Dataset Information

Prostate Cancer Patients With Unmanaged Diabetes or Receiving Insulin Experience Inferior Outcomes and Toxicities After Treatment With Radiation Therapy.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on outcomes and toxicities among men with localized prostate cancer receiving definitive radiation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS:We performed a retrospective review of 3217 patients, from 1998 to 2013, subdivided into 5 subgroups: (I) no T2DM; (II) T2DM receiving oral antihyperglycemic agent that contains metformin, no insulin; (III) T2DM receiving nonmetformin oral agent alone, no insulin; (IV) T2DM receiving any insulin; and (V) T2DM not receiving medication. Outcome measures were overall survival, freedom from biochemical failure (BF), freedom from distant metastasis, cancer-specific survival, and toxicities. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log rank tests, Fine and Gray competing risk regression (to adjust for patient and lifestyle factors), Cox models, and subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) were used. RESULTS:Of the 3217 patients, 1295 (40%) were low-risk, 1192 (37%) were intermediate-risk, and 652 (20%) were high risk. The group I to V distribution was 81%, 8%, 5%, 3%, and 4%. The median dose was 78 Gy, and the median follow-up time was 50 (range, 1-190) months. Group V had increased mortality (sHR, 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-1.54), BF (sHR, 2.14; 0.88-1.83), and cause-specific mortality (sHR, 3.87; 95% CI, 1.31-11). Acute toxicities were higher in group IV versus group I (genitourinary: 38% vs. 26%; P = .01; gastrointestinal: 21% vs. 5%; P = 001). Late toxicities were higher in groups IV and V versus group I (12%-14% vs. 2%-6%; P < .01). CONCLUSION:Men with T2DM not receiving medication and men with T2DM receiving insulin had worse outcomes and toxicities compared to other patients.

SUBMITTER: Zaorsky NG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7592603 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prostate Cancer Patients With Unmanaged Diabetes or Receiving Insulin Experience Inferior Outcomes and Toxicities After Treatment With Radiation Therapy.

Zaorsky Nicholas G NG Shaikh Talha T Ruth Karen K Sharda Pankaj P Hayes Shelly B SB Sobczak Mark L ML Hallman Mark A MA Smaldone Marc C MC Chen David Y T DY Horwitz Eric M EM

Clinical genitourinary cancer 20160908 2

<h4>Background</h4>The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on outcomes and toxicities among men with localized prostate cancer receiving definitive radiation therapy.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>We performed a retrospective review of 3217 patients, from 1998 to 2013, subdivided into 5 subgroups: (I) no T2DM; (II) T2DM receiving oral antihyperglycemic agent that contains metformin, no insulin; (III) T2DM receiving nonmetformin oral agent alone, no i ...[more]

PMID: 27789181

Similar Datasets

Project description:We review radiation therapy (RT) options available for prostate cancer, including external beam (EBRT; with conventional fractionation, hypofractionation, stereotactic body RT [SBRT]) and brachytherapy (BT), with an emphasis on the outcomes, toxicities, and contraindications for therapies. PICOS/PRISMA methods were used to identify published English-language comparative studies on PubMed (from 1980 to 2015) that included men treated on prospective studies with a primary endpoint of patient outcomes, with ⩾70 patients, and ⩾5year median follow up. Twenty-six studies met inclusion criteria; of these, 16 used EBRT, and 10 used BT. Long-term freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) rates were roughly equivalent between conventional and hypofractionated RT with intensity modulation (evidence level 1B), with 10-year FFBF rates of 45-90%, 40-60%, and 20-50% (for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively). SBRT had promising rates of BF, with shorter follow-up (5-year FFBF of >90% for low-risk patients). Similarly, BT (5-year FFBF for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients have generally been >85%, 69-97%, 63-80%, respectively) and BT+EBRT were appropriate in select patients (evidence level 1B). Differences in overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer specific mortality (5-year rates: 82-97%, 1-14%, 0-8%, respectively) have not been detected in randomized trials of dose escalation or in studies comparing RT modalities. Studies did not use patient-reported outcomes, through Grade 3-4 toxicities were rare (<5%) among all modalities. There was limited evidence available to compare proton therapy to other modalities. The treatment decision for a man is usually based on his risk group, ability to tolerate the procedure, convenience for the patient, and the anticipated impact on quality of life. To further personalize therapy, future trials should report (1) race; (2) medical comorbidities; (3) psychiatric comorbidities; (4) insurance status; (5) education status; (6) marital status; (7) income; (8) sexual orientation; and (9) facility-related characteristics.

Project description:Purpose:Intensity modulated proton beam radiation therapy (IMPT) has a clinically significant dosimetric advantage over intensity modulated photon radiation therapy (IMRT) for the treatment of patients with esophageal cancer, particularly for sparing the heart and lungs. We compared acute radiation therapy-related toxicities and short-term clinical outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer who received treatment with IMPT or IMRT. Methods and Materials:We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of consecutive adult patients with esophageal cancer who underwent concurrent chemoradiotherapy with IMPT or IMRT in the definitive or neoadjuvant setting from January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2018, with additional follow-up data collected through January 31, 2019. Treatment-related toxicities were evaluated per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4. Survival outcomes were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Results:A total of 64 patients (32 per group) were included (median follow-up time: 10 months for IMPT patients vs 14 months for IMRT patients). The most common radiation therapy regimen was 45 Gy in 25 fractions, and 80% of patients received a simultaneous integrated boost to a median cumulative dose of 50 Gy. Similar numbers of IMPT patients (n = 15; 47%) and IMRT patients (n = 18; 56%) underwent surgery (P = .07), with no difference in pathologic complete response rates (IMPT: n = 5; 33% vs IMRT: n = 7; 39%; P = .14). At 1 year, the clinical outcomes also were similar for IMPT and IMRT patients, respectively. Local control was 92% versus 84% (P = .87), locoregional control 92% versus 80% (P = .76), distant metastasis-free survival 87% versus 65% (P = .08), progression-free survival 71% versus 45% (P = .15), and overall survival 74% versus 71% (P = .62). The rate of acute treatment-related grade 3 toxicity was similar between the groups (P = .71). Conclusions:In our early experience, IMPT is a safe and effective treatment when administered as part of definitive or trimodality therapy. Longer follow-up is required to evaluate the effectiveness of IMPT.

Project description:PURPOSE:Treatment strategies in palliation of pediatric cancer remain a significant challenge. In this study, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a short course of hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) for metastatic or recurrent childhood tumors. METHODS AND MATERIALS:A total of 104 lesions in 62 pediatric patients with metastatic or recurrent cancer were treated with a short hypofractionation schedule (>1 but ?5 fractions; ?3 Gy per fraction) between 2007 and 2017 in our institution. The primary endpoint was local control (LC). Other endpoints included treatment response, overall survival, progression-free survival, and toxicity. Toxicities were assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.4.0. RESULTS:The most common histologies were neuroblastoma, comprising 50 of the 104 lesions (48.1%); osteosarcoma, 17 lesions (16.4%); and Ewing sarcoma, 13 lesions (12.5%). A median total dose of 24 Gy was delivered in a median of 5 fractions. Of 104 lesions, 26 (25.0%) were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy, 24 (23.1%) with intensity modulated RT, and 48 (46.2%) with 2-dimensional RT or 3-dimensional conformal RT. A complete or partial response was observed in 63 (60.6%) of lesions, and stable disease was observed in 34 (32.7%). At a median follow-up of 8.7 months, 21 local failures occurred (20.2%). The 1- and 2-year LC rates were 74% and 68%, respectively. LC was better for tumors without previous irradiation (83% vs 57% with previous RT; P = .004). LC rates did not differ between RT techniques or total biologically effective dose with ?/? ratio of 10 (BED10) (?30 vs >30 Gy). At the time of analysis, 38 deaths in the cohort of 62 patients (61.3%) were recorded. The 1-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 31% and 44%, respectively. Incidence of any grade ?3 toxicity was 6.7% (7 of 104). No grade 5 events occurred. CONCLUSIONS:A short hypofractionation scheme yields effective disease control and treatment response with a favorable side effect profile. Select pediatric patients with symptomatic metastases or recurrent disease can be considered for a short course of palliative RT.

Project description:PurposeExisting definitions of high-risk prostate cancer consist of men who experience significant heterogeneity in outcomes. As such, criteria that identify a subpopulation of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk prostate cancer patients who are at very high risk (VHR) for poor survival outcomes following prostatectomy were recently developed at our institution and include the presence of any of the following disease characteristics: multiple NCCN high-risk factors, primary Gleason pattern 5 disease and/or ≥5 biopsy cores with Gleason sums of 8 to 10. Whether these criteria also apply to men undergoing definitive radiation is unclear, as is the optimal treatment regimen in these patients.Methods and materialsAll men consecutively treated with definitive radiation by a single provider from 1993 to 2006 and who fulfilled criteria for NCCN high-risk disease were identified (n=288), including 99 patients (34%) with VHR disease. Multivariate-adjusted competing risk regression models were constructed to assess associations between the VHR definition and biochemical failure (BF), distant metastasis (DM), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Multivariate-adjusted Cox regression analysis assessed the association of the VHR definition with overall mortality (OM). Cumulative incidences of failure endpoints were compared between VHR men and other NCCN high-risk men.ResultsMen with VHR disease compared to other NCCN high-risk men experienced a higher 10-year incidence of BF (54.0% vs 35.4%, respectively, P<.001), DM (34.9% vs 13.4%, respectively, P<.001), PCSM (18.5% vs 5.9%, respectively, P<.001), and OM (36.4% vs 27.0%, respectively, P=.04). VHR men with a detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration at the end of radiation (EOR) remained at high risk of 10-year PCSM compared to VHR men with an undetectable EOR PSA (31.0% vs 13.7%, respectively, P=.05).ConclusionsNCCN high-risk prostate cancer patients who meet VHR criteria experience distinctly worse outcomes following definitive radiation and long-term androgen deprivation therapy, particularly if an EOR PSA is detectable. Optimal use of local therapies for VHR patients should be explored further, as should novel agents.

Dataset Information

Prostate Cancer Patients With Unmanaged Diabetes or Receiving Insulin Experience Inferior Outcomes and Toxicities After Treatment With Radiation Therapy.

Publications

Prostate Cancer Patients With Unmanaged Diabetes or Receiving Insulin Experience Inferior Outcomes and Toxicities After Treatment With Radiation Therapy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets