Predictors of Prostate Cancer–Specific Mortality in Elderly Men With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated With Brachytherapy With or Without External Beam Radiation Therapy

Age 70 +/- 5 Years and Cancer-Specific Outcomes After Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

A secondary analysis of 2 randomized Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trials demonstrated that age ≥70 years was a favorable prognostic factor among men treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). In contrast, several series based on men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) suggested that older age was an unfavorable prognostic factor. Our study was initiated to determine whether these observations reflect a true but paradoxical underlying age-related treatment-dependent biological phenomenon. We conducted a systematic review (PubMed, January 1, 1999-January 30, 2023) evaluating the effect of age on cancer-specific outcomes after definitive local treatment with either RP or EBRT. Our main objective was to assess possible interactions between age (using a cutoff of 70 +/- 5 years) and treatment type, with regard to adverse cancer-specific outcomes (eg, pathology, biochemical failure, distant metastasis, or prostate cancer-specific survival). Forty-five studies were selected for inclusion in this systematic review, including 30 and 15 studies with patients treated with RP and EBRT, respectively. Among patients treated with RP, 10 (50%) of these studies suggested that older age was associated with worse outcome(s) after RP. None suggested that age was a favorable prognostic factor after RP. Among the EBRT-based studies, 8 (53%) suggested that older age was associated with better outcomes, with an additional 3 studies (21%) trending to support a better outcome. None of these studies involving EBRT suggested that older age was an adverse prognostic factor. This systematic review suggests that age using a categorical cutoff of 70 +/- 5 years may be an adverse prognostic factor for men undergoing RP but a favorable prognostic factor for men treated with EBRT. Further research is needed to validate these findings.

Irradiation of localized prostate cancer in the elderly: A systematic literature review

•

Oncological benefit for elderly patients with optimal treatment.

•

Elderly patients often received inadequate treatment.

•

Elderly comorbidities can influence oncological outcomes and treatment tolerance.

•

Optimal curative treatment after oncogeriatric assessment.

Purpose

To analyze the literature that addresses radiation therapy for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer (PC) in the elderly.

Patients and methods

A PubMed literature search was conducted including articles from 01/01/2000 to 30/06/21, with the following keywords: PC, radiotherapy/brachytherapy and elderly. The analysis mainly focused on the issue of under-treatment in the elderly and the benefit/risk balance of irradiation.

Results

Of the 176 references analyzed, 24 matched the selection criteria. The definition of “elderly patient” varied from 70 to 80 years. The analysis was impacted by the inhomogeneous primary end points used in each cohort. Age was often an obstacle to radical treatment, with a subsequent risk of under-treatment, particularly in patients with a poorer prognosis. However, comparable elderly oncological outcomes were compared to younger patients, both with external beam radiotherapy alone or combined with brachytherapy boost. Late toxicity rates are low and most often comparable to younger populations. However, a urinary over- toxicity was observed in the super-elderly (>80 years) after brachytherapy boost. The use of ADT should be considered in light of comorbidities, and may even be deleterious in some patients.

Conclusion

Due to the increase in life expectancy, the management of PC in the elderly is a challenge for patients, clinicians and health insurance payers. Except for unfit men, elderly patients remain candidates for optimal curative treatment (i.e. regardless of age) after oncogeriatric assessment. More solid data from prospective trials conducted specially in this population will provide better guidance in our daily clinical practice.

High-Dose-Rate brachytherapy boost for elderly patients with intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer: 5-year clinical outcome of the PROSTAGE cohort

•

Intermediate/high risk elderly prostate cancer benefits less from received standards of care.

•

Age is an independent factor for disease control and tolerance.

•

Brachytherapy boost remains efficient and feasible in the elderly.

•

Careful discussion for super elderly patients (>80 y) is warranted.

•

Oncogeriatric assessment is necessary to identify best candidates.

Purpose

To analyze the oncological outcome in elderly (>70 years) prostate cancer after high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDB) boost.

Materials/methods

In this retrospective study, patients with intermediate (IR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer underwent external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) followed by HDB boost with/without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The impact of age (≤70y vs. > 70y) was investigated. Oncological outcome focused on biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), cause-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Late genito-urinary (GU) and gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicities were investigated.

Results

From 07/08 to 01/22, 518 pts received a HDB boost, and 380 were analyzed (≤70y:177pts [46.6%] vs. > 70y:203pts [53.4%]). Regarding NCCN classification, 98 pts (≤70y: 53pts; >70y: 45pts; p = 0.107) and 282 pts (≤70y: 124pts; >70y: 158pts; p = NS) were IR and HR pts respectively. Median EBRT dose was 46 Gy [37.5–46] in 23 fractions [14–25]. HDB boost delivered a single fraction of 14/15 Gy (79%). ADT was used in 302 pts (≤70y: 130pts; >70y: 172pts; p = 0.01). With MFU of 72.6 months [67–83] for the whole cohort, 5-y bRFS, 5-y CSS and 5-y OS were 88% [85–92], 99% [97–100] and 94% [92–97] respectively; there was no statistical difference between the two age groups except for 5-y CSS (p = 0.05). Late GU and GI toxicity rates were 32.4% (G ≥ 3 7.3%) and 10.1% (no G3) respectively.

Conclusions

For IR and HR prostate cancers, HDB boost leads to high rates of disease control with few late G ≥ 3 GU/GI toxicities. For elderly pts, HDB boost remains warranted mainly in HR pts, while competing comorbidity factors influence OS.

Prostate Cancer Survival and Mortality according to a 13-year retrospective cohort study in Brazil: Competing-Risk Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To analyze cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM) among patients with prostate cancer that initiated treatment in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS), between 2002 and 2010, in Brazil.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study that used the National Oncological Database, which was developed by record-linkage techniques used to integrate data from SUS Information Systems, namely: Outpatient (SIA-SUS), Hospital (SIH-SUS), and Mortality (SIM-SUS). Cancer-specific and other-cause survival probabilities were estimated by the time elapsed between the date of the first treatment until the patients' deaths or the end of the study, from 2002 until 2015. The Fine-Gray model for competing risk was used to estimate factors associated with patients' risk of death.

RESULTS

Of the 112,856 studied patients, the average age was 70.5 years, 21% died due to prostate cancer, and 25% due to other causes. Specific survival in 160 months was 75%, and other-cause survival was 67%. For CSM, the main factors associated with patients' risk of death were: stage IV (AHR = 2.91; 95%CI 2.73 - 3.11), systemic treatment (AHR = 2.10; 95%CI 2.00 - 2.22), and combined surgery (AHR = 2.30, 95%CI 2.18 - 2.42). As for OCM, the main factors associated with patients' risk of death were age and comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

The analyzed patients with prostate cancer were older and died mainly from other causes, probably due to the presence of comorbidities associated with the tumor.

Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and quality of life after localized prostate cancer radiotherapy in elderly patients

Introduction

Radiotherapy can diminish quality of life (QoL) for prostate cancer patients. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of radiotherapy on QoL in men aged 75 years or older treated with radiotherapy for a localized prostate cancer, and to identify predictors of reduced QoL.

Patients and methods

We prospectively administered a battery of geriatric (MNA, GDS, Get up and Go Test, CIRS-G, ADL, IADL, MMSE), toxicity (IPSS; IIEF 5), and QoL (QLQ C30) screening tests in 100 elderly patients before and two months after prostate cancer radiotherapy (NCT 02876237). Patients ≥ 75 years undergoing radiotherapy with a curative intent for localized prostate cancer with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADL) were eligible for study inclusion. Correlations between patient-assessed QoL and tumor characteristics, radiotherapy treatment or CGA parameters were sought using the Fisher or the Mann and Whitney tests. Changes in QoL parameters over time were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

At study entry, scores for IADL impairments were present in 51%, reduced autonomy in activities of daily living in 16%, cognitive impairment found in 20%, depression-related symptoms in 31%, and 66% of patients had significant co-morbidities. Eight percent were judged to be at risk of fall and 2% were found to be undernourished. Severely impaired (IPSS ≥ 20) urinary function was observed in 11.2% and 13.5% of patients before and two months after completion of radiotherapy respectively. Significantly decreased QoL (> 20 points) at two months after treatment was found in 13% of patients and a moderate but clinically relevant reduction (10 to 20 points) in 17% of patients. No tumor characteristic, treatment, or oncogeriatric parameter was predictive of reduced QoL following prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Conclusion

Despite sometimes markedly diminished oncogeriatric parameters, prostate cancer radiotherapy was generally well tolerated in these elderly patients. We found no predictive factor to determine which patients would experience impaired quality of life following radiotherapy.

Prostate cancer treatment and survival: evidence for men with prevalent comorbid conditions

BACKGROUND

The absence of evidence-based guidelines for prostate cancer treatment led the Institute of Medicine to include localized prostate cancer treatment among the 25 most important topics for comparative effectiveness research.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared prostate cancer treatment and survival in men with and without prevalent comorbid conditions.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The sample comprised elderly men, aged 66 years and older, extracted from SEER-Medicare data, between 2004 and 2009 (N=73,563). Treatment and survival for men with at least 1 of 4 prevalent comorbid conditions were compared with men who did not have any of the 12 Charlson comorbid conditions. The sample was stratified by comorbid condition and low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk disease.

RESULTS

Over half of men received some form of cancer-directed treatment, irrespective of comorbid condition. Men who have congestive heart failure (CHF) or multiple comorbid conditions were less likely to be treated, whereas men with diabetes were more likely to be treated. With the exception of men with CHF, men with comorbid conditions and low-risk disease received no survival benefit from any type of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Most men received treatment, particularly radiation therapy, regardless of comorbid condition. The evidence suggests more caution should be used when treating men with low-risk disease and comorbid conditions as they are at risk for adverse events and additional medical costs, without a survival benefit.

Challenges of managing elderly men with prostate cancer

The incidence of prostate cancer increases with age. Current evidence suggests that prostate cancer is under treated in patients aged ≥70 years, despite evidence of efficacy and acceptable toxicity. Radical cystectomy and definitive radiotherapy are often denied owing to fears of post-operative complications and radiotherapy-associated gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity. However, modern radical prostatectomy techniques provide excellent clinical outcomes with low perioperative morbidity. Moreover, volume-restricted intensity-modulated radiation therapy is a significant improvement over previous 2D conformal radiotherapy with similar efficacy and lower toxicity. Androgen-deprivation therapy is also under-prescribed among the elderly, owing to concerns of increases in cardiac deaths and osteoporosis acceleration. However, prospective trials have not identified any increase in cardiovascular mortality among elderly men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy compared to age-matched controls. Most patients on androgen deprivation eventually progress to a castration-resistant state. At this stage, the disease still responds to newer agents that target the androgen pathway and to chemotherapy. Among the elderly, chemotherapy is under-prescribed even though it has been demonstrated to be palliative and improve survival. We describe the trends in prostate cancer management in the elderly and the importance of assessing comorbidity status, tumour characteristics, and health status, including a complete geriatric evaluation, before making treatment recommendations.