Dataset Information

Models predicting survival to guide treatment decision-making in newly diagnosed primary non-metastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer require standardised and robust long-term prognostic information to help them decide on management. Most currently-used tools use short-term and surrogate outcomes. We explored the evidence base in the literature on available pre-treatment, prognostic models built around long-term survival and assess the accuracy, generalisability and clinical availability of these models.

Design

Systematic literature review, pre-specified and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018086394).

Data sources

MEDLINE, Embase and The Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 through February 2018, using previously-tested search terms.

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion required a multivariable model prognostic model for non-metastatic prostate cancer, using long-term survival data (defined as ≥5 years), which was not treatment-specific and usable at the point of diagnosis.

Data extraction and synthesis

Title, abstract and full-text screening were sequentially performed by three reviewers. Data extraction was performed for items in the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies checklist. Individual studies were assessed using the new Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool.

Results

Database searches yielded 6581 studies after deduplication. Twelve studies were included in the final review. Nine were model development studies using data from over 231 888 men. However, only six of the nine studies included any conservatively managed cases and only three of the nine included treatment as a predictor variable. Every included study had at least one parameter for which there was high risk of bias, with failure to report accuracy, and inadequate reporting of missing data common failings. Three external validation studies were included, reporting two available models: The University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score and the Cambridge Prognostic Groups. Neither included treatment effect, and both had potential flaws in design, but represent the most robust and usable prognostic models currently available.

Conclusion

Few long-term prognostic models exist to inform decision-making at diagnosis of non-metastatic prostate cancer. Improved models are required to inform management and avoid undertreatment and overtreatment of non-metastatic prostate cancer.

SUBMITTER: Thurtle D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6596988 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Men diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer face multiple treatment options, each with distinctive side effects that have significant implications for post-treatment quality of life. Healing Choices for Men with Prostate Cancer is a multimedia educational and decision aid program. This nation-wide randomized controlled trial evaluated the impact of Healing Choices on reducing decisional conflict and distress. Eligible prostate cancer patients who called the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service (CIS) were invited to participate. After a baseline interview, participants were randomized to usual personalized consultation with a CIS specialist (comparison condition) or CIS personalized consultation plus the Healing Choices program (intervention condition). The Decision Conflict Scale and Impact of Event Scale assessed decisional conflict about prostate cancer treatment and cancer-related distress, respectively. Analyses evaluated group differences at 2 months postenrollment. Hypothesized moderation of intervention effects by demographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated. The final sample consisted of N = 349 participants (intervention: n = 181; comparison n = 168). Men were on average 64 years old, primarily White, and well educated. The difference in total decisional conflict was not significant (DCS total score; F[1,311] = .99, p = .32). The difference in cancer-related distress at 2 months between the intervention and the comparison groups was not significant (F[1,337] = .01, p = .93). Evaluation of specific decision processes indicated a significant effect on levels of perceived decisional support (intervention, M = 34.8, SD = 15.7; comparison, M = 38.3, SD = 16.1; F[1,337] = 3.74, p = .05). The intervention effect was greatest for nonwhite minority participants (b = -9.65, SE = 4.67) and those with lower educational attainment (b = 3.87, SE = 2.21). This interactive, comprehensive education and decision aid program may be most effective for a subset of prostate cancer patients in need of educational and decisional support.

Project description:ImportanceProstate radiotherapy (RT) improves survival in men with low-burden metastatic prostate cancer. However, owing to the dichotomized nature of metastatic burden criteria, it is not clear how this benefit varies with bone metastasis counts and metastatic site.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of bone metastasis count and location with survival benefit from prostate RT.Design, setting, and participantsThis exploratory analysis of treatment outcomes based on metastatic site and extent as determined by conventional imaging (computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging and bone scan) evaluated patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer randomized within the STAMPEDE trial's metastasis M1 RT comparison. The association of baseline bone metastasis counts with overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) was assessed using a multivariable fractional polynomial interaction procedure. Further analysis was conducted in subgroups.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy with or without docetaxel) or standard of care and prostate RT.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were OS and FFS.ResultsA total of 1939 of 2061 men were included (median [interquartile range] age, 68 [63-73] years); 1732 (89%) had bone metastases. Bone metastasis counts were associated with OS and FFS benefit from prostate RT. Survival benefit decreased continuously as the number of bone metastases increased, with benefit most pronounced up to 3 bone metastases. A plot of estimated treatment effect indicated that the upper 95% CI crossed the line of equivalence (hazard ratio [HR], 1) above 3 bone metastases without a detectable change point. Further analysis based on subgroups showed that the magnitude of benefit from the addition of prostate RT was greater in patients with low metastatic burden with only nonregional lymph nodes (M1a) or 3 or fewer bone metastases without visceral metastasis (HR for OS, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.83; HR for FFS, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.70) than among patients with 4 or more bone metastases or any visceral/other metastasis (HR for OS, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.91-1.28; interaction P?=?.003; HR for FFS, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99; interaction P?=?.002).Conclusions and relevanceIn this exploratory analysis of a randomized clinical trial, bone metastasis count and metastasis location based on conventional imaging were associated with OS and FFS benefit from prostate RT in M1 disease.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00268476; ISRCTN.com Identifier: ISRCTN78818544.

Project description:ImportanceProstate radiation therapy (PRT) is a treatment option in men with low-volume metastatic prostate cancer based on the results of the Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy Arm H (STAMPEDE-H) trial. However, the cost-effectiveness of this treatment remains unaddressed.ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of PRT when added to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used microsimulation modeling to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding PRT to ADT. A simulated cohort of 10 000 individuals with low-volume mHSPC was created. Data from men with low-volume mHSPC were extracted and analyzed from January 18, 2019, through July 4, 2020. Transition probabilities were extracted from the STAMPEDE-H study. Health states included stable disease, progression, second progression, and death. Individual grade 2 or higher genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxic events associated with PRT were tracked. Univariable deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty with regard to the model assumptions. Health state utility estimates were based on the published literature.ExposuresThe combination of PRT and ADT using regimens of 20 fractions and 6 weekly fractions.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included net quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs in US dollars, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A strategy was classified as dominant if it was associated with higher QALYs at lower costs than the alternative and dominated if it was associated with fewer QALYs at higher costs than the alternative.ResultsFor the base case scenario of men 68 years of age with low-volume mHSPC, the modeled outcomes were similar to the target clinical data for overall survival, failure-free survival, and rates of PRT-related toxic effects. The addition of PRT was a dominant strategy compared with ADT alone, with a gain of 0.16 QALYs (95% CI, 0.15-0.17 QALYs) and a reduction in net costs by $19 472 (95% CI, $23 096-$37 362) at 37 months of follow-up and a gain of 0.81 QALYs (95% CI, 0.73-0.89 QALYs) and savings of $30 229 (95% CI, $23 096-$37 362) with lifetime follow-up.Conclusions and relevanceIn the economic evaluation, PRT was a dominant treatment strategy compared with ADT alone. These findings suggest that addition of PRT to ADT is a cost-effective treatment for men with low-volume mHSPC.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to develop valid prognostic models to predict mortality, dependency, and "death or dependency" for use in newly diagnosed Parkinson's disease (PD).MethodsThe models were developed in the Parkinsonism Incidence in North-East Scotland study (UK, 198 patients) and validated in the ParkWest study (Norway, 192 patients), cohorts that attempted to identify and follow-up all new PD cases in the study area. Dependency was defined using the Schwab & England scale. We selected variables measured at time of diagnosis to include in the models. Internal validation and external validation were performed by calculating C-statistics (discrimination) and plotting observed versus predicted risk in quantiles of predicted risk (calibration).ResultsOlder age, male sex, increased severity of axial features, and Charlson comorbidity index were independent prognostic factors in the mortality model. Increasing age, higher smoking history, increased severity of axial features, and lower MMSE score were independent predictors in the models of dependency and "death or dependency." Each model had very good internal calibration and very good or good discrimination (internal and external C-statistics for the models were 0.73-0.75 and 0.68-0.78, respectively). Although each model clearly separated patients into groups according to risk, they tended to overestimate risk in ParkWest. The models were recalibrated to the baseline risk in the ParkWest study and then calibrated well in this cohort.ConclusionsWe have developed prognostic models for predicting medium-term risk of important clinical outcomes in newly diagnosed PD. These models have validity for use for stratification of randomization, confounder adjustment, and case-mix correction, but they are inadequate for individualized prognostication. © 2017. The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral studies showed that androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus local treatment of prostate could improve metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) patients' survival. To date there are few studies analyzed the value of prostate cryoablation in mPCa. The objective of our analysis is to evaluate the oncological results and clinical value of prostate cryoablation combined with ADT compared with ADT alone in newly diagnosed mPCa patients.MethodsNewly diagnosed mPCa patients undergoing cryoablation plus ADT (group A) between January 2011 and November 2018 were identified. Patients receiving ADT alone (group B) were selected from the same institutional prostate cancer database by propensity score matching based on clinical characteristics. Oncological results and clinical value in symptom control and primary lesion treatment were compared.ResultsFifty-four patients were included in each group. Prostate cryoablation was well tolerated. The median follow-up time was 40 (27-53) and 39 (31-54) months in group A and group B, respectively. Patients in group A had a lower median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir (0.025 ng/mL vs. 0.230 ng/mL, p = 0.001), longer median failure-free survival (FFS) (39 months vs. 21 months, p = 0.005), and median metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)-free survival (39 months vs. 21 months, p = 0.007). No difference in cancer-specific survival and overall survival was found between the two groups. Multivariate Cox analysis showed combination therapy reduced the risk of FFS by 45.8% (HR = 0.542 [95% CI 0.329-0.893]; p = 0.016). Patients in group A had better clinical relief of urinary symptoms (79.1 vs. 59.1%, p = 0.044) and required less treatment of primary lesions for symptomatic relief (13.0 vs. 31.5%, p = 0.021).ConclusionsProstate cryoablation plus ADT decreases PSA nadir, prolongs FFS and mCRPC-free survival, relieves urinary symptoms and reduces the need for treating primary lesions in newly diagnosed mPCa patients compared to ADT alone.