Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of surgery versus external beam radiation with/without brachytherapy in high-risk localized prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:It remains controversial if radical prostatectomy or definitive radiation therapy produces equivalent outcomes in high-risk localized prostate cancer. METHODS:We queried The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for those who received upfront surgery or who were recommended for surgery but instead received radiation. Inverse probability of treatment weighing was used to adjust for covariate imbalance and the weighted Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the effects of treatment groups on survival. A meta-analysis was performed to pool estimates from published studies. RESULTS:Among eligible 62 533 patients, 59 540 had upfront surgery and 2993 patients had upfront radiotherapy. EBRT + BT was associated with a superior cancer-specific survival (CSS) compared with surgery or EBRT alone (HR, 0.55, 95% CI, 0.3-1.0; HR, 0.49, 95% CI, 0.24-0.98, respectively), whereas EBRT was associated with an inferior overall survival (OS) compared with surgery (HR, 1.46, 95% CI, 1.16-1.8). Radiotherapy (EBRT ± BT) was inferior to surgery by OS (HR, 1.63, 95% CI, 1.13-2.34) in patients ? 65 years, and was superior to surgery by CSS in patients > 65 years (HR, 0.69, 95% CI, 0.49-0.97). The meta-analysis showed consistent results. CONCLUSION:EBRT + BT was associated with a significantly better prostate CSS compared with surgery or EBRT. EBRT alone was inferior to surgery by OS.

SUBMITTER: Yin M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6943084 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of surgery versus external beam radiation with/without brachytherapy in high-risk localized prostate cancer.

Yin Ming M Zhao Jing J Monk Paul P Martin Douglas D Folefac Edmund E Joshi Monika M Jin Ning N Mortazavi Amir A Verschraegen Claire C Clinton Steven S

Cancer medicine 20191107 1

<h4>Background</h4>It remains controversial if radical prostatectomy or definitive radiation therapy produces equivalent outcomes in high-risk localized prostate cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>We queried The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for those who received upfront surgery or who were recommended for surgery but instead received radiation. Inverse probability of treatment weighing was used to adjust for covariate imbalance and the weighted Cox proportional hazards model ...[more]

PMID: 31697452

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceUnderstanding adverse effects of contemporary treatment approaches for men with favorable-risk and unfavorable-risk localized prostate cancer could inform treatment selection.ObjectiveTo compare functional outcomes associated with prostate cancer treatments over 5 years after treatment.Design, setting, and participantsProspective, population-based cohort study of 1386 men with favorable-risk (clinical stage cT1 to cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≤20 ng/mL, and Grade Group 1-2) prostate cancer and 619 men with unfavorable-risk (clinical stage cT2cN0M0, PSA of 20-50 ng/mL, or Grade Group 3-5) prostate cancer diagnosed in 2011 through 2012, accrued from 5 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program sites and a US prostate cancer registry, with surveys through September 2017.ExposuresTreatment with active surveillance (n = 363), nerve-sparing prostatectomy (n = 675), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT; n = 261), or low-dose-rate brachytherapy (n = 87) for men with favorable-risk disease and treatment with prostatectomy (n = 402) or EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 217) for men with unfavorable-risk disease.Main outcomes and measuresPatient-reported function, based on the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (range, 0-100), 5 years after treatment. Regression models were adjusted for baseline function and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important difference was 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritative symptoms, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormonal function.ResultsA total of 2005 men met inclusion criteria and completed the baseline and at least 1 postbaseline survey (median [interquartile range] age, 64 [59-70] years; 1529 of 1993 participants [77%] were non-Hispanic white). For men with favorable-risk prostate cancer, nerve-sparing prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence at 5 years (adjusted mean difference, -10.9 [95% CI, -14.2 to -7.6]) and sexual function at 3 years (adjusted mean difference, -15.2 [95% CI, -18.8 to -11.5]) compared with active surveillance. Low-dose-rate brachytherapy was associated with worse urinary irritative (adjusted mean difference, -7.0 [95% CI, -10.1 to -3.9]), sexual (adjusted mean difference, -10.1 [95% CI, -14.6 to -5.7]), and bowel (adjusted mean difference, -5.0 [95% CI, -7.6 to -2.4]) function at 1 year compared with active surveillance. EBRT was associated with urinary, sexual, and bowel function changes not clinically different from active surveillance at any time point through 5 years. For men with unfavorable-risk disease, EBRT with ADT was associated with lower hormonal function at 6 months (adjusted mean difference, -5.3 [95% CI, -8.2 to -2.4]) and bowel function at 1 year (adjusted mean difference, -4.1 [95% CI, -6.3 to -1.9]), but better sexual function at 5 years (adjusted mean difference, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.2-18.7]) and incontinence at each time point through 5 years (adjusted mean difference, 23.2 [95% CI, 17.7-28.7]), than prostatectomy.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, most functional differences associated with contemporary management options attenuated by 5 years. However, men undergoing prostatectomy reported clinically meaningful worse incontinence through 5 years compared with all other options, and men undergoing prostatectomy for unfavorable-risk disease reported worse sexual function at 5 years compared with men who underwent EBRT with ADT.

Project description:PurposeTo compare patient-reported disease-specific functional outcomes after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and EBRT combined with low-dose-rate brachytherapy prostate boost (EB-LDR) among men with localized prostate cancer.Methods and materialsThe prospective, population-based Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study enrolled men with localized prostate cancer in 2011 to 2012. The 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite measured patient-reported disease-specific function at baseline and at 6, 12, and 36 months. Higher domain scores indicate better function. Minimal clinically important difference was defined as 6 for urinary incontinence, 5 for urinary irritative function, 4 for bowel function, 12 for sexual function, and 4 for hormonal function. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were fit to estimate the effect of treatment on patient-reported outcomes.ResultsFive-hundred seventy-eight men received EBRT and 109 received EB-LDR. Median patient age was 69 years, and 70% had intermediate- or high-risk disease. Men in the EB-LDR group were younger (P < .001) and less likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy (P < .001). Baseline urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal function was similar between treatment groups (P > .05). On multivariable analyses, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse urinary irritative function at 6 months (adjusted mean difference [AMD] -14.4, P < .001), 12 months (AMD -12.9, P < .001), and 36 months (AMD -4.7, P = .034) than men receiving EBRT. At 12 months, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse bowel function (AMD -5.8, P = .002), but these differences were not seen at 36 months. There were no significant differences in sexual or hormone function between treatment groups.ConclusionsMen treated with EB-LDR report worse bowel function at 1 year and worse urinary irritative function through 3 years compared with men treated with EBRT alone. These side effect profiles should be discussed with patients when considering EB-LDR versus EBRT treatment.

Project description:BackgroundExternal beam radiotherapy is the recommended but expensive treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men worldwide. A cost-effectiveness study is needed given the excessive cost of radiotherapy treatment and the high prevalence of prostate cancer. The aim of this systematic review was to assess and identify studies that examined model based economic evaluation of external beam radiation therapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.MethodsA systematic review of the published literature was conducted through MEDLINE, NHS EED (NHS Economic Evaluation Database), and Cochrane databases with a specific search strategy. The literatures were searched according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. At first 1046 citations were identified. The extracted files were imported into the Rayyan systematic review site for inclusion or exclusion based on the defined criteria. Studies included in this review were articles published between 2003 and 2017, and that conducted full-economic evaluations of the modality of external beam radiotherapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.ResultsThere were 12 studies that satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Seven studies compared intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), two compared IMRT with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) another two-paper assessed IMRT with proton beam therapy (PBT). One paper compared the three external-beam radio therapy options of IMRT, SBRT and PBT. Most of the studies were originated from the US and analyzed the cost data from the payer's perspective. Most studies were supported that IMRT was cost effective when it compared with 3D-CRT. Compared with IMRT, SBRT was found to be cost-effective.ConclusionsThere are limited number of studies exist on the cost effectiveness of radiation therapy options for the treatment of localize prostate cancer across Europe. Most studies are originated from the US Medicare payer Perspective. Further research is need that investigate the cost effectiveness of these radiation therapy options from the societal perspective in Europe.

Project description:Brachytherapy after lumpectomy is an increasingly popular breast cancer treatment, but data concerning its effectiveness are conflicting. Recently proposed "suitability" criteria guiding patient selection for brachytherapy have never been empirically validated.Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database, we compared women aged 66 years or older with invasive breast cancer (n=28,718) or ductal carcinoma in situ (n=7229) diagnosed from 2002 to 2007, treated with lumpectomy alone, brachytherapy, or external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). The likelihood of breast preservation, measured by subsequent mastectomy risk, was compared by use of multivariate proportional hazards, further stratified by American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) brachytherapy suitability groups. We compared 1-year postoperative complications using the ?(2) test and 5-year local toxicities using the log-rank test.For patients with invasive cancer, the 5-year subsequent mastectomy risk was 4.7% after lumpectomy alone (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1%-5.4%), 2.8% after brachytherapy (95% CI, 1.8%-4.3%), and 1.3% after EBRT (95% CI, 1.1%-1.5%) (P<.001). Compared with lumpectomy alone, brachytherapy achieved a more modest reduction in adjusted risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.94) than achieved with EBRT (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.18-0.28). Relative risks did not differ when stratified by ASTRO suitability group (P=.84 for interaction), although ASTRO "suitable" patients did show a low absolute subsequent mastectomy risk, with a minimal absolute difference in risk after brachytherapy (1.6%; 95% CI, 0.7%-3.5%) versus EBRT (0.8%; 95% CI, 0.6%-1.1%). For patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, EBRT maintained a reduced risk of subsequent mastectomy (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.55; P<.001), whereas the small number of patients treated with brachytherapy (n=179) precluded definitive comparison with lumpectomy alone. In all patients, brachytherapy showed a higher postoperative infection risk (16.5% vs 9.9% after lumpectomy alone vs 11.4% after EBRT, P<.001); higher incidence of breast pain (22.9% vs 11.2% vs 16.7%, P<.001); and higher incidence of fat necrosis (15.3% vs 5.3% vs 7.7%, P<.001).In this study era, brachytherapy showed lesser breast preservation benefit compared with EBRT. Suitability criteria predicted differential absolute, but not relative, benefit in patients with invasive cancer.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of surgery versus external beam radiation with/without brachytherapy in high-risk localized prostate cancer.

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of surgery versus external beam radiation with/without brachytherapy in high-risk localized prostate cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure