. No significant financial relationships to disclose.