Dataset Information

Radical Prostatectomy or External Beam Radiation Therapy vs No Local Therapy for Survival Benefit in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A SEER-Medicare Analysis.

ABSTRACT: We assessed survival after radical prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy or conformal radiation therapy vs no local therapy for metastatic prostate cancer adjusting for patient comorbidity, androgen deprivation therapy and other factors.We identified men 66 years old or older with metastatic prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, conformal radiation therapy or no local therapy in the SEER-Medicare linked database from 2004 to 2009. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models before and after inverse propensity score weighting were used to assess all cause and prostate cancer specific mortality. Competing risk regression analysis was done to assess prostate cancer specific mortality.Of 4,069 men with metastatic prostate cancer radical prostatectomy in 47, intensity modulated radiation therapy in 88 and conformal radiation therapy in 107 were selected as local therapy vs no local therapy in 3,827. Radical prostatectomy was associated with a 52% decrease (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.27-0.85) in the risk of prostate cancer specific mortality after adjusting for sociodemographics, primary tumor characteristics, comorbidity, androgen deprivation therapy and bone radiation within 6 months of diagnosis. Intensity modulated radiation therapy was associated with a 62% decrease (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24-0.61) in the risk of prostate specific cancer specific mortality. Conformal radiation therapy was not associated with improved survival compared to no local therapy. Propensity score weighting yielded comparable results. Competing risk analysis revealed a 42% and 57% decrease (SHR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.95 and SHR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27-0.68, respectively) in the risk of prostate cancer specific mortality for radical prostatectomy and intensity modulated radiation therapy.Local therapy with radical prostatectomy and intensity modulated radiation therapy but not with conformal radiation therapy was associated with a survival benefit in men with metastatic prostate cancer. This finding warrants prospective evaluation in clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Satkunasivam R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4834920 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Radical Prostatectomy or External Beam Radiation Therapy vs No Local Therapy for Survival Benefit in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A SEER-Medicare Analysis.

Satkunasivam Raj R Kim Andre E AE Desai Mihir M Nguyen Mike M MM Quinn David I DI Ballas Leslie L Lewinger Juan Pablo JP Stern Mariana C MC Hamilton Ann S AS Aron Monish M Gill Inderbir S IS

The Journal of urology 20150221 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>We assessed survival after radical prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy or conformal radiation therapy vs no local therapy for metastatic prostate cancer adjusting for patient comorbidity, androgen deprivation therapy and other factors.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We identified men 66 years old or older with metastatic prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, conformal radiation therapy or no local therapy in the ...[more]

PMID: 25711194

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:The optimal treatment for Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer is unknown. Objective:To compare clinical outcomes of patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants:Retrospective cohort study in 12 tertiary centers (11 in the United States, 1 in Norway), with 1809 patients treated between 2000 and 2013. Exposures:Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy, or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT) with androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival were secondary outcomes. Results:Of 1809 men, 639 underwent RP, 734 EBRT, and 436 EBRT+BT. Median ages were 61, 67.7, and 67.5 years; median follow-up was 4.2, 5.1, and 6.3 years, respectively. By 10 years, 91 RP, 186 EBRT, and 90 EBRT+BT patients had died. Adjusted 5-year prostate cancer-specific mortality rates were RP, 12% (95% CI, 8%-17%); EBRT, 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%); and EBRT+BT, 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%). EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower prostate cancer-specific mortality than either RP or EBRT (cause-specific HRs of 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.68] and 0.41 [95% CI, 0.24-0.71]). Adjusted 5-year incidence rates of distant metastasis were RP, 24% (95% CI, 19%-30%); EBRT, 24% (95% CI, 20%-28%); and EBRT+BT, 8% (95% CI, 5%-11%). EBRT+BT was associated with a significantly lower rate of distant metastasis (propensity-score-adjusted cause-specific HRs of 0.27 [95% CI, 0.17-0.43] for RP and 0.30 [95% CI, 0.19-0.47] for EBRT). Adjusted 7.5-year all-cause mortality rates were RP, 17% (95% CI, 11%-23%); EBRT, 18% (95% CI, 14%-24%); and EBRT+BT, 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%). Within the first 7.5 years of follow-up, EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (cause-specific HRs of 0.66 [95% CI, 0.46-0.96] for RP and 0.61 [95% CI, 0.45-0.84] for EBRT). After the first 7.5 years, the corresponding HRs were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.70-1.92) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.57-1.32). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality, distant metastasis, or all-cause mortality (≤7.5 and >7.5 years) were found between men treated with EBRT or RP (cause-specific HRs of 0.92 [95% CI, 0.67-1.26], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.14], 1.07 [95% CI, 0.80-1.44], and 1.34 [95% CI, 0.85-2.11]). Conclusions and Relevance:Among patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer, treatment with EBRT+BT with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with significantly better prostate cancer-specific mortality and longer time to distant metastasis compared with EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy or with RP.

Project description:IntroductionSalvage radiotherapy is the only curative treatment for biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy. Macroscopic recurrence may be found in the prostatic bed. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the effectiveness of salvage radiotherapy of the prostate bed with a boost to the area of the macroscopic recurrence.Material and methodsFrom January 2005 to January 2020, 89 patients with macroscopic recurrence in the prostatectomy bed were treated with salvage radiotherapy +/- hormone therapy. The average PSA level prior to radiotherapy was 1.1 ng/mL (SD: 1.6). At the time of biochemical progression, 96% of the patients had a MRI that revealed the macroscopic recurrence, and 58% had an additional choline PET scan. 67.4% of the patients got a boost to the macroscopic nodule, while 32.5% of the patients only underwent radiotherapy of the prostate bed without a boost. The median total dose of radiotherapy was 70 Gy (Min.: 60 - Max.: 74). The most commonly-used regimen was radiotherapy of the prostatectomy bed with a concomitant boost. 48% of the patients were concomitantly treated with hormone therapy.ResultsAfter a median follow-up of 53.7 months, 77 patients were alive and 12 had died, of which 4 following metastatic progression. The 5-year and 8-year survival rates (CI95%) are, respectively, 90.2% (78.9-95.6%) and 69.8% (46.4-84.4%). The 5-year biochemical progression-free survival rate (CI95%) is 50.8% (36.7-63.3). Metastatic recurrence occurred in 11.2% of the patients. We did not find any statistically significant impact from the various known prognostic factors for biochemical progression-free survival. No toxicity with a grade of > or = to 3 was found.ConclusionsOur series is one of the largest published to date. Salvage radiotherapy has its place in the management of patients with biochemical progression with local recurrence in the prostate bed, with an acceptable toxicity profile. The interest of the boost is to be evaluated in prospective trials.

Project description:Importance:Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer have to decide among treatment strategies that may differ in their likelihood of adverse effects. Objective:To compare quality of life (QOL) after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, and brachytherapy vs active surveillance. Design, Setting, and Participants:Population-based prospective cohort of 1141 men (57% participation among eligible men) with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were enrolled from January 2011 through June 2013 in collaboration with the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Median time from diagnosis to enrollment was 5 weeks, and all men were enrolled with written informed consent prior to treatment. Final follow-up date for current analysis was September 9, 2015. Exposures:Treatment with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, or active surveillance. Main Outcomes and Measures:Quality of life using the validated instrument Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices was assessed at baseline (pretreatment) and 3, 12, and 24 months after treatment. The instrument contains 4 domains-sexual dysfunction, urinary obstruction and irritation, urinary incontinence, and bowel problems-each scored from 0 (no dysfunction) to 100 (maximum dysfunction). Propensity-weighted mean domain scores were compared between each treatment group vs active surveillance at each time point. Results:Of 1141 enrolled men, 314 pursued active surveillance (27.5%), 469 radical prostatectomy (41.1%), 249 external beam radiotherapy (21.8%), and 109 brachytherapy (9.6%). After propensity weighting, median age was 66 to 67 years across groups, and 77% to 80% of participants were white. Across groups, propensity-weighted mean baseline scores were 41.8 to 46.4 for sexual dysfunction, 20.8 to 22.8 for urinary obstruction and irritation, 9.7 to 10.5 for urinary incontinence, and 5.7 to 6.1 for bowel problems. Compared with active surveillance, mean sexual dysfunction scores worsened by 3 months for patients who received radical prostatectomy (36.2 [95% CI, 30.4-42.0]), external beam radiotherapy (13.9 [95% CI, 6.7-21.2]), and brachytherapy (17.1 [95% CI, 7.8-26.6]). Compared with active surveillance at 3 months, worsened urinary incontinence was associated with radical prostatectomy (33.6 [95% CI, 27.8-39.2]); acute worsening of urinary obstruction and irritation with external beam radiotherapy (11.7 [95% CI, 8.7-14.8]) and brachytherapy (20.5 [95% CI, 15.1-25.9]); and worsened bowel symptoms with external beam radiotherapy (4.9 [95% CI, 2.4-7.4]). By 24 months, mean scores between treatment groups vs active surveillance were not significantly different in most domains. Conclusions and Relevance:In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, each treatment strategy was associated with distinct patterns of adverse effects over 2 years. These findings can be used to promote treatment decisions that incorporate individual preferences.

Dataset Information

Radical Prostatectomy or External Beam Radiation Therapy vs No Local Therapy for Survival Benefit in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A SEER-Medicare Analysis.

Publications

Radical Prostatectomy or External Beam Radiation Therapy vs No Local Therapy for Survival Benefit in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A SEER-Medicare Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets