Androgen-deprivation therapy versus radical prostatectomy as monotherapy among clinically localized prostate cancer patients

Racial, Socioeconomic, and Geographic Disparities in the Receipt, Timing to Initiation, and Duration of Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Men with Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective cohort study aims to examine the receipt, timing to initiation, and duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men with prostate cancer by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geographic location.

METHODS

The study population are patients from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database, who were 66 years or older and newly diagnosed with stage III and IV prostate cancer in 1992-2009 and underwent radiation therapy, where ADT was proven to be highly beneficial and its use was considered as most appropriate (n = 12,170). We use logistic regression to examine the receipt of ADT and linear regression to study factors associated with time to ADT initiation while controlling for baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, 77% of eligible patients received at least one form of ADT in combination with radiation therapy, of which 12% underwent orchiectomy and the rest received ADT, and 77.2% of non-Hispanic white and 80.7% of Hispanic patients received ADT compared to 73.8% of non-Hispanic black. After adjustment for demographic and tumor characteristics, black men and men of other races are less likely to receive ADT compared to white counterparts (OR = 0.64 and 0.74, respectively). The median time from cancer diagnosis to ADT initiation is 2 months. Once initiated, men received a median of seven drug injections. After controlling for covariates, race/ethnicity and geographic location (SEER areas) are associated with early initiation of therapy. White, Hispanic men and men living in the South initiate ADT earlier.

CONCLUSION

Significant racial disparities exist in the receipt and use of this highly beneficial therapy, and there are geographic variations in the utilization of this therapy.

Radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer in patients aged 75 years or older: comparison with primary androgen deprivation therapy

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether radical prostatetomy (RP) is suitable for prostate cancer patients with age ≥75 years in comparison to primary androgen deprivation therapy (PADT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A cohort study was conducted in clinically localized prostate cancer patients with ≥75 years of age who underwent RP or PADT at six institutions from 2005 to 2013. Patients who had less than 12 months of follow-up, or received neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy were excluded. We compared clinical characteristics, cancer-specific and overall survivals, and post-treatment complication rates between two groups.

RESULTS

We included 92 and 99 patients in the RP and PADT groups, respectively. In survival analyses, there were no significant differences in cancer-specific and overall survivals (p = .302 and .995, respectively). The incidence of serious adverse events (cardio- or cerebrovascular event, or bone fracture) was higher in the PADT group (p = .001). Multivariable analysis showed that PADT had a worse effect on the serious adverse events (OR 10.12, p = .038).

CONCLUSIONS

In selected elderly patients, RP was safe and effective for treatment of localized prostate cancer, as compared to PADT. Surgical treatment options should be considered in elderly patients with respect to life expectancy, rather than chronological age.

Oncologic Outcomes of Definitive Treatments for Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer After a Period of Active Surveillance

BACKGROUND

To compare oncologic outcomes of different definitive treatment (DT) modalities in a cohort of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) after active surveillance (AS).

METHODS

We identified 237 patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosed from 1990 to 2012 who did not undergo immediate DT within 12 months of diagnosis (ie, AS patients as well as watchful waiting and those refusing DT). Charts were examined for clinical/pathologic data and type of DT: surgery (RP), radiation including brachytherapy (XRT), cryotherapy, and androgen deprivation therapy monotherapy (ADT). The impact of DT on oncologic outcomes of biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastasis, disease-specific (DSS), and overall survival (OS) was examined with the Cox proportional hazards model, along with the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test.

RESULTS

After median time on AS of 63.4 months, 40% of patients underwent DT: 47% XRT, 28% RP, 14% ADT, and 11% cryotherapy. On multivariable analysis, the use of XRT predicted higher BCR (hazard ratio [HR] 6.1, P = .001) and worse overall mortality (HR 2.1, P = .03) compared with other treatments, controlling for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), stage, Gleason score, and NCCN risk category. Median follow-up was 71.7 months. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, 10-year OS was superior for RP versus XRT among patients with prostatic specific antigen (PSA) velocity >2.0 ng/mL/y.

CONCLUSIONS

Low- and intermediate-risk patients with PCa who progress to DT after AS may be inadequately treated with radiation therapy compared with other DT modalities, especially when pretreatment PSA velocity is > 2 ng/mL/y.

Long-term costs and survival of prostate cancer: a population-based study

PURPOSE

There is a rising interest in measuring the societal burden of malignancies including prostate cancer. However, population-based studies reporting incidence costs of prostate cancer in the long term are lacking in Europe. The objectives of the study are to analyse the long-term costs and survival of prostate cancer patients treated by radical prostatectomy (RP) or conservative management (nRP).

METHODS

A retrospective claims data analysis of the National Health Insurance Found Administration of Hungary between 01.01.2002 and 31.10.2013 was carried out. Annual incidence costs related to prostate cancer and overall survival were calculated for a cohort of patients diagnosed between 2002 and 2005.

RESULTS

Altogether 17,642 patients were selected; 2185 (12%) of them have undergone RP. The annual incidence rate ranged between 4177 and 4736 cases. Mean age of RP and nRP patients was 59.4 (SD 5.9) and 71.0 (8.4) years, respectively. The mean survival time of the RP patients was significantly longer compared to nRP patients both in the total sample (11.2 vs. 7.4 years; p < 0.001) and in the subgroup <70 years (11.3 vs. 8.8 years; p < 0.001). At the end of the 12-year follow-up, RP patients had a higher (0.83 vs. 0.68), while nRP patients had a slightly lower (0.35 vs. 38) probability of being alive compared with the age-matched general male population. The long-term cumulative costs of the RP and nRP patients amounted to €4448 and €8616. The main driver of the cost difference was the high drug costs in the nRP group.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this study applied the longest time-window in reporting population-based incidence costs in Europe. We found that not only RP patients lived longer but they had significantly lower total long-term costs than nRP patients. Therefore, radical prostatectomy is a cost-effective strategy in prostate cancer.

Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments for patient-centered outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA Compliant)

BACKGROUND

In the context of prostate cancer (PCa) characterized by the multiple alternative treatment strategies, comparative effectiveness analysis is essential for informed decision-making. We analyzed the comparative effectiveness of PCa treatments through systematic review and meta-analysis with a focus on outcomes that matter most to newly diagnosed localized PCa patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of literature published in English from 1995 to October 2016. A search strategy was employed using terms "prostate cancer," "localized," "outcomes," "mortality," "health related quality of life," and "complications" to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective, and retrospective studies. For observational studies, only those adjusting for selection bias using propensity-score or instrumental-variables approaches were included. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratio was used to assess all-cause and disease-specific mortality. Funnel plots were used to assess the level of bias.

RESULTS

Our search strategy yielded 58 articles, of which 29 were RCTs, 6 were prospective studies, and 23 were retrospective studies. The studies provided moderate data for the patient-centered outcome of mortality. Radical prostatectomy demonstrated mortality benefit compared to watchful waiting (all-cause HR = 0.63 CI = 0.45, 0.87; disease-specific HR = 0.48 CI = 0.40, 0.58), and radiation therapy (all-cause HR = 0.65 CI = 0.57, 0.74; disease-specific HR = 0.51 CI = 0.40, 0.65). However, we had minimal comparative information about tradeoffs between and within treatment for other patient-centered outcomes in the short and long-term.

CONCLUSION

Lack of patient-centered outcomes in comparative effectiveness research in localized PCa is a major hurdle to informed and shared decision-making. More rigorous studies that can integrate patient-centered and intermediate outcomes in addition to mortality are needed.

Current clinical challenges in prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the United States. Close to $12 billion are spent annually on the treatment of prostate cancer in the US alone. Yet still there remain tremendous controversies and challenges that exist in all facets of the disease. This review and discussion will focus on issues and challenges for clinicians and patients diagnosed with the disease.

Appropriate risk stratification for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer is an appropriate first step for all patients. Once risk-stratified, for those with low-risk of death, it is increasingly recognized that overtreatment creates an unnecessary burden for many patients. This is particularly evident when put in the context of competing comorbidities in an elderly population. For those with advanced or high-risk localized disease, under-treatment remains too common. For those with a high-risk of recurrence or failure following primary treatment, adjuvant or salvage therapies are an option, but how and when to best deploy these treatments are controversial.

Recently, tremendous progress has been made for those with advanced disease, in particular those with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Within the last 4 years, five novel FDA approved agents, acting through distinct mechanisms have been FDA approved for mCRPC. With the introduction of these new agents a host of new challenges have arisen. Timing, sequencing and combinations of these novel agents are welcomed challenges when compared with the lack of available therapies just a few years ago.

In this summary of current clinical challenges in prostate cancer we review critical recent studies that have created or shifted the current paradigms of treatment for prostate cancer. We will also highlight ongoing issues that continue to challenge our field.

Long-term outcomes of nonpalpable prostate cancer (T1c) patients treated with radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

Various strategies have been used to treat patients with nonpalpable prostate cancer (T1c). As one of the treatments for this stage, a radical prostatectomy was performed and the outcomes were evaluated.

METHODS

Between 1993 and 2002, 117 patients with T1c received a radical prostatectomy and their follow-up were examined by the end of 2013. Patients were classified according to risk groups using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and Gleasson score, and outcomes of respective groups were compared.

RESULTS

Approximately 60% of patients were in low risk group, and the remaining patients were grouped into the intermediate or high risks in half. In 22% insignificant cancer was detected. Biochemical failure occurred in 14%. One patient exhibited bone metastasis, but no deaths from prostate cancer ware observed. The five and ten year overall survival rates were 92% and 75%, respectively, and the biochemical failure-free survival rates were 92% and 89%, respectively. No different outcomes were observed for the different risk groups in the overall and biochemical failure-free survival rates. T1c tumors contain a certain range of various stages of tumors, but most patients experienced favorable outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Radical prostatectomy as monotherapy is one of the treatment option for T1c prostate cancer patients, who have a long life span and belong to intermediate or high risk groups.