1
|
Rivas JG, Taratkin M, Azilgareeva C, Morozov A, Laso S, Enikeev D, Sierra JM, Schelkunova K, Sanguedolce F, Breda A, Govorov A, Vasilyev A, Cepeda M, Lusuardi L, Pallauf M, Celia A, Silvestri T, Fiori C, Fernández E, Martínez-Salamanca JI, Barret E. Cryotherapy versus radical prostatectomy as a salvage treatment for radio-recurrent prostate cancer. World J Urol 2024; 42:515. [PMID: 39259304 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-05199-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2024] [Accepted: 07/30/2024] [Indexed: 09/13/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The aim of this study is to compare outcomes of SRP (salvage radical prostatectomy) with SCAP (salvage cryoablation of the prostate) in local radio-recurrent PCa (prostate cancer) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS A retrospective analysis of a multicentric European Society of Uro-technology (ESUT) database was performed. Data on patients with local recurrent PCa after radiotherapy who underwent salvage treatment were collected. Patients and their respective disease characteristics, perioperative complications as well as oncological outcomes were then described. The treatment success rate was defined as PSA nadir < 0,4 ng/ml. Any complications were graded according to the modified Clavien system. A descriptive and comparative analysis was performed using SPSS software. RESULTS 25 patients underwent SRP and 71 patients received SCAP. The mean follow-up was 24 months. The median PSA level before initial treatment was 8.3 (range 7-127) ng/ml. The success rates of SRP and SCAP were largely comparable (88% (22 patients) vs. 67.7% (48 patients), respectively, p = 0.216). The mean serum PSA levels at 12 months after salvage treatment were 1.2 ± 0.2 ng/mL vs. 0.25 ± 0.5 ng/mL, p > 0.05). During the follow-up period, only 3 (12%) patients in the SRP group had PSA recurrence compared with 21 patients (29.6%) in the SCAP group. The 5-year BRFS was similar (51,6% and 48,2%, p = 0,08) for SRP and SCAP respectively. The 5-year overall survival rate was 91.7%, and 89,7% (p = 0.669) and the 5-year cancer-specific survival was 91.7%, and 97,1% (p = 0.077), after SRP and SCAP respectively. No difference was found regarding the complications. CONCLUSIONS Both SRP and SCAP should be considered as valid treatment options for patients with local recurrence of PCa after radiotherapy. SCAP has a potentially lower risk of morbidity and acceptable intermediate-term oncological efficacy, but a longer follow up and a higher number of patients is ideally needed to draw any long-term conclusions regarding the oncological data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juan Gomez Rivas
- Department of Urology, Clinico San Carlos University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
| | - Mark Taratkin
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
| | - Camilla Azilgareeva
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
| | - Andrey Morozov
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
| | - Silvia Laso
- Department of Urology, Clinico San Carlos University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
| | - Dmitry Enikeev
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
- Department of Urology and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria
- Division of Urology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel
| | - Jesús Moreno Sierra
- Department of Urology, Clinico San Carlos University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
| | | | | | - Alberto Breda
- Department of Urology, Fundació Pugivert, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | | | - Marcos Cepeda
- Department of Urology, Hospital Rio Ortega, Valladolid, Spain
| | - Lukas Lusuardi
- Department of Urology and Andrology, Paracelsus Medizinische Privatuniversität, Salzburg, Austria
| | - Maximilian Pallauf
- Department of Urology and Andrology, Paracelsus Medizinische Privatuniversität, Salzburg, Austria
| | - Antonio Celia
- Department of Urology, San Bassiano Hospital, Bassiano del Grappa, Italy
| | - Tommaso Silvestri
- Department of Urology, San Bassiano Hospital, Bassiano del Grappa, Italy
| | - Cristian Fiori
- Department of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | | | | | - Eric Barret
- Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, 42 boulevard Jourdan, Paris, 75014, France.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gustavsen EM, Haug ES, Haukland E, Heimdal R, Stensland E, Myklebust TÅ, Hauglann B. Geographic and socioeconomic variation in treatment of elderly prostate cancer patients in Norway - a national register-based study. RESEARCH IN HEALTH SERVICES & REGIONS 2024; 3:8. [PMID: 39177854 PMCID: PMC11281769 DOI: 10.1007/s43999-024-00044-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2024] [Accepted: 05/08/2024] [Indexed: 08/24/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of this study was to examine geographic and socioeconomic variation in curative treatment and choice of treatment modality among elderly prostate cancer (PCa) patients. METHODS This register-based cohort study included all Norwegian men ≥ 70 years when diagnosed with non-metastatic, high-risk PCa in 2011-2020 (n = 10 807). Individual data were obtained from the Cancer Registry of Norway, the Norwegian Prostate Cancer Registry, and Statistics Norway. Multilevel logistic regression analysis was used to model variation across hospital referral areas (HRAs), incorporating clinical, demographic and socioeconomic factors. RESULTS Overall, 5186 (48%) patients received curative treatment (radical prostatectomy (RP) (n = 1560) or radiotherapy (n = 3626)). Geographic variation was found for both curative treatment (odds ratio 0.39-2.19) and choice of treatment modality (odds ratio 0.10-2.45). Odds of curative treatment increased with increasing income and education, and decreased for patients living alone, and with increasing age and frailty. Patients with higher income had higher odds of receiving RP compared to radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS This study showed geographic and socioeconomic variation in treatment of elderly patients with non-metastatic, high-risk PCa, both in relation to overall curative treatment and choice of treatment modality. Further research is needed to explore clinical practices, the shared decision process and how socioeconomic factors influence the treatment of elderly patients with high-risk PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elin Marthinussen Gustavsen
- Department of Community Medicine, The Arctic University of Norway (UiT), Tromsø, Norway.
- Centre for Clinical Documentation and Evaluation (SKDE), Northern Norway Regional Health Authority, Tromsø, Norway.
| | | | - Ellinor Haukland
- Department of Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Nordland Hospital, Bodø, Norway
- SHARE - Center for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Quality and Health Technology, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway
| | - Ragnhild Heimdal
- Geriatric Department, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway
| | - Eva Stensland
- Department of Community Medicine, The Arctic University of Norway (UiT), Tromsø, Norway
- Centre for Clinical Documentation and Evaluation (SKDE), Northern Norway Regional Health Authority, Tromsø, Norway
| | - Tor Åge Myklebust
- Cancer Registry of Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Research and Innovation, Møre and Romsdal Hospital Trust, Ålesund, Norway
| | - Beate Hauglann
- Centre for Clinical Documentation and Evaluation (SKDE), Northern Norway Regional Health Authority, Tromsø, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Tward JD, Lenz L, Gutin A, Clegg W, Kasten CR, Finch R, Cohen T, Michalski J, Kishan AU. Using the Cell-Cycle Risk Score to Predict the Benefit of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Added to Radiation Therapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer. JCO Precis Oncol 2024; 8:e2300722. [PMID: 38748970 PMCID: PMC11371120 DOI: 10.1200/po.23.00722] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/26/2023] [Revised: 03/07/2024] [Accepted: 03/21/2024] [Indexed: 09/05/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Guidelines recommend adding androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiation therapy (RT) in certain patients with localized prostate cancer. Individualized genomic testing may improve the prognostic accuracy of risk assessments. Herein, we describe a mathematical model of the benefit of adding ADT to RT as a function of the personalized clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score to inform 10-year metastasis risk. METHODS A model of absolute risk reduction (ARR) was built using a retrospective cohort of men tested with Prolaris who received RT alone (N = 467). The relative benefit of ADT added to RT to reduce distant metastasis was estimated at 41% on the basis of a meta-analysis of randomized trials. The ARR and number needed to treat (NNT) were computationally derived in patients clinically tested with Prolaris between January 1, 2020, and October 31, 2022 (N = 56,485). Risks were predicted using a cause-specific Cox proportional hazards model with CCR score predicting time to metastasis. A CCR score of 2.112 represents the validated multimodal treatment (MMT) threshold. RESULTS The ARR from ADT increased from almost zero at low CCR scores to 17.1% at CCR = 3.690 with the corresponding NNT = 6, indicating that adding ADT to RT would prevent metastasis within 10 years for one of every six treated individuals. In the clinical cohort, the average ARR was 0.86% in individuals under the MMT threshold (NNT = 116). The average ARR was 8.19% in individuals above the MMT threshold (NNT = 12). Broad ranges of ADT benefit were observed within National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk categories. CONCLUSION The precise and personalized risk estimate of metastasis provided by the CCR score can help inform patients and physicians when considering treatment intensification.
Collapse
|
4
|
Carbonell E, Mercader C, Sureda J, Gutiérrez A, Muñoz J, Gallardo E, Feltes N, Mases J, Valduvieco I, Vilaseca A, Franco A, Alcaraz A, Musquera M, Ribal MJ. Nadir prostate-specific antigen after salvage cryotherapy as a potential prognostic factor for oncologic outcomes. World J Urol 2024; 42:133. [PMID: 38478102 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-04806-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2023] [Accepted: 01/19/2024] [Indexed: 01/04/2025] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To report oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing salvage cryotherapy (SCT) for local recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa) and to establish a nadir PSA (nPSA) value that best defines long-term oncologic success. METHODS Retrospective study of men who underwent SCT for local recurrence of PCa between 2008 and 2020. SCT was performed in men with biochemical recurrence (BCR), after primary treatment and with biopsy-proven PCa local recurrence. Survival analysis with Kaplan-Meier and Cox models was performed. We determined the optimal cutoff nPSA value after SCT that best classifies patients depending on prognosis. RESULTS Seventy-seven men who underwent SCT were included. Survival analysis showed a 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), androgen deprivation therapy-free survival (AFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) after SCT of 48.4%, 62% and 81.3% respectively. On multivariable analysis for perioperative variables associated with BCR, initial ISUP, pre-SCT PSA, pre-SCT prostate volume and post-SCT nPSA emerged as variables associated with BCR. The cutoff analysis revealed an nPSA < 0.5 ng/ml to be the optimal threshold that best defines success after SCT. 5-year BRFS for patients achieving an nPSA < 0.5 vs nPSA ≥ 0.5 was 64% and 9.5% respectively (p < 0.001). 5-year AFS for men with nPSA < 0.5 vs ≥ 0.5 was 81.2% and 12.2% (p < 0.001). Improved 5-year MFS for patients who achieved nPSA < 0.5 was also obtained (89.6% vs 60%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION SCT is a feasible rescue alternative for the local recurrence of PCa. Achieving an nPSA < 0.5 ng/ml after SCT is associated with higher long-term BRFS, AFS and MFS rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Carbonell
- Department of Urology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain
| | - C Mercader
- Department of Urology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain.
| | - J Sureda
- Department of Urology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain
| | - A Gutiérrez
- Department of Urology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain
| | - J Muñoz
- Department of Urology, Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari, Sabadell, Spain
| | - E Gallardo
- Department of Medical Oncology, Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari, Sabadell, Spain
| | - N Feltes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa, Hospital de Terrassa, Terrassa, Spain
| | - J Mases
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain
| | - I Valduvieco
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain
| | - A Vilaseca
- Department of Urology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain
| | - A Franco
- Department of Urology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain
| | - A Alcaraz
- Department of Urology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain
| | - M Musquera
- Department of Urology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain
| | - M J Ribal
- Department of Urology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Aggarwal A, Han L, Tree A, Lewis D, Roques T, Sangar V, van der Meulen J. Impact of centralization of prostate cancer services on the choice of radical treatment. BJU Int 2023; 131:53-62. [PMID: 35726400 PMCID: PMC10084068 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15830] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the impact of centralization of prostate cancer surgery and radiotherapy services on the choice of prostate cancer treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS This national population-based study used linked cancer registry data and administrative hospital-level data for all 16 621 patients who were diagnosed between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) or radical radiation therapy (RT) in the English National Health Service (NHS). Travel times by car to treating centres were estimated using a geographic information system. We used logistic regression to assess the impact of the relative proximity of alternative treatment options on the type of treatment received, with adjustment for patient characteristics. RESULTS Of the 78 NHS hospitals that provide RT or RP for prostate cancer, 41% provide both, 36% provide RT and 23% provide RP. Compared to patients who had both treatment options available at their nearest centre where overall 57% of patients received RT and 43% RP, patients were less likely to receive RT if their nearest centre offered RP only and the extra travel time to a hospital providing RT was >15 min (52% of patients received RT and 48% RP%, odds ratio [OR] 0.70 (0.58-0.85); P < 0.001). Conversely, patients were more likely to receive RT if their nearest centre offered RT and the extra travel time to a hospital providing RP was >15 min (63% of patients received RT and 37% RP, OR 1.23 (1.08-1.40); P < 0.001). There was a negligible impact on the type of treatment received if centres providing alternative treatment options were ≤15-min travel time from each other. CONCLUSION The relative proximity of prostate cancer treatment options to a patient's residence is an independent predictor for the type of radical treatment received. Centralization policies for prostate cancer should not focus on one treatment modality but should consider all treatments to avoid a negative impact on treatment choice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ajay Aggarwal
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.,Department of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Lu Han
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Alison Tree
- Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute for Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Daniel Lewis
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Tom Roques
- Norfolk and Norwich NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK
| | - Vijay Sangar
- The Christie NHS Trust and Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.,Manchester University, Manchester, UK
| | - Jan van der Meulen
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Michalet M, Riou O, Cottet-Moine J, Castan F, Gourgou S, Valdenaire S, Debuire P, Ailleres N, Draghici R, Charissoux M, Llacer Moscardo C, Farcy-Jacquet MP, Fenoglietto P, Azria D. Magnetic Resonance-Guided Reirradiation for Local Recurrence within the Prostate or in the Prostate Bed: One-Year Clinical Results of a Prospective Registry Study. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14081943. [PMID: 35454850 PMCID: PMC9030485 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14081943] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2022] [Revised: 04/01/2022] [Accepted: 04/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Around 33% of patients treated by EBRT or brachytherapy will present a biochemical recurrence. SBRT is a new option for the treatment of patients with local-only recurrence. MRgRT seems to be interesting for the treatment of these recurrences. This article presents the one-year late tolerance and biochemical recurrence-free survival results of a prospective registry study. Patients with intraprostatic (or in the prostate bed) recurrence were treated with 5 to 9 fractions (median dose of 30 Gy in 5 fractions) with the MRIdian® system. PSA level and toxicities were evaluated before treatment and at three, six and 12 months after treatment. Thirty-seven patients with a median age of 74.5 years old were treated between 21 October 2019 and 7 December 2020. Acute tolerance was excellent with no grade >2 toxicities. Twelve months after treatment, we observed an increase of grade 1−2 dysuria (46% vs. 13% before treatment) and grade 1 polyuria (73% vs. 7%). The six, nine and 12-months biochemical-recurrence free survival were 97.3%, 86.5% and 65.0%. Fifteen patients (40%) presented a biochemical recurrence. Nine of these 15 patients (60%) had a persistent disease within the treated volume. In conclusion, MRgRT is safe and has promising survival results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Morgan Michalet
- Montpellier Cancer Institute, University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, University Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, 34298 Montpellier, France; (O.R.); (J.C.-M.); (S.V.); (P.D.); (N.A.); (R.D.); (M.C.); (C.L.M.); (P.F.); (D.A.)
- Correspondence:
| | - Olivier Riou
- Montpellier Cancer Institute, University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, University Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, 34298 Montpellier, France; (O.R.); (J.C.-M.); (S.V.); (P.D.); (N.A.); (R.D.); (M.C.); (C.L.M.); (P.F.); (D.A.)
| | - Jeremy Cottet-Moine
- Montpellier Cancer Institute, University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, University Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, 34298 Montpellier, France; (O.R.); (J.C.-M.); (S.V.); (P.D.); (N.A.); (R.D.); (M.C.); (C.L.M.); (P.F.); (D.A.)
| | - Florence Castan
- Biometrics Unit ICM, Montpellier Cancer Institute, University Montpellier, 34090 Montpellier, France; (F.C.); (S.G.)
| | - Sophie Gourgou
- Biometrics Unit ICM, Montpellier Cancer Institute, University Montpellier, 34090 Montpellier, France; (F.C.); (S.G.)
| | - Simon Valdenaire
- Montpellier Cancer Institute, University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, University Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, 34298 Montpellier, France; (O.R.); (J.C.-M.); (S.V.); (P.D.); (N.A.); (R.D.); (M.C.); (C.L.M.); (P.F.); (D.A.)
| | - Pierre Debuire
- Montpellier Cancer Institute, University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, University Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, 34298 Montpellier, France; (O.R.); (J.C.-M.); (S.V.); (P.D.); (N.A.); (R.D.); (M.C.); (C.L.M.); (P.F.); (D.A.)
| | - Norbert Ailleres
- Montpellier Cancer Institute, University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, University Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, 34298 Montpellier, France; (O.R.); (J.C.-M.); (S.V.); (P.D.); (N.A.); (R.D.); (M.C.); (C.L.M.); (P.F.); (D.A.)
| | - Roxana Draghici
- Montpellier Cancer Institute, University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, University Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, 34298 Montpellier, France; (O.R.); (J.C.-M.); (S.V.); (P.D.); (N.A.); (R.D.); (M.C.); (C.L.M.); (P.F.); (D.A.)
| | - Marie Charissoux
- Montpellier Cancer Institute, University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, University Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, 34298 Montpellier, France; (O.R.); (J.C.-M.); (S.V.); (P.D.); (N.A.); (R.D.); (M.C.); (C.L.M.); (P.F.); (D.A.)
| | - Carmen Llacer Moscardo
- Montpellier Cancer Institute, University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, University Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, 34298 Montpellier, France; (O.R.); (J.C.-M.); (S.V.); (P.D.); (N.A.); (R.D.); (M.C.); (C.L.M.); (P.F.); (D.A.)
| | - Marie-Pierre Farcy-Jacquet
- Institut de Cancérologie du Gard, University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, CHU Carémeau, 30900 Nîmes, France;
| | - Pascal Fenoglietto
- Montpellier Cancer Institute, University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, University Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, 34298 Montpellier, France; (O.R.); (J.C.-M.); (S.V.); (P.D.); (N.A.); (R.D.); (M.C.); (C.L.M.); (P.F.); (D.A.)
| | - David Azria
- Montpellier Cancer Institute, University Federation of Radiation Oncology of Mediterranean Occitanie, University Montpellier, INSERM U1194 IRCM, 34298 Montpellier, France; (O.R.); (J.C.-M.); (S.V.); (P.D.); (N.A.); (R.D.); (M.C.); (C.L.M.); (P.F.); (D.A.)
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Tang C, Lei X, Smith GL, Pan HY, Hoffman KE, Kumar R, Chapin BF, Shih YCT, Frank SJ, Smith BD. Influence of Geography on Prostate Cancer Treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 109:1286-1295. [PMID: 33316361 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.11.055] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2020] [Revised: 11/18/2020] [Accepted: 11/22/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Several definitive treatment options are available for prostate cancer, but geographic access to those options is not uniform. We created maps illustrating provider practice patterns relation to patients and assessed the influence of distance to treatment receipt. METHODS AND MATERIALS The patient cohort was created by searching the National Medicare Database for patients diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer from 2011 to 2014. The provider cohort was created by querying the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile to identify physicians who had treated patients with prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), brachytherapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), or proton therapy. Maps detailing the location of providers were created for each modality. Multivariate multinomial logistic regressions were used to assess the association between patient-provider distance and probability of treatment. RESULTS Cohorts consisted of 89,902 patients treated by 5518 physicians. Substantial numbers of providers practicing established modalities (IMRT, prostatectomy, and brachytherapy) were noted in major urban centers, whereas provider numbers were reduced in rural areas, most notably for brachytherapy. Ninety percent of prostate cancer patients lived within 35.1, 28.9, and 55.6 miles of a practitioner of prostatectomy, IMRT, and brachytherapy, respectively. Practitioners of emerging modalities (SBRT and proton therapy) were predominantly concentrated in urban locations, with 90% of patients living within 128 miles (SBRT) and 374.5 miles (proton). Greater distance was associated with decreased probability of treatment (IMRT -3.8% per 10 miles; prostatectomy -2.1%; brachytherapy -2%; proton therapy -1.6%; and SBRT -1.1%). CONCLUSIONS Geographic disparities were noted for analyzed treatment modalities, and these disparities influenced delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chad Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| | - Xiudong Lei
- Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Grace L Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Hubert Y Pan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Rachit Kumar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Banner MD Anderson, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Brian F Chapin
- Department of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ya-Chen Tina Shih
- Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Benjamin D Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Valle LF, Lehrer EJ, Markovic D, Elashoff D, Levin-Epstein R, Karnes RJ, Reiter RE, Rettig M, Calais J, Nickols NG, Dess RT, Spratt DE, Steinberg ML, Nguyen PL, Davis BJ, Zaorsky NG, Kishan AU. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Local Salvage Therapies After Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer (MASTER). Eur Urol 2020; 80:280-292. [PMID: 33309278 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 159] [Impact Index Per Article: 31.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2020] [Accepted: 11/06/2020] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT Management of locally recurrent prostate cancer after definitive radiotherapy remains controversial due to the perceived high rates of severe genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity associated with any local salvage modality. OBJECTIVE To quantitatively compare the efficacy and toxicity of salvage radical prostatectomy (RP), high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryotherapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy, and high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION We performed a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Two- and 5-yr recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates and crude incidences of severe GU and GI toxicity were extracted as endpoints of interest. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to characterize summary effect sizes and quantify heterogeneity. Estimates for each modality were then compared with RP after adjusting for individual study-level covariates using mixed-effect regression models, while allowing for differences in between-study variance across treatment modalities. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS A total of 150 studies were included for analysis. There was significant heterogeneity between studies within each modality, and covariates differed between modalities, necessitating adjustment. Adjusted 5-yr RFS ranged from 50% after cryotherapy to 60% after HDR brachytherapy and SBRT, with no significant differences between any modality and RP. Severe GU toxicity was significantly lower with all three forms of radiotherapeutic salvage than with RP (adjusted rates of 20% after RP vs 5.6%, 9.6%, and 9.1% after SBRT, HDR brachytherapy, and LDR brachytherapy, respectively; p ≤ 0.001 for all). Severe GI toxicity was significantly lower with HDR salvage than with RP (adjusted rates 1.8% vs 0.0%, p < 0.01), with no other differences identified. CONCLUSIONS Large differences in 5-yr outcomes were not uncovered when comparing all salvage treatment modalities against RP. Reirradiation with SBRT, HDR brachytherapy, or LDR brachytherapy appears to result in less severe GU toxicity than RP, and reirradiation with HDR brachytherapy yields less severe GI toxicity than RP. Prospective studies of local salvage for radiorecurrent disease are warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY In a large study-level meta-analysis, we looked at treatment outcomes and toxicity for men treated with a number of salvage treatments for radiorecurrent prostate cancer. We conclude that relapse-free survival at 5 years is equivalent among salvage modalities, but reirradiation may lead to lower toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luca F Valle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Eric J Lehrer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, NY, USA
| | - Daniela Markovic
- Department of Medicine, Statistics Core, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - David Elashoff
- Department of Medicine, Statistics Core, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | | | | | - Robert E Reiter
- Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Matthew Rettig
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Division of Hematology and Oncology, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Jeremie Calais
- Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular & Medical Pharmacology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Nicholas G Nickols
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Veteran Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Robert T Dess
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Daniel E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Michael L Steinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Paul L Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Brian J Davis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Nicholas G Zaorsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA, USA
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Smigelski M, Wallace BK, Lu J, Li G, Anderson CB. Differences in Use of Aggressive Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer in New York City. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2020; 19:e55-e62. [PMID: 32891565 DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2020.08.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2020] [Revised: 08/05/2020] [Accepted: 08/08/2020] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Socioeconomic factors may impact how a patient is treated for prostate cancer (CaP). Our objective was to determine if county of residence or neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics were associated with treatment for CaP in New York City (NYC). MATERIALS AND METHODS We used the NYSPACED database to identify men aged 40 to 80 years with localized CaP in NYC between 2004 and 2016. We categorized patients into receiving either aggressive local therapy (ALT) or non-aggressive treatment (NT). We identified borough of residence through NYSPACED and used Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) designation to define neighborhood characteristics using United States Census data. We hypothesized that differences exist in use of ALT according to county of residence and neighborhood characteristics. We used multivariable logistic regression to test the association between county of residence and ALT as well as between ALT and PUMA characteristics. RESULTS Our cohort included 40,668 patients. Overall, 80% had ALT, and 21% had NT. NT use increased over time from 16% in 2004 to 32% in 2016 (P < .001). On multivariable logistic regression, patients in Manhattan were less likely to receive ALT compared with those in other boroughs (P < .001). PUMAs with lower education attainment, larger foreign-born populations, lower crime rate, and higher median income were significantly associated with receipt of ALT (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS We observed significant differences in use of treatment for men with newly diagnosed CaP in NYC. The ability to receive this treatment was associated with borough of residence as well as neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics. Additional research is required to identify barriers in access to NT within NYC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Smigelski
- Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Brendan K Wallace
- Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY
| | - Jun Lu
- Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY
| | - Gen Li
- Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY
| | - Christopher B Anderson
- Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY.
| |
Collapse
|