The effect of ethnicity and sexual preference on prostate-cancer-related quality of life

Racial/Ethnic Differences in Health-Related Quality of Life Among Gay and Bisexual Prostate Cancer Survivors

Introduction

Prostate cancer treatment has established effects on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients. While racial/ethnic differences in HRQOL have been explored in heterosexual patients, this is the first study to examine racial/ethnic differences in a cohort of sexual minority prostate cancer survivors.

Methods

We used data from the Restore-1 study, an online cross-sectional survey of sexual and gender minority (SGM) prostate cancer survivors in North America, to explore the association between race/ethnicity and HRQOL. General mental and physical HRQOL was assessed using the Short-Form Health Survey version 2 (SF-12). The frequency and distress of prostate cancer specific symptoms was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Composite (EPIC) scale. Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate mean differences in HRQOL between sexual minority men of color and their white, non-Hispanic counterparts after adjustment for pertinent demographic and medical characteristics.

Results

Among 190 participants, 23 (12%) self-identified as non-white and/or Hispanic. In unadjusted analysis, sexual minority men of color compared to their white counterparts reported worse HRQOL scores in the EPIC hormonal summary (73.8 vs. 81.8) and hormonal function (70.9 vs 80.5) domains. Clinically important differences between men of color and their white counterparts were seen in the EPIC bowel function (mean difference (MD): -4.5, 95% CI: -9.9, 0.8), hormonal summary (MD: -8.0, 95% CI: -15.6, -0.4), hormonal function (MD: -9.6, 95% CI: -17.6, -1.6), and hormonal bother (MD: -6.7, 95% CI: -14.4, 1.1) domains. After adjustment for covariates, clinically important differences persisted between men of color and white, non-Hispanic men on the hormonal summary (74.4 vs. 81.7), hormonal function (71.3 vs. 80.3), and hormonal bother (77.0 vs. 82.7) domains.

Conclusions

This exploratory study provides the first evidence that sexual minority men of color may have worse HRQOL outcomes compared to white, non-Hispanic sexual minority men following prostate cancer treatment.

Addressing urologic health disparities in sexual and gender minority communities through patient-centered outcomes research

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) communities face stigma and discrimination that impact all aspects of health. To better understand and improve their urologic health outcomes, we must study SGM patients as a distinct population and pursue research on outcomes identified as priorities to SGM communities. Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) is a methodology which is increasingly familiar to urologists and is crucial to adequately addressing SGM health in future urological research. We review existing literature focused on urologic outcomes of SGM populations and highlight specific PCOR initiatives built on SGM community engagement.

Prostate cancer in sexual minorities and the influence of HIV status

Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death in men in the USA, but the effect of prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment on men in a sexual minority group, including men who have sex with men and transgender women, is poorly understood. Efforts to study this population are complicated, as cancer registries do not routinely collect information on sexual orientation. As a result, epidemiological data regarding this population have come from small studies that have included disparate rates of prostate cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment. Qualitative studies indicate that prostate cancer is experienced differently by sexual minorities, with distinct health-care needs that arise owing to differences in sexual practices, social support systems and relationships with the medical community. Notably, sexual minorities have been reported to experience poorer health-related quality of life outcomes than heterosexual men, and tend to have less robust social support systems, experience increased psychological distress caused by sexual dysfunction (areas of which are unmeasured after treatment), experience isolation within the health-care system and express increased levels of dissatisfaction with treatment. The incidence of prostate cancer actually seems to be decreased in men from sexual minorities living with HIV, despite there being no differences in screening and treatment, with poor cancer-specific mortality. Although the literature on patients with prostate cancer in men from sexual minority groups has historically been sparse, peer-reviewed research in this area has grown considerably during the past decade and has become an important field of study.

Understanding Prostate Cancer in Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men and Transgender Women: A Review of the Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

a)Prostate cancer in sexual and gender minorities is an emerging medical and public health concern. The purpose of this review is to summarize the state of the science on prostate cancer in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) and transgender women (TGW). We undertook a literature review of all publications on this topic through February 2017. With 88 unique papers (83) on prostate cancer in GBM and 5 case reports of prostate cancer in TGW), a small but robust literature has emerged.

RECENT FINDINGS

b)The first half of this review critiques the literature to date, identifying gaps in approaches to study. The second half summarizes the key findings in eleven areas. In light of this admittedly limited literature, GBM appear to be screened for prostate cancer less than other men, but they are diagnosed with prostate cancer at about the same rate.

SUMMARY

c)Compared to other men, GBM have poorer urinary, bowel, and overall quality-of-life outcomes but better sexual outcomes after treatment; all these findings need more research. Prostate cancer in TGW remains rare and under researched, as the literature is limited to single-case clinical reports.

Impact of Radiation Therapy Dose Escalation on Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Toxicities

OBJECTIVES

Freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) is a common primary outcome of randomized-controlled trials of prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to determine how increasing the PCa biologically equivalent dose (BED) of external radiation therapy (RT) is correlated with FFBF and overall patient outcomes: overall survival (OS), distant metastasis (DM), and cancer-specific mortality (CSM); as well as genitourinary (GU), and gastrointestinal toxicities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of 6884 PCa patients from 12 randomized-controlled trials of external beam RT. Mixed effects regression models were used to estimate weighted linear relationships between BED and observed percentages of 5- and 10-year outcomes. For toxicities, a subset analysis of using 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) versus intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) was performed.

RESULTS

Increasing BED correlated with improved FFBF: 10-year absolute improvement of 9.6% and 7.2% for low-risk and intermediate-risk patients, respectively (P<0.05); but not with improvement of OS, DM, or CSM at either time point. BED escalation was not correlated with increased acute toxicities; it was correlated with increased late gastrointestinal toxicities in patients treated with 3D-CRT (1.5% increase over BED range, P<0.01). IMRT patients had significantly fewer late toxicities, despite being treated at higher BED.

CONCLUSIONS

RT BED escalation has resulted in significantly improved PCa FFBF at up to 10 years; but not with improvement in OS, DM, or CSM. Thus, FFBF is a poor surrogate of overall patient outcomes for trials of RT. Late toxicities were less frequent with IMRT than with 3D-CRT, even at higher BED.

Skin CanceR Brachytherapy vs External beam radiation therapy (SCRiBE) meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To compare cosmesis and local recurrence (LR) of definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) vs brachytherapy (BT) for indolent basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the skin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies including patients with T1-2 N0 SCCs/BCCs treated with definitive EBRT/BT and ≥10 months follow-up were analyzed. The primary endpoint was post-treatment cosmesis, categorized as "good," "fair," or "poor." The secondary endpoint was LR. Mixed effects regression models were used to estimate weighted linear relationships between biologically equivalent doses with α/β = 3 (BED3) and cosmetic outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 9965 patients received EBRT and 553 received BT across 24 studies. Mean age was 73 years, median follow-up was 36 months, and median dose was 45 Gy/10 fractions at 4.4 Gy/fraction. At BED3 of 100 Gy, "good" cosmesis was more frequently observed in patients receiving BT, 95% (95% CI: 88-100%) vs 79% (95% CI: 60-82%), p < 0.05. Similar results were found for "good" cosmesis at BED3 >100 Gy. No difference in "poor" cosmesis was noted at any BED3. LR was <7% for both at one year.

CONCLUSION

BT has favorable cosmesis over EBRT for skin SCCs/BCCs at common fractionation regimens. Prospective studies comparing EBRT vs BT are warranted.

The impact of sexual orientation on body image, self-esteem, urinary and sexual functions in the experience of prostate cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) poses a large health burden globally. Research indicates that men experience a range of psychological challenges associated with PCa including changes to identity, self-esteem and body image. The ways in which sexual orientation plays a role in the experience of PCa, and the subsequent impact on quality of life (QoL), body image and self-esteem have only recently been addressed. By addressing treatment modality, where participant numbers were sufficient, we also sought to explore whether gay (homosexual) men diagnosed with PCa (PCaDx) and with a primary treatment modality of surgery would report differences in body image and self-esteem compared with straight (heterosexual) men with PCaDx with a primary treatment modality of surgery, compared with gay and straight men without PCaDx. The results of our study identified overall differences with respect to PCaDx (related to urinary function, sexual function and health evaluation), and sexual orientation (related to self-esteem), rather than interactions between sexual orientation and PCaDx. Gay men with PCaDx exhibited higher levels of urinary functioning than straight men with PCaDx, the difference being reversed for gay and straight men without PCaDx; but this result narrowly failed to achieve statistical significance, suggesting a need for further research, with larger samples.

Hypofractionated radiation therapy for basal and squamous cell skin cancer: A meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To characterize the cosmetic outcomes and local recurrence (LR) rates of various hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) regimens for skin basal and squamous cell cancers (BCCs/SCCs).

METHODS

A PICOS/PRISMA/MOOSE selection protocol was performed to identify 344 articles published between 1985-2016 evaluating patients with T1-2 N0 SCCs/BCCs treated with definitive RT. Biologically equivalent doses with α/β=3 (BED3s) were calculated. The primary endpoint was post-treatment cosmesis. Mixed effects regression models were used to estimate weighted linear relationships between BED3 and cosmetic outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies were identified detailing the treatment of 9729 skin BCC/SCC patients, across seven countries, with external beam RT (n=9255) or brachytherapy (n=474). Median follow-up was 36months (range: 12-77). Median dose was 45Gy/11 fractions (interquartile range: 37.5Gy/6-55Gy/18) at 4Gy/fraction (interquartile range: 2.5-6Gy); most hypofractionated 18.75Gy/1. There was a trend to decreased "good" cosmesis with higher total dose: -3.4% "good" cosmesis/10Gy BED3, p=0.01. Similarly, there was a trend to increased "fair" cosmesis with higher dose: +3.8% "fair" cosmesis/10Gy BED3,p=0.006. At a BED3 of 100Gy, the expected rate of "good" cosmesis is 79% (95% confidence interval: 70%, 88%). Hypofractionated schedules produced similar cosmesis to conventionally fractionated schedules, at the same BED3. Fewer than 8% of patients experienced "poor" cosmesis, independent of dose or fractionation regimen.

CONCLUSION

Hypofractionated RT has favorable cosmesis for patients with skin BCCs/SCCs. We recommend clinicians consider these commonly-used regimens, which all have BED3 of ∼100Gy: 50Gy/15 fractions, 36.75Gy/7 fractions, or 35Gy/5 fractions, as they result in "good" cosmesis in 80% of patients.

The Missing Pieces in Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials of External Beam Radiation Therapy Dose Escalation for Prostate Cancer

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the most rigorous way of determining whether a cause-effect relation exists between treatment and outcome and for assessing the cost-effectiveness of a treatment. For many patients, cancer is a chronic illness; RCTs evaluating treatments for indolent cancers must evolve to facilitate medical decision-making, as "concrete" patient outcomes (eg, survival) will likely be excellent independent of the intervention, and detecting a difference between trial arms may be impossible. In this commentary, we articulate 9 recommendations that we hope future clinical trialists and funding agencies (including those under the National Cancer Institute) will take into consideration when planning RCTs to help guide subsequent interpretation of results and clinical decision making, based on RCTs of external beam radiation therapy dose escalation for the most common indolent cancer in men, that is, prostate cancer. We recommend routinely reporting: (1) race; (2) medical comorbidities; (3) psychiatric comorbidities; (4) insurance status; (5) education; (6) marital status; (7) income; (8) sexual orientation; and (9) facility-related characteristics (eg, number of centers involved, type of facilities, yearly hospital volumes). We discuss how these factors independently affect patient outcomes and toxicities; future clinicians and governing organizations should consider this information to plan RCTs accordingly (to maximize patient accrual and total n), select appropriate endpoints (eg, toxicity, quality of life, sexual function), actively monitor RCTs, and report results so as to identify the optimal treatment among subpopulations.

The evolution of brachytherapy for prostate cancer

Brachytherapy (BT), using low-dose-rate (LDR) permanent seed implantation or high-dose-rate (HDR) temporary source implantation, is an acceptable treatment option for select patients with prostate cancer of any risk group. The benefits of HDR-BT over LDR-BT include the ability to use the same source for other cancers, lower operator dependence, and - typically - fewer acute irritative symptoms. By contrast, the benefits of LDR-BT include more favourable scheduling logistics, lower initial capital equipment costs, no need for a shielded room, completion in a single implant, and more robust data from clinical trials. Prospective reports comparing HDR-BT and LDR-BT to each other or to other treatment options (such as external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or surgery) suggest similar outcomes. The 5-year freedom from biochemical failure rates for patients with low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk disease are >85%, 69-97%, and 63-80%, respectively. Brachytherapy with EBRT (versus brachytherapy alone) is an appropriate approach in select patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease. The 10-year rates of overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer-specific mortality are >85%, <10%, and <5%, respectively. Grade 3-4 toxicities associated with HDR-BT and LDR-BT are rare, at <4% in most series, and quality of life is improved in patients who receive brachytherapy compared with those who undergo surgery.

Gay men's experiences with prostate cancer: Implications for future research

Gay men's experiences with prostate cancer and its impact on health-related quality of life are poorly understood. This qualitative study explored gay men's experience with prostate cancer with a focus on the emotional, physical, and sexual impact of cancer; support needs; and healthcare interactions. Three semi-structured focus groups of gay men with prostate cancer were conducted. A conventional content analytic approach was used to identify six primary content areas that described poignant aspects of the men's experience with prostate cancer: minority stress, intimacy and sexuality concerns, impact on life outlook, healthcare experiences, social support and the gay community, and intersectional identities.

Men's health supplement use and outcomes in men receiving definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Approximately 50% of newly diagnosed cancer patients start taking dietary supplements. Men's health supplements (MHSs), which we define as supplements that are specifically marketed with the terms men's health and prostate health (or similar permutations), are often mislabeled as having potential anticancer benefits.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the effects of MHSs on patient outcomes and toxicities in patients who were undergoing definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer.

DESIGN

This retrospective analysis included patients who were being treated at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center and consented to have information stored in a prospective database. MHSs were queried online. Outcome measures were freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) (biochemical failure was defined with the use of the prostate-specific antigen nadir + 2-ng/mL definition), freedom from distant metastasis (FFDM), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) as well as toxicities. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank tests, Fine and Gray competing-risk regression (to adjust for patient and lifestyle factors), and Cox models were used.

RESULTS

From 2001 to 2012, 2207 patients were treated with IMRT with a median dose of 78 Gy, and a median follow-up of 46 mo. Of these patients, 43% were low risk, 37% were intermediate risk, and 20% were high risk; 10% used MHSs. MHSs contained a median of 3 identifiable ingredients (range: 0-78 ingredients). Patients who were taking an MHS compared with those who were not had improved 5-y OS (97% compared with 92%, respectively; P = 0.01), but there were no differences in the FFBF (94% compared with 89%, respectively; P = 0.12), FFDM (96% compared with 97%, respectively; P = 0.32), or CSS (100% compared with 99%, respectively; P = 0.22). The unadjusted association between MHS use and improved OS was attenuated after adjustment for patient lifestyle factors and comorbidities. There was no difference in toxicities between the 2 groups (late-grade 3-4 genitourinary <3%; gastrointestinal <4%).

CONCLUSION

The use of MHSs is not associated with outcomes or toxicities.

A comparison of robotic arm versus gantry linear accelerator stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer diagnosed in men in the United States besides skin cancer. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT; 6–15 Gy per fraction, up to 45 minutes per fraction, delivered in five fractions or less, over the course of approximately 2 weeks) is emerging as a popular treatment option for prostate cancer. The American Society for Radiation Oncology now recognizes SBRT for select low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. SBRT grew from the notion that high doses of radiation typical of brachytherapy could be delivered noninvasively using modern external-beam radiation therapy planning and delivery methods. SBRT is most commonly delivered using either a traditional gantry-mounted linear accelerator or a robotic arm-mounted linear accelerator. In this systematic review article, we compare and contrast the current clinical evidence supporting a gantry vs robotic arm SBRT for prostate cancer. The data for SBRT show encouraging and comparable results in terms of freedom from biochemical failure (>90% for low and intermediate risk at 5–7 years) and acute and late toxicity (<6% grade 3–4 late toxicities). Other outcomes (eg, overall and cancer-specific mortality) cannot be compared, given the indolent course of low-risk prostate cancer. At this time, neither SBRT device is recommended over the other for all patients; however, gantry-based SBRT machines have the abilities of treating larger volumes with conventional fractionation, shorter treatment time per fraction (~15 minutes for gantry vs ~45 minutes for robotic arm), and the ability to achieve better plans among obese patients (since they are able to use energies >6 MV). Finally, SBRT (particularly on a gantry) may also be more cost-effective than conventionally fractionated external-beam radiation therapy. Randomized controlled trials of SBRT using both technologies are underway.

Comparison of outcomes and toxicities among radiation therapy treatment options for prostate cancer

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.

Do theoretical potential and advanced technology justify the use of high-dose rate brachytherapy as monotherapy for prostate cancer?

Low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT), involving implantation of radioactive seeds into the prostate, is an established monotherapy for most low-risk and select intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients. High-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) is an advanced technology theorized to be more advantageous than LDR-BT from a radiobiological and radiophysics perspective, to the patient himself, and in terms of resource allocation. Studies of HDR-BT monotherapy have encouraging results in terms of biochemical control, patient survival, treatment toxicity and erectile preservation. However, there are still certain limitations that preclude recommending HDR-BT monotherapy for prostate cancer outside the setting of a clinical trial. HDR-BT monotherapy should be considered experimental at present.

Are HIV-infected men vulnerable to prostate cancer treatment disparities?

BACKGROUND

HIV-infected (HIV(+)) men face cancer treatment disparities that impact outcome. Prostate cancer treatment and treatment appropriateness in HIV(+) men are unknown.

METHODS

We used electronic chart review to conduct a retrospective cohort study of 43 HIV(+) cases with prostate cancer and 86 age- and race-matched HIV-uninfected (HIV(-)) controls with prostate cancer, ages 40 to 79 years, from 2001 to 2012. We defined treatment appropriateness using National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) to estimate life expectancy.

RESULTS

Median age was 59.5 years at prostate cancer diagnosis. Median CD4(+) T-cell count was 459.5 cells/mm(3), 95.3% received antiretroviral therapy, and 87.1% were virally suppressed. Radical prostatectomy was the primary treatment for 39.5% of HIV(+) and 71.0% of HIV(-) men (P = 0.004). Only 16.3% of HIV(+) versus 57.0% of HIV(-) men received open radical prostatectomy (P < 0.001). HIV(+) men received more radiotherapy (25.6% vs. 16.3%, P = 0.13). HIV was negatively associated with open radical prostatectomy (OR = 0.03, P = 0.007), adjusting for insurance and CCI. No men were undertreated. Fewer HIV(+) men received appropriate treatment (89.2% vs. 100%, P = 0.003), due to four overtreated HIV(+) men. Excluding AIDS from the CCI still resulted in fewer HIV(+) men receiving appropriate treatment (94.6% vs. 100%, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Prostate cancer in HIV(+) men is largely appropriately treated. Under- or overtreatment may occur from difficulties in life expectancy estimation. HIV(+) men may receive more radiotherapy and fewer radical prostatectomies, specifically open radical prostatectomies.

IMPACT

Research on HIV/AIDS survival indices and etiologies and outcomes of this prostate cancer treatment disparity in HIV(+) men are needed.

American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines

Prostate cancer survivors approach 2.8 million in number and represent 1 in 5 of all cancer survivors in the United States. While guidelines exist for timely treatment and surveillance for recurrent disease, there is limited availability of guidelines that facilitate the provision of posttreatment clinical follow-up care to address the myriad of long-term and late effects that survivors may face. Based on recommendations set forth by a National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center expert panel, the American Cancer Society developed clinical follow-up care guidelines to facilitate the provision of posttreatment care by primary care clinicians. These guidelines were developed using a combined approach of evidence synthesis and expert consensus. Existing guidelines for health promotion, surveillance, and screening for second primary cancers were referenced when available. To promote comprehensive follow-up care and optimal health and quality of life for the posttreatment survivor, the guidelines address health promotion, surveillance for prostate cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, long-term and late effects assessment and management, psychosocial issues, and care coordination among the oncology team, primary care clinicians, and nononcology specialists. A key challenge to the development of these guidelines was the limited availability of published evidence for management of prostate cancer survivors after treatment. Much of the evidence relies on studies with small sample sizes and retrospective analyses of facility-specific and population databases.

Combining theoretical potential and advanced technology in high-dose rate brachytherapy boost therapy for prostate cancer

External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) combined with brachytherapy (BT) is an attractive treatment option for select patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Either low- or high-dose rate BT may be combined with EBRT ('LDR-BT boost,' 'HDR-BT boost,' respectively). HDR-BT boost has potential theoretical benefits over LDR-BT boost or external beam radiation therapy monotherapy in terms of radiobiology, radiophysics and patient convenience. Based on prospective studies in this review, freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) rates at 5 years for low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients have generally been 85-100%, 68-97%, 63-85%, respectively; late Radiotherapy and Oncology Group Grades 3 and 4 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities are seen in <8% of patients. HDR-BT boost is now a relatively well-established treatment modality for certain intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer patients, though limitations exist in drawing conclusions from the currently published studies.

A prostate cancer model build by a novel SVM-ID3 hybrid feature selection method using both genotyping and phenotype data from dbGaP

Through Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) many Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP)-complex disease relations can be investigated. The output of GWAS can be high in amount and high dimensional, also relations between SNPs, phenotypes and diseases are most likely to be nonlinear. In order to handle high volume-high dimensional data and to be able to find the nonlinear relations we have utilized data mining approaches and a hybrid feature selection model of support vector machine and decision tree has been designed. The designed model is tested on prostate cancer data and for the first time combined genotype and phenotype information is used to increase the diagnostic performance. We were able to select phenotypic features such as ethnicity and body mass index, and SNPs those map to specific genes such as CRR9, TERT. The performance results of the proposed hybrid model, on prostate cancer dataset, with 90.92% of sensitivity and 0.91 of area under ROC curve, shows the potential of the approach for prediction and early detection of the prostate cancer.

Diagnostic and outcome differences between heterosexual and nonheterosexual men treated for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine if heterosexual and nonheterosexual men treated for prostate cancer differ in diagnostic and treatment outcomes and in various measures of physical health, sexual function, and well being, before and after the treatment.

METHODS

Four hundred sixty self-identified heterosexual and 96 self-identified nonheterosexual men completed an anonymous online survey. The men in the 2 groups were then compared using logistic regressions that controlled for differences among countries.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in age at diagnosis for men in the 2 groups. However, Gleason scores at diagnosis were significantly lower for the nonheterosexual men (P = .02). There were no significant differences among men in the 2 groups in the proportion who receive different treatment modalities or in the incidence of urinary incontinence, who experience bone pain (as a marker of disease progression), who take antidepressants (as a proxy measure for mental health), or who experience erectile dysfunction after the treatment. However, nonheterosexual men rated the degree to which they were bothered by an inability to ejaculate significantly higher than did the heterosexual men (P = .04).

CONCLUSION

This is the first set of findings from a survey that compares heterosexual and nonheterosexual men treated for prostate cancer. Although the groups were generally similar, nonheterosexual men might experience more intensive screening for disease, as indicated by lower Gleason scores at diagnosis. Nonheterosexual men appear more distressed by loss of ejaculation after prostatectomy.