Dataset Information

Treatment Facility Volume and Survival in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Despite improvements in medical management of advanced prostate cancer (aPC), it continues to be a leading cause of cancer death in men. Contemporary management of men with aPC is complex and requires resources to be more readily available at high-volume facilities. OBJECTIVE:To determine the relationship between facility volume and survival in men with aPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried from 2004 to 2013 for aPC, defined as T4, N+, or M+ disease, identifying 64815 patients. Six predefined patient cohorts were evaluated. Cohort "A" included all patients with aPC. "B" cohorts included only M0 patients. "C" cohorts included only M1 patients. Facilities were divided into quartiles based on median treatment volume (patients/yr). INTERVENTION:Diagnosis and management of aPC at an NCDB-reporting facility. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:Overall survival (OS) was assessed as a function of facility volume. Multivariable Cox regression models were fitted. Cox regressions using natural cubic splines were used to test for nonlinear relationships between volume and OS. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS:OS improved as facility volume increased (top quartile vs bottom quartile, hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.77-0.88, p<0.001) and was consistent across patient cohorts. Spline models demonstrate a continuous decrease in hazard of death as volume increases. Limitations include the retrospective analysis and a lack of precise treatment information. CONCLUSIONS:In this retrospective analysis of nearly 65000 men who presented with aPC, we demonstrate an association between higher facility volume and improvements in OS. This OS advantage persisted with similar magnitudes of effect after narrowing the cohorts by disease and treatment characteristics. PATIENT SUMMARY:In this retrospective review of the National Cancer Database, we analyzed the association between treatment facility volume and survival in men who are diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. We found that survival improved as volume increased, indicating a possible imbalance of resources and expertise that favors higher-volume facilities.

SUBMITTER: Joshi SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7649050 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Treatment Facility Volume and Survival in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer.

Joshi Shreyas S SS Handorf Elizabeth R ER Sienko Danielle D Zibelman Matthew M Uzzo Robert G RG Kutikov Alexander A Horwitz Eric M EM Smaldone Marc C MC Geynisman Daniel M DM

European urology oncology 20190718 1

<h4>Background</h4>Despite improvements in medical management of advanced prostate cancer (aPC), it continues to be a leading cause of cancer death in men. Contemporary management of men with aPC is complex and requires resources to be more readily available at high-volume facilities.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the relationship between facility volume and survival in men with aPC.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried from 2004 to 2013 for aP ...[more]

PMID: 31326500

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHigher treatment facility (TF) volume has been linked with improved oncologic treatment outcomes.ObjectiveTo determine the association between TF volume and overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).Design, setting, and participantsThe National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for all patients with mRCC with survival data available (2004-2013, cohort A). Overall survival was assessed based on TF volumes, and increasingly narrow inclusion criteria were used to confirm the cohort A association: cohort B=mRCC patients with active treatment; cohort C=mRCC patients with systemic therapy; cohort D=mRCC patients with systemic therapy at the reporting institution; and cohort E=mRCC patients with systemic therapy at the reporting institution with known liver and lung metastatic status. Sensitivity analyses were also performed on subcohorts of mRCC who never underwent a nephrectomy (C1, D1, and E1).Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe effect of volume on time to death (from any cause) was determined using Cox regression models, adjusting for multiple clinical pathologic factors. Volume effects (assessed continuously) were modeled using flexible cubic splines, and adjusted 1-yr survivals were obtained from the model.Results and limitationsA total of 41 836 mRCC patients were treated at 1222 TFs. The median age was 65 yr. Of the patients, 66% were men and 79% had clear cell mRCC. Median TF volume was 2.2 patients per year (pts/yr). Across all cohorts, higher TF volume was associated with improved outcomes. Adjusted 1-yr survival in cohort A was 0.36 at 2 pts/yr, 0.39 at 5 pts/yr, 0.42 at 10 pts/yr, and 0.46 at 20 pts/yr, with similar magnitudes of effect in cohorts B-E. Limitations include the retrospective nature of NCDB analysis and the lack of information on treatment regimens used at specific facilities, which may explain mechanisms of effects.ConclusionsHigher facility volume is associated with improvements in survival for patients being treated for mRCC. Steps should be taken to standardize management of mRCC patients, such as evidence-based pathway development, clinical trial access, and multidisciplinary resource availability at lower-volume TFs.Patient summaryIn this report, we analyzed a large cancer database and found that patients with metastatic kidney cancer survived longer if they were managed at facilities that treated a higher volume of such patients. This information can help find the best treatment environment for patients with metastatic kidney cancer.

Project description:ImportanceVery high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer is an aggressive substratum of high-risk prostate cancer, characterized by high prostate-specific antigen levels, high Gleason score, and/or advanced T category. Contemporary management paradigms involve advanced molecular imaging and multimodal treatment with intensified prostate-directed or systemic treatment-resources more readily available at high-volume centers.ObjectiveTo examine radiation facility case volume and overall survival (OS) in men with VHR prostate cancer.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study was performed from November 11, 2022, to March 4, 2023, analyzing data from US facilities reporting to the National Cancer Database. Patients included men diagnosed with nonmetastatic VHR prostate cancer by National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria (clinical T3b-T4 category, primary Gleason pattern 5, >4 cores with grade group 4-5, and/or 2-3 high-risk features) and treated with curative-intent radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy between January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2016.ExposuresTreatment at high- vs low-average cumulative facility volume (ACFV), defined as the total number of prostate radiotherapy cases at an individual patient's treatment facility from 2004 until the year of their diagnosis. The nonlinear association between a continuous ACFV and OS was examined through a Martingale residual plot; an optimal ACFV cutoff was identified that maximized the separation between high vs low ACFV via a bias-adjusted log rank test.Main outcomes and measuresOverall survival was assessed between high vs low ACFV using Kaplan-Meier analysis with and without inverse probability score weighted adjustment and multivariable Cox proportional hazards.ResultsA total of 25 219 men (median age, 71 [IQR, 64-76] years; 78.7% White) with VHR prostate cancer were identified, 6438 (25.5%) of whom were treated at high ACFV facilities. Median follow-up was 57.4 (95% CI, 56.7-58.1) months. Median OS for patients treated at high ACFV centers was 123.4 (95% CI, 116.6-127.4) months vs 109.0 (95% CI, 106.5-111.2) months at low ACFV centers (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, treatment at a high ACFV center was associated with lower risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95; P < .001). These results were also significant after inverse probability score weighted-based adjustment.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of patients with VHR prostate cancer who underwent definitive radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy, facility case volume was independently associated with longer OS. Further studies are needed to identify which factors unique to high-volume centers may be responsible for this benefit.

Project description:ImportanceLong-term control of node-positive (N1) prostate cancer, the incidence of which is increasing, is obtainable with aggressive treatment, and definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an increasingly preferred option. Caring for these patients is complex and may require resources more readily available at high-volume centers.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between radiation facility case volume and overall survival (OS) in men with N1 prostate cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included 1899 men diagnosed with T1N1M0 to T4N1M0 prostate cancer treated with curative-intent EBRT and ADT between January 2004 and December 2016 at US facilities reporting to the National Cancer Database. Data analysis was performed from March to June 2020.ExposuresTreatment at a center with high vs low average cumulative facility volume (ACFV), defined as the total number of prostate radiation cases at an individual patient's treatment facility from 2004 until the year of that patient's diagnosis.Main outcomes and measuresOS was assessed between high- vs low-ACFV centers using the Kaplan-Meier method with and without propensity score-based weighted adjustment and multivariable Cox proportional hazards. The nonlinear association between continuous ACFV and OS was examined through a Martingale residual plot, and the optimal ACFV cutoff point that maximized the separation between high vs low ACFV was identified via a bias adjusted log rank test.ResultsA total of 1899 men met inclusion criteria. The median (interquartile range) age was 66 (60-72) years, 1491 (78.5%) were White individuals, and 1145 (60.3%) were treated at nonacademic centers. The optimal ACFV cutoff point was 66.4 patients treated per year. The median OS for patients treated at high-ACFV vs low-ACFV centers was 111.1 (95% CI, 101.5-127.9) months and 92.3 (95% CI, 87.7-103.9) months, respectively (P = .01). On multivariable analysis, treatment at a low-ACFV center was associated with increased risk of death (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02-1.46, P = .03) compared with treatment at a high-ACFV center. These results persisted after propensity score-based adjustment.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found a significant association of facility case volume with long-term outcomes in men with N1 prostate cancer undergoing EBRT with ADT. Specifically, treatment at a facility with high radiation case volume was independently associated with longer OS. Further studies should focus on identifying which factors unique to high-volume centers may be responsible for this benefit.

Project description:ImportanceRecent data suggest that local treatment with radical prostatectomy or radiation may improve survival outcomes in men with advanced prostate cancer. However, evidence is lacking on treatment-related adverse effects among men with advanced prostate cancer.ObjectiveTo assess the association of local treatment on treatment-related adverse effects among men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study assessed men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (defined as T4, N1, and/or M1 prostate cancer) between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2013, with follow-up through December 31, 2021, who were treated at Veterans Health Administration medical centers.ExposureLocal treatment with radical prostatectomy or radiation.Main outcomes and measuresMain outcomes were treatment-related adverse effects, including constitutional, gastrointestinal, pain, sexual function, and urinary function conditions, at 3 intervals after initial treatment (≤1 year, >1 to ≤2 years, and >2 to ≤5 years) after initial treatment.ResultsThis cohort study consisted of 5502 men (mean [SD] age, 68.7 [10.3] years) diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. Of the cohort, 1705 men (31.0%) received local treatment. There was a high prevalence of adverse conditions in men receiving both local and nonlocal treatment, and these adverse conditions persisted for more than 2 years to 5 years or less after initial treatment. A total of 916 men (75.2%) with initial local treatment and 897 men (67.1%) with initial nonlocal treatment reported the presence of at least 1 adverse condition for more than 2 years to 5 years or less after initial treatment. In the first year, local treatment (vs nonlocal) was associated with adverse gastrointestinal (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.08; 95% CI, 3.06-5.45), pain (AOR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.35-1.83), sexual (AOR, 2.96; 95% CI, 2.42-3.62), and urinary (AOR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.90-2.66) conditions. Local treatment (without secondary treatment) remained significantly associated with adverse gastrointestinal (AOR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.52-3.77), sexual (AOR, 3.36; 95% CI, 2.56-4.41), and urinary (AOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.09-1.78) conditions at more than 2 years to 5 years or less after treatment.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of men with advanced prostate cancer, local treatment was associated with persistent treatment-related adverse effects across multiple domains. These results suggest that patients and clinicians should consider the adverse effects of local treatment when making treatment decisions in the setting of advanced prostate cancer.

Dataset Information

Treatment Facility Volume and Survival in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer.

Publications

Treatment Facility Volume and Survival in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets