Journal List > Yonsei Med J > v.55(2) > 1031462

Lee, Lee, Cho, Rha, Choi, Hong, Yang, and Cho: Charlson Comorbidity Index Is an Important Prognostic Factor for Long-Term Survival Outcomes in Korean Men with Prostate Cancer after Radical Prostatectomy

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze overall survival (OS), prostate cancer (PCa)-specific survival (PCaSS), and non-PCaSS according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) after radical prostatectomy (RP) for PCa.

Materials and Methods

Data from 336 patients who had RP for PCa between 1992 and 2005 were analyzed. Data included age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, clinical stage, and pathologic stage. Pre-existing comorbidities were evaluated by the CCI, and patients were classified into two CCI score categories (0, ≥1).

Results

The mean age of patients was 64.31±6.12 years. The median PSA value (interquartile range, IQR) was 11.30 (7.35 and 21.02) ng/mL with a median follow-up period (IQR) of 96.0 (85.0 and 121.0) months. The mean CCI was 0.28 (0-4). Five-year OS, PCaSS, and non-PCaSS were 91.7%, 96.3%, and 95.2%, respectively. Ten-year OS, PCaSS, and non-PCaSS were 81.9%, 92.1%, and 88.9%, respectively. The CCI had a significant influence on OS (p=0.022) and non-PCaSS (p=0.008), but not on PCaSS (p=0.681), by log-rank test. In multivariate Cox regression analysis, OS was independently associated with the CCI [hazard ratio (HR)=1.907, p=0.025] and Gleason score (HR=2.656, p<0.001). PCaSS was independently associated with pathologic N stage (HR=2.857, p=0.031), pathologic T stage (HR=3.775, p=0.041), and Gleason score (HR=4.308, p=0.001). Non-PCaSS had a significant association only with the CCI (HR=2.540, p=0.009).

Conclusion

The CCI was independently associated with both OS and non-PCaSS after RP, but the CCI had no impact on PCaSS. The comorbidities of a patient should be considered before selecting RP as a curative modality for PCa.

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common nondermatologic cancer in Western men.1 More than 90% of diagnoses involve localized tumors that are potentially curable by radical prostatectomy (RP).2 The incidence of PCa is higher in Western countries. A Western lifestyle, characterized by high caloric intake, low physical activity, and obesity, is believed to increase risk for PCa.3 The incidence of PCa in Asian men has also been increasing, especially in Japan, China, and Korea.4,5 PCa ranked as the fifth leading male neoplasm among Japanese men,6 and the sixth highest cause of cancer-related mortality in 2009.7 Morbidity due to PCa was reported to be 5.1% in Korean men ≥65 years old in 1990 and 9.1% in 2005, indicating an approximately two-fold increase.8 In 2011, PCa was reported to be the fifth most common malignancy in Korean men.9
RP for PCa carries an inherent risk of post-treatment morbidity. Treatment for PCa can change sexual, urinary, and bowel habits, which adversely affect post-treatment quality of life.10 The decision to perform RP for PCa should optimally weigh the benefit of treatment against the risks of treatment-related morbidity. Ideally, RP should be offered to men with a life expectancy of at least 10 years.11,12 However, life expectancy is a subjective measurement with significant bias.13
The presence of comorbidities is one of the important predictors of survival from malignancies.14 Several studies have attempted to develop comorbidity assessment tools for counseling patients about life expectancy before undergoing RP. These assessment tools include life tables, comorbidity indices, and nomograms. Although there is no consensus on which comorbidity assessment tool is most useful, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) has been one of the most extensively studied in men with PCa.15-18 Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the association between the CCI score and death from causes other than PCa among Korean men with clinically localized PCa who underwent RP. To our best knowledge, this is the first study to examine the relationship between the CCI and long-term survival outcomes of the patients with prostate cancer in Asia as well as in Korea.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient cohort

Data from 336 patients who underwent RP for PCa between 1992 and 2005 at the Severance Hospital in Seoul, Korea were analyzed. Data included age, height and weight at the time of surgery, date of surgery, preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), biopsy and pathologic Gleason scores, and clinical and final pathologic stages. Data regarding mortality and cause of death were also obtained from patient medical records in the database of the Yonsei Cancer Registry Center at the Severance Hospital. Tumors were staged according to the 2002 American Joint Committee on Cancer staging guidelines. The follow-up period was calculated from the time of surgery to the date of the last known contact with the patient or the date of death. The primary outcome for this study was death from causes other than PCa.

Good clinical practice protocols

The study was performed in agreement with applicable laws and regulations, good clinical practices, and ethical principles as described in the Declaration of Helsinki. The Institutional Review Board of the hospital approved this study protocol (approval number: 4-2012-0906). This report was prepared in compliance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist (version 3, accessible at http://www.strobe-statement.org).19

Definition of survival

PCa-specific survival (PCaSS) was defined as the time from RP to death due to PCa or complications of this disease. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from RP to death by any cause. Non-PCaSS was defined as the time from RP to death due to causes other than PCa or complications of PCa. If PCa was recorded as the underlying cause of death, or if a patient with known metastatic PCa died, then mortality was considered to be a result of PCa. Deaths in which PCa was not the underlying cause were classified as non-PCaSS or due to causes other than PCa.

Charlson Comorbidity Index

The CCI score was calculated from hospital discharge records and assigned according to the Dartmouth-Manitoba modification of the CCI, which was used to convert International Classification of Disease 10 code (ICD-10), and is more applicable to studies of surgical patients.20 The CCI features 19 conditions that have assigned scores of 1, 2, 3, or 6 based upon severity of disease. The CCI score was derived by adding the scores for all comorbidities. Based on the distribution of CCI score in our patient cohort, the men who received RP were classified into two CCI score categories, which were 0 or ≥1. PCa was not scored in the CCI calculation for this study. Two researchers (JYL and DHL) independently assessed medical records and assigned CCI scores to all patients. Discrepancies in scoring between the two researchers were resolved by discussion until a consensus was reached or by independent assessment by a third researcher (KSC).

Statistical analyses

Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the probabilities of death from non-PCa-related causes and PCa-related causes by two CCI categories. The Cox proportional-hazards regression model was also used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of death from non-PCa-related causes and PCa-related causes, age, body mass index (BMI), preoperative PSA, pathologic stage, and pathologic Gleason score. Integrated area under the curve (iAUC) was based on Cox proportional-hazards regression model.21 Two-sided tests were performed and p-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were carried out with R (R version 3.0.1, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; http://www.r-project.org) and its risksetROC package for iAUC based on Cox proportional-hazards regression model.

RESULTS

The mean age of enrolled patients was 64.31±6.12 years. The median PSA (interquartile range, IQR) was 11.30 (7.35 and 21.02) ng/mL with a median follow-up period (IQR) of 96 (85 and 121) months. The mean CCI at the time of RP was 0.28 (range 0-4) in 336 men.
A CCI score of 0 was assigned to 266 (79.2%) patients. A CCI score of 1 was assigned to 51 (15.2%) patients. A CCI score of 2 was assigned to 16 (4.8%) patients. CCI scores of 3 or 4 were assigned to three (0.9%) patients. Subjects were then divided into two subgroups according to CCI=0 (Group 1, n=266) or ≥1 (Group 2, n=70). Median PSA (IQR), which were 12.00 (7.75, 21.95) ng/mL in Group 1 and 9.56 (6.12, 15.02) ng/mL, demonstrated statistical differences in both groups (p=0.007). Median follow-up periods (IQR) were 99 (86, 109) months in Group 1 and 91 (82.75, 111.20) months in Group 2 (p=0.001). Only 19 men (27.1%) in Group 2 had histories of other malignancies, including stomach cancer (eight cases), renal cell carcinoma (six cases), colorectal cancer (two cases), laryngeal cancer (one case), duodenal cancer (one case), and bladder cancer (one case). In contrast, patients in Group 1 did not have histories of other malignancies (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in mean age, biopsy Gleason score, BMI, D'Amico risk stratification, or pathologic stage between the two groups (Table 1).
Five-year OS, PCaSS, and non-PCaSS were 91.7% (95% CI 0.888-0.947), 96.3% (95% CI 0.943-0.984), and 95.2% (95% CI 0.929-0.988), respectively. Ten-year OS, PCaSS, and non-PCaSS were 81.9% (95% CI 0.772-0.868), 92.1% (95% CI 0.887-0.956), and 88.9% (95% CI 0.849-0.930), respectively (Fig. 1A). CCI had a significant influence on OS (p=0.022) and non-PCaSS (p=0.008) by log-rank test, but did not affect PCaSS (p=0.681) (Fig. 1B, C and D). In multivariate Cox regression analyses, OS was independently associated with CCI (HR=1.907, p=0.025) and Gleason score (HR=2.656, p<0.001). PCaSS was associated with pathologic N stage (HR=2.857, p=0.031), pathologic T stage (HR=3.775, p=0.041), and Gleason score (HR=4.308, p=0.001). Non-PCaSS had a significant association only with CCI (HR=2.540, p=0.009) (Table 2). The iAUC, based on Cox regression model according to CCI, also demonstrated that the AUC of non-PCaSS was higher than OS and PCaSS (Fig. 1E).
Patients were then sub-grouped as pT2 (n=162) and pT3/4 (n=174). Patients in the pT2 group had disease confined to the prostate. The CCI correlated with OS and non-PCaSS, but not PCaSS. However, the CCI was not associated with OS, PCaSS, or non-PCaSS in the non-organ confined pT3/4 group (Table 3).

DISCUSSION

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for PCa suggest that RP and/or radiation therapy should be offered only to men who are likely to survive for more than 10 years.22 According to these guidelines, urologists have to make treatment decisions based upon the life expectancy of a patient and the characteristics of the tumor. However, age is not the sole determinant of a patient's life expectancy. Comorbidities should also be considered. To our best knowledge, the current study is the first to examine the relationship between the CCI and mortality in Asian men with PCa. The results showed that the CCI was independently associated with both OS and non-PCaSS in patients with localized tumors who were treated with RP. However, the CCI had no impact on PCaSS in these patients. This indirectly suggests that comorbidities should be considered during selection of treatment modalities for PCa. Furthermore, the data suggest that radical surgeries should be reserved for physically healthy patients.
Population-based or retrospective cohort studies have been performed in Western countries to evaluate relationships between cancer-specific survival and preoperative comorbidities. Post, et al.23 showed that comorbidity was the most important prognostic factor for 3-year survival among 1337 men who were younger than 75 years old and were diagnosed with T1-T3M0 PCa. Furthermore, subgroup analysis revealed that individuals treated with RP were younger and had fewer comorbid conditions than patients receiving non-surgical treatment. Lund, et al.24 also demonstrated a correlation between comorbidity and survival in Danish patients with PCa, suggesting that comorbidities were negative prognostic factors for survival in men with PCa. Recently, the European Multicenter Prostate Cancer Clinical and Translational Research Group reported that long-term PCaSS after RP was modest and represented the leading cause of death in young and healthy patients. However, according to a multi-institutional study involving a cohort of 3832 men who received RP, patients with PCa who were older, sicker, and had multiple risk factors were at the highest risk of dying from non-PCa-related causes.25
Daskivich, et al.26 also assessed the competing risks for non-PCa-related mortality and PCa-related mortality among 1482 men in the California Cancer Registry who had nonmetastatic prostate cancer and differing CCI scores and tumor risks. After a mean follow-up period of 6.0 years, 370 (25%) men died from other causes, whereas 44 (3%) died of PCa. According to a competing risks regression analysis, each point of increase in the CCI was associated with a 2-fold increase in hazard of non-PCa-related mortality. Furthermore, they concluded that men with the highest CCI should consider conservative management of low-risk and intermediate-risk tumors because of exceedingly high risk of death from other causes and low risk of prostate cancer mortality. Thus, several population-based studies on PCa and preoperative morbidities have been published from western countries. However, studies with long-term follow-up focused on Asian populations have not been reported prior to our current analysis.
Albertsen, et al.27 examined the survival probabilities for 767 patients with localized PCa who were treated conservatively (either by observation or with immediate or delayed androgen withdrawal therapy). The 15-, 20-, and 25-year OS rates in patients with a CCI of 0-1 were 26%, 15%, and 8%, respectively. However, the 15-, 20-, and 25-year OS rates in those with a CCI ≥1 were 11%, 6%, and 3%, respectively, clearly showing that a higher CCI correlated with a worse survival outcome. These long-term follow-up results with conservative management were similar to our results with RP. In addition, our study also suggested that CCI had a strong influence on OS and non-PCaSS, but not on PCaSS, in patients with organ-confined disease. These data indicate that patients with early-stage disease and comorbidities should be managed conservatively. In contrast, the significance of CCI was different for patients with locally advanced or high risk PCa. Hsu, et al.28 analyzed the relationship between age, CCI, and outcome in 200 patients with cT3a PCa from Belgium, and concluded that the CCI did not influence the outcome in patients with locally advanced PCa. These results are consistent with our subgroup analysis for non-organ-confined T3/4 disease. We could not conclude from our study which treatment option is optimal. Nevertheless, a more aggressive approach might be considered for PCa patients with advanced T3/4 disease regardless of their CCI.
There were some limitations and intrinsic shortcomings due to the retrospective nature of this study. First, the sample size was relatively small compared with previous population-based trials. Second, there is inherent selection bias due to the fact that patients with many comorbidities are often treated with less invasive methods, such as radiation therapy, hormonal therapy, or watchful waiting. Actually, the median PSA in Group 1 was significantly higher than Group 2 [12.00 (7.75, 21.95) ng/mL versus 9.56 (6.12, 15.02) ng/mL, respectively; p=0.007]. Treatment decision in our patient cohorts may be based on comorbidities, however, there were no statistical differences in D'Amico risk stratification unlike the median PSA between two groups. Third, there is bias derived from the differences between preoperative and postoperative treatments, which may be an important confounding factor in our study. Despite these limitations, the present study demonstrates a novel association between the CCI and both OS and non-PCaSS after RP in Asian men with PCa. These findings have particular clinical relevance, as they suggest that patients with localized tumors and multiple comorbidities should be managed more conservatively.
The incidence of cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome in Asian men is different from that in Western men according to epidemiologic studies.29 However, Asian elders also have a higher risk of chronic diseases, including myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, stroke, chronic bronchitis, asthma, and peptic ulcer disease.30 In a Korean geriatric cohort study, 78.0% reported that they had a diagnosed disease, 11.0% reported being cured of previous disease, and 46.8% were diagnosed with more than two diseases. The mean number of morbidities per elderly Korean was 1.62±1.35.31 A westernization of diet and a reduction in physical activity may have contributed to metabolic imbalance, obesity, and a dramatic increase in cardiovascular disease and diabetes within the Asian community.32 Although the Asian lifestyle has become westernized, the similarities and differences between comorbidities in Asian and Western countries remain to be elucidated. Nonetheless, the relationship between comorbidity and survival in Asian men with PCa must be emphasized.33 CCI is clearly a valuable preoperative tool for evaluating and counseling Asian patients with PCa. An Asian-specific cormobidity index should be designed and made clinically available in the near future. Recently, a newly developed comorbidity index using Korean hospitalized patient data based on the ICD-10 was also validated.34
In summary, the CCI was independently associated with both OS and non-PCaSS after RP, but had no impact on PCaSS. Selection of RP as a curative modality for PCa should take a patient's comorbidities into consideration. The CCI is a potentially valuable tool for preoperative evaluation and counseling of Asian patients with PCa. An Asian-specific cormobidity index should be designed and made clinically available in the near future.

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1
(A) Kaplan-Meier curves for OS, PCaSS, and (C) non-PCaSS for 336 Korean men who received radical prostatectomy. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests for (B) OS, (C) PCaSS, and (D) non-PCaSS of 336 Korean men who received radical prostatectomy according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index. (E) The iAUC which was based on Cox proportional-hazards regression model survival demonstrated that the AUC of non-PCaSS was higher than OS and PCaSS. OS, overall survival; PCaSS, prostate cancer-specific survival; non-PCaSS, non-prostate cancer-specific survival; iAUC, integrated area under the curve; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; HR, hazard ratio.
ymj-55-316-g001
Table 1
Clinical and Pathologic Features of 336 Korean Men Treated with RP Stratified by the CCI
ymj-55-316-i001

RP, radical prostatectomy; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; IQR, interquartile range; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; BMI, body mass index.

*Student's or Welch's 2-sample t-test.

Wilcoxon rank sum test (if p-value was less than 0.05 in Shapiro-Wilk normality test).

Chi-square test.

§Fisher's exact test.

Other malignancies included stomach cancer (eight cases), renal cell carcinoma (six cases), colorectal cancer (two cases), laryngeal cancer (one case), duodenal cancer (one case), and bladder cancer (one case).

Table 2
Univariate and Multivariate Cox Proportional-Hazards Regression Model of OS, PCaSS, Non-PCaSS
ymj-55-316-i002

OS, overall survival; PCaSS, prostate cancer-specific survival; Non-PCaSS, non-prostate cancer-specific survival; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; BMI, body mass index; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

*Multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression model with forward stepwise selection was performed.

Table 3
Univariate Cox Proportional-Hazards Regression Model of OS, PCaSS, Non-PCaSS According to pT2 and pT3/4
ymj-55-316-i003

OS, overall survival; PCaSS, prostate cancer-specific survival; Non-PCaSS, non-prostate cancer-specific survival; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; BMI, body mass index; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by a grant from the Korean Foundation for Cancer Research (CB-2011-04-02), Republic of Korea.

Notes

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

References

1. Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P. Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012; 62:1–15.
crossref
2. Schröder FH, Carter HB, Wolters T, van den Bergh RC, Gosselaar C, Bangma CH, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer in 2007. Part 1: PSA and PSA kinetics. Eur Urol. 2008; 53:468–477.
3. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005; 55:74–108.
crossref
4. Yun SJ, Min BD, Kang HW, Shin KS, Kim TH, Kim WT, et al. Elevated insulin and insulin resistance are associated with the advanced pathological stage of prostate cancer in Korean population. J Korean Med Sci. 2012; 27:1079–1084.
crossref
5. Zhang YF, Guan YB, Yang B, Wu HY, Dai YT, Zhang SJ, et al. Prognostic value of Her-2/neu and clinicopathologic factors for evaluating progression and disease-specific death in Chinese men with prostate cancer. Chin Med J (Engl). 2011; 124:4345–4349.
6. Okada K, Okihara K, Kitamura K, Mikami K, Ukimura O, Kawauchi A, et al. Community-based prostate cancer screening in Japan: predicting factors for positive repeat biopsy. Int J Urol. 2010; 17:541–547.
crossref
7. Yoshida T, Nakayama M, Takeda K, Arai Y, Kakimoto K, Nishimura K. External validation of the cancer of the prostate risk assessment score to predict biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in Japanese patients. Urol Int. 2012; 89:45–51.
crossref
8. Hyun JS. Prostate cancer and sexual function. World J Mens Health. 2012; 30:99–107.
crossref
9. Ro YK, Lee S, Jeong CW, Hong SK, Byun SS, Lee SE. Biochemical recurrence in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer in Korean men: significance of the primary Gleason grade. Korean J Urol. 2012; 53:826–829.
crossref
10. Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, Sandler HM, Northouse L, Hembroff L, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358:1250–1261.
crossref
11. Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, Joniau S, Matveev VB, Schmid HP, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2008; 53:68–80.
crossref
12. Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, Boston B, Busby JE, D'Amico AV, et al. Prostate cancer, Version 3.2012: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2012; 10:1081–1087.
crossref
13. Wilson JR, Clarke MG, Ewings P, Graham JD, MacDonagh R. The assessment of patient life-expectancy: how accurate are urologists and oncologists? BJU Int. 2005; 95:794–798.
crossref
14. Froehner M, Koch R, Litz RJ, Hakenberg OW, Wirth MP. Which patients are at the highest risk of dying from competing causes ≤ 10 years after radical prostatectomy? BJU Int. 2012; 110:206–210.
crossref
15. Froehner M, Koch R, Litz RJ, Oehlschlaeger S, Hakenberg OW, Wirth MP. Feasibility and limitations of comorbidity measurement in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2005; 47:190–195.
16. Froehner M, Koch R, Litz RJ, Hakenberg OW, Oehlschlaeger S, Wirth MP. Comorbidity is poor predictor of survival in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy after 70 years of age. Urology. 2006; 68:583–586.
crossref
17. Froehner M, Koch R, Litz RJ, Oehlschlaeger S, Twelker L, Hakenberg OW, et al. Detailed analysis of Charlson comorbidity score as predictor of mortality after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2008; 72:1252–1257.
crossref
18. Guzzo TJ, Dluzniewski P, Orosco R, Platz EA, Partin AW, Han M. Prediction of mortality after radical prostatectomy by Charlson comorbidity index. Urology. 2010; 76:553–557.
crossref
19. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Prev Med. 2007; 45:247–251.
crossref
20. Romano PS, Roos LL, Jollis JG. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993; 46:1075–1079.
crossref
21. Heagerty PJ, Zheng Y. Survival model predictive accuracy and ROC curves. Biometrics. 2005; 61:92–105.
crossref
22. Albertsen PC, Moore DF, Shih W, Lin Y, Li H, Lu-Yao GL. Impact of comorbidity on survival among men with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29:1335–1341.
crossref
23. Post PN, Hansen BE, Kil PJ, Janssen-Heijnen ML, Coebergh JW. The independent prognostic value of comorbidity among men aged < 75 years with localized prostate cancer: a population-based study. BJU Int. 2001; 87:821–826.
crossref
24. Lund L, Borre M, Jacobsen J, Sørensen HT, Nørgaard M. Impact of comorbidity on survival of Danish prostate cancer patients, 1995-2006: a population-based cohort study. Urology. 2008; 72:1258–1262.
crossref
25. Briganti A, Spahn M, Joniau S, Gontero P, Bianchi M, Kneitz B, et al. Impact of age and comorbidities on long-term survival of patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional competing-risks analysis. Eur Urol. 2013; 63:693–701.
crossref
26. Daskivich TJ, Chamie K, Kwan L, Labo J, Dash A, Greenfield S, et al. Comorbidity and competing risks for mortality in men with prostate cancer. Cancer. 2011; 117:4642–4650.
crossref
27. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2005; 293:2095–2101.
crossref
28. Hsu CY, Joniau S, Oyen R, Roskams T, Van Poppel H. Correlations between age, Charlson score and outcome in clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer. Asian J Androl. 2009; 11:131–137.
crossref
29. Singh GK, Miller BA. Health, life expectancy, and mortality patterns among immigrant populations in the United States. Can J Public Health. 2004; 95:I14–I21.
crossref
30. Ebrahim S, Patel N, Coats M, Greig C, Gilley J, Bangham C, et al. Prevalence and severity of morbidity among Gujarati Asian elders: a controlled comparison. Fam Pract. 1991; 8:57–62.
crossref
31. Woo EK, Han C, Jo SA, Park MK, Kim S, Kim E, et al. Morbidity and related factors among elderly people in South Korea: results from the Ansan Geriatric (AGE) cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2007; 7:10.
crossref
32. Lim S, Park KS, Lee HK, Cho SI. Changes in the characteristics of metabolic syndrome in Korea over the period 1998-2001 as determined by Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. Diabetes Care. 2005; 28:1810–1812.
crossref
33. Byun SS, Lee S, Lee SE, Lee E, Seo SI, Lee HM, et al. Recent changes in the clinicopathologic features of Korean men with prostate cancer: a comparison with Western populations. Yonsei Med J. 2012; 53:543–549.
crossref
34. Kil SR, Lee SI, Khang YH, Lee MS, Kim HJ, Kim SO, et al. Development and validation of comorbidity index in South Korea. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012; 24:391–402.
crossref
TOOLS
ORCID iDs

Koon Ho Rha
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8588-7584

Similar articles