Dataset Information

Use of advanced treatment technologies among men at low risk of dying from prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT: The use of advanced treatment technologies (ie, intensity-modulated radiotherapy [IMRT] and robotic prostatectomy) for prostate cancer is increasing. The extent to which these advanced treatment technologies have disseminated among patients at low risk of dying from prostate cancer is uncertain.To assess the use of advanced treatment technologies, compared with prior standards (ie, traditional external beam radiation treatment [EBRT] and open radical prostatectomy) and observation, among men with a low risk of dying from prostate cancer.Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, we identified a retrospective cohort of men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009 who underwent IMRT (n = 23,633), EBRT (n = 3926), robotic prostatectomy (n = 5881), open radical prostatectomy (n = 6123), or observation (n = 16,384). Follow-up data were available through December 31, 2010.The use of advanced treatment technologies among men unlikely to die from prostate cancer, as assessed by low-risk disease (clinical stage ?T2a, biopsy Gleason score ?6, and prostate-specific antigen level ?10 ng/mL), high risk of noncancer mortality (based on the predicted probability of death within 10 years in the absence of a cancer diagnosis), or both.In our cohort, the use of advanced treatment technologies increased from 32% (95% CI, 30%-33%) to 44% (95% CI, 43%-46%) among men with low-risk disease (P < .001) and from 36% (95% CI, 35%-38%) to 57% (95% CI, 55%-59%) among men with high risk of noncancer mortality (P < .001). The use of these advanced treatment technologies among men with both low-risk disease and high risk of noncancer mortality increased from 25% (95% CI, 23%-28%) to 34% (95% CI, 31%-37%) (P < .001). Among all patients diagnosed in SEER, the use of advanced treatment technologies for men unlikely to die from prostate cancer increased from 13% (95% CI, 12%-14%), or 129.2 per 1000 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, to 24% (95% CI, 24%-25%), or 244.2 per 1000 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (P < .001).Among men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009 who had low-risk disease, high risk of noncancer mortality, or both, the use of advanced treatment technologies has increased.

SUBMITTER: Jacobs BL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3857348 | biostudies-other | 2013 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of advanced treatment technologies among men at low risk of dying from prostate cancer.

Jacobs Bruce L BL Zhang Yun Y Schroeck Florian R FR Skolarus Ted A TA Wei John T JT Montie James E JE Gilbert Scott M SM Strope Seth A SA Dunn Rodney L RL Miller David C DC Hollenbeck Brent K BK

JAMA 20130601 24

<h4>Importance</h4>The use of advanced treatment technologies (ie, intensity-modulated radiotherapy [IMRT] and robotic prostatectomy) for prostate cancer is increasing. The extent to which these advanced treatment technologies have disseminated among patients at low risk of dying from prostate cancer is uncertain.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the use of advanced treatment technologies, compared with prior standards (ie, traditional external beam radiation treatment [EBRT] and open radical prostate ...[more]

PMID: 23800935

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionProstate cancer remains the 3rd leading cause of cancer-related mortality in Canadian men, and yet screening for prostate cancer continues to be controversial because the majority of men diagnosed with prostate cancer do not die of the disease. It also remains uncertain whether treatment of cases that can be treated with curative intent alters the mortality rate. There are very few studies describing the presenting stage, risk groups, and survival after diagnosis for men dying of prostate cancer in the literature. In this study, we explored these characteristics for all men who died of prostate cancer in British Columbia between 2013 and 2015.MethodsThe population-based BC Cancer databases were used to identify all patients diagnosed between January 2013 and December 2015 who died of prostate cancer. Patient, tumour, and treatment characteristics were collected, and the risk grouping for each tumour was determined. The proportion of cases in each risk group at the time of diagnosis was determined. Survival time from diagnosis to death was calculated for all patients and for each risk group using the Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsA total of 1256 patients died of prostate cancer. Of patients who presented with metastatic disease, 57.2% presented with a Gleason score of 8 or more, compared with only 35.7% of patients who presented with nonmetastatic disease (p < 0.0001). The presenting stage and risk group of those dying of prostate cancer were as follows: 32% metastatic disease, 3% regional (defined as node-positive), 39% localized high risk, 9% localized intermediate risk, 4% localized low risk, 6% localized not otherwise specified, and 7% unknown. Therefore, 80.3% of those with a known risk group presented with either localized high-risk, regional, or metastatic disease at diagnosis. The median survival times from diagnosis to death were 12 years for localized low-risk, 10 years for localized intermediate-risk, 6.5 years for localized high-risk, 4 years for regional, and 1.7 years for metastatic disease at diagnosis.ConclusionsThis population-based analysis demonstrates that patients with localized high-risk, regional, or metastatic disease at diagnosis constitute the overwhelming majority of patients who die of prostate cancer in British Columbia. Unless these disease states can reliably be identified at an earlier low- or intermediate-risk localized state in the future, it is unlikely that treatment of localized low- and intermediate-risk cancer will have an impact on survival. Furthermore, patients with de novo metastatic disease had identifiable risk factors of a higher prostate-specific antigen and Gleason score. Further studies are required to confirm these results.

Project description:In the United States, 192,000 men were diagnosed as having prostate cancer in 2009, the majority with low-risk, clinically localized disease. Treatment of these cancers is associated with substantial morbidity. Active surveillance is an alternative to initial treatment, but long-term outcomes and effect on quality of life have not been well characterized.To examine the quality-of-life benefits and risks of active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer.Decision analysis using a simulation model was performed: men were treated at diagnosis with brachytherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), or radical prostatectomy or followed up by active surveillance (a strategy of close monitoring of newly diagnosed patients with serial prostate-specific antigen measurements, digital rectal examinations, and biopsies, with treatment at disease progression or patient choice). Probabilities and utilities were derived from previous studies and literature review. In the base case, the relative risk of prostate cancer-specific death for initial treatment vs active surveillance was assumed to be 0.83. Men incurred short- and long-term adverse effects of treatment.Hypothetical cohorts of 65-year-old men newly diagnosed as having clinically localized, low-risk prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen level <10 ng/mL, stage ?T2a disease, and Gleason score ?6).Quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE).Active surveillance was associated with the greatest QALE (11.07 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), followed by brachytherapy (10.57 QALYs), IMRT (10.51 QALYs), and radical prostatectomy (10.23 QALYs). Active surveillance remained associated with the highest QALE even if the relative risk of prostate cancer-specific death for initial treatment vs active surveillance was as low as 0.6. However, the QALE gains and the optimal strategy were highly dependent on individual preferences for living under active surveillance and for having been treated.Under a wide range of assumptions, for a 65-year-old man, active surveillance is a reasonable approach to low-risk prostate cancer based on QALE compared with initial treatment. However, individual preferences play a central role in the decision whether to treat or to pursue active surveillance.

Project description:Prostate specific antigen velocity is an unreliable predictor of adverse pathology findings in patients on active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. However, to our knowledge a new concept called prostate specific antigen velocity risk count, recently validated in a screening cohort, has not been investigated in an active surveillance cohort.We evaluated a cohort of men from 1995 to 2012 with prostate cancer on active surveillance. They had stage T1c disease, prostate specific antigen density less than 0.15 ng/ml, Gleason score 6 or less, 2 or fewer biopsy cores and 50% or less involvement of any core with cancer. The men were observed by semiannual prostate specific antigen measurements, digital rectal examinations and an annual surveillance biopsy. Treatment was recommended for biopsy reclassification. Patients with 30 months or greater of followup and 3 serial prostate specific antigen velocity measurements were used in primary analysis by logistic regression, Cox proportional hazards, Kaplan-Meier analysis and performance parameters, including the AUC of the ROC curve.Primary analysis included 275 of 668 men who met very low risk inclusion criteria, of whom 83 (30.2%) were reclassified at a median of 57.1 months. Reclassification risk increased with risk count, that is a risk count of 3 (HR 4.63, 95% CI 1.54-13.87) and 2 (HR 3.73, 95% CI 1.75-7.97) compared to zero. Results were similar for Gleason score reclassification (HR 7.45, 95% CI 1.60-34.71 and 3.96, 95% CI 1.35-11.62, respectively). On secondary analysis the negative predictive value (risk count 1 or less) was 91.5% for reclassification in the next year. Adding the prostate specific antigen velocity risk count improved the AUC in a model including baseline prostate specific antigen density (0.7423 vs 0.6818, p = 0.025) and it outperformed the addition of overall prostate specific antigen velocity (0.7423 vs 0.6960, p = 0.037).Prostate specific antigen velocity risk count may be useful for monitoring patients on active surveillance and decreasing the frequency of biopsies needed in the long term.

Dataset Information

Use of advanced treatment technologies among men at low risk of dying from prostate cancer.

Publications

Use of advanced treatment technologies among men at low risk of dying from prostate cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets