Dataset Information

Comparing effectiveness of radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer: A population-based analysis.

ABSTRACT: Currently, the standard management for locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) is still controversial. In our study, we aimed to compare the survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) versus external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).We conducted analyses with a large cohort of 38,544 patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2016). Propensity score matching, Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazard regression were used to reduce the influence of bias and compare the overall survival (OS) and cancer specific survival (CSS). Several different sensitivity analyses including inverse probability of treatment weighting and standardized mortality ratio weighting were used to verify the robustness of the results.Totally, 33,388 men received RP and 5,156 men received EBRT with cT3-4N0M0 PCa were included in this study. According to the Kaplan-Meier curves, RP performed better in both OS and CSS compared with EBRT (P?

SUBMITTER: Zhou X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7447373 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing effectiveness of radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer: A population-based analysis.

Zhou Xianghong X Jin Kun K Qiu Shi S Jin Di D Liao Xinyang X Tu Xiang X Zheng Xiaonan X Li Jiakun J Yang Lu L Wei Qiang Q

Medicine 20200801 34

Currently, the standard management for locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) is still controversial. In our study, we aimed to compare the survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) versus external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).We conducted analyses with a large cohort of 38,544 patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2016). Propensity score matching, Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazard regression were used to reduce the influence of bias ...[more]

PMID: 32846773

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: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.

Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to describe Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) of localized prostate cancer patients in an Active Surveillance (AS) program, and to compare them with those undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP), external-beam radiotherapy (XRT) and brachytherapy (BT).MethodsMulti-institutional pooled cross-sectional analysis on patients in an AS protocol: < 75 years old; pathologically confirmed LPC (maximum of three positive cylinders); Gleason score < 3 + 4; clinical stage T1a-T2b; and PSA < 15 ng/ml. Exclusion criteria for this study were: less than 6 months in AS, termination of AS protocol, or incomplete data. Patients in AS were matched with those treated with RP, XRT or BT from the 'Spanish Multicentric Study of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer' cohort according to risk group, time from treatment selection to HRQoL survey, and age. Prostate-specific (EPIC) and generic (SF-36) HRQoL instruments were completed. Analysis was stratified by HRQoL survey moment (>or < 2.5 years from treatment selection), and age (>or < 70 years old).ResultsMedian of time from treatment selection to HRQoL survey in the total 396 patients (99 per treatment group) was 2.4 years (range 0.5-8.3). Patients in AS presented higher (better) urinary incontinence scores than RP ones in both stratus of time from treatment selection to HRQoL survey (92.6 vs 67.0 and 81.4 vs 64.4, p < 0.01). Patients in AS for < 2.5 years presented greater sexual scores than any active treatment (p < 0.01), but only statistically higher than RP for those in AS for longer than 2.5 years. The magnitude of the differences between AS and RP groups in both EPIC domains ranged from moderate (0.7 SD) to large (1.0 SD). Regardless of treatment applied, patients presented similar and slightly increased SF-36 scores than US general population reference norms. Nonetheless, patients in AS for < 2.5 years reported worse outcomes than other treatment groups on physical health domains, especially in bodily pain (0.5-0.6 SD), and vitality (0.6-0.8 SD).ConclusionsConsidering patients' well-being, AS can be a good therapeutic option due to the low impact caused on urinary continence and sexual function. However, longitudinal studies are required to take into account HRQoL evolution over time.

Dataset Information

Comparing effectiveness of radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer: A population-based analysis.

Publications

Comparing effectiveness of radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer: A population-based analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets