Prostate cancer-specific survival differences in patients treated by radical prostatectomy versus curative radiotherapy

Individual and Population Comparisons of Surgery and Radiotherapy Outcomes in Prostate Cancer Using Bayesian Multistate Models

IMPORTANCE

Whether surgery or radiotherapy is the preferred treatment for patients with localized prostate cancer continues to be debated, and randomized clinical trials cannot yet fully address this question. Furthermore, there may be heterogeneity in responses, and the optimal treatment for a patient will depend on his clinical and tumor characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

To use a unified statistical approach to compare the association of surgery and radiotherapy with both metastatic clinical failure (CF) and survival in localized prostate cancer and to develop an online calculator for individualized, treatment-specific outcome prediction.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Cohort study for statistical analysis and development of individualized predictions using Bayesian multistate models that jointly consider both CF and survival and adjust for confounding factors. This study used data from patients treated at the University of Michigan between January 1, 1996, and July 1, 2013, with detailed information on treatment, patient and tumor characteristics, and outcomes. Primary analyses were performed in 2017 and 2018. Participants were a cohort of 4544 patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing primary treatment.

EXPOSURES

Radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The clinical outcomes were metastatic CF, death after CF, and death from other causes. The adjustment factors were age, prostate gland volume, prostate-specific antigen level, comorbidities, Gleason score, perineural invasion, cT category, race, and treatment year. An online calculator was developed to estimate risks for multiple outcomes for any patient based on 2 treatment choices and on his clinical and tumor characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 4544 men (mean [SD] age, 61.2 [8.0] years), 3769 underwent radical prostatectomy, 775 received external beam radiotherapy, 157 (3.5%) had CF, 90 (2.0%) died after CF, and 378 (8.3%) died of other causes. Across all patients, there was no significant difference in risk of CF for surgery vs radiotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52-1.23). However, using multistate models, in some cases individualized predictions resulted in different expected outcomes between surgery and radiotherapy for a given patient.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, after adjustment for measured confounders, the hazard of CF was similar between treatments on average. However, these data indicate a greater oncologic benefit for some individual patients if treated with surgery and for other patients if treated with radiotherapy. Individualized predictions provide a novel approach to facilitate treatment decision making.

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.

'What is this active surveillance thing?' Men's and partners' reactions to treatment decision making for prostate cancer when active surveillance is the recommended treatment option

OBJECTIVE

In the past decade, localised prostate cancer (LPC) management has been shifting from three radical treatment options (radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or brachytherapy) to also include active surveillance (AS). This study examines men with LPC and partners' experiences of choosing between AS and radical treatments, and their experiences of AS when selected.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive research design was used. Interviewed participants were men, and partners of men, who either had chosen radical treatment immediately following diagnosis or had been on AS for at least 3 months. AS was the recommended treatment. Transcribed interviews were thematically analysed and inter-rater reliability integrated.

RESULTS

Twenty-one men and 14 partners participated. Treatment decisions reflected varied reactions to prostate cancer information, regularly described as contradictory, confusing, and stressful. Men and partners commonly misunderstood AS but could describe monitoring procedures. Partners often held the perception that they were also on AS. Men and partners usually coped with AS but were sometimes encumbered by treatment decision-making memories, painful biopsies, ongoing conflicting information, and unanswered medical questions. Radical treatment was selected when cancer progression was feared or medically indicated. Some preferred doctors to select treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

To reduce distress frequently experienced by men diagnosed with LPC and their partners during treatment decision making and ongoing AS monitoring, the following are needed: improved community and medical awareness of AS; consistent information about when radical treatment is required; and consistent, unbiased information on treatment options, prognostic indicators, and side effects. Regularly updated decisional support information/aids incorporating men's values are imperative.

Age remains the major predictor of curative treatment non-receipt for localised prostate cancer: a population-based study

Background:

Geriatric oncology guidelines state that fit older men with prostate cancer should receive curative treatment. In a population-based study, we investigated associations between age and non-receipt of curative treatment in men with localised prostate cancer, and the effect of clinical variables on this in different age groups.

Methods:

Clinically localised prostate cancers (T1–T2N0M0) diagnosed from 2002 to 2008 among men aged ⩾40 years, with hospital in-patient episode(s) within 1 year post-diagnosis, were included (n=5456). Clinical and socio-demographic variables were obtained from cancer registrations. Comorbidity was determined from hospital episode data. Logistic regression was used to investigate associations between age and non-receipt of treatment, adjusting for confounders; the outcome was non-receipt of curative treatment (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy).

Results:

The percentage who did not receive curative treatment was 9.2%, 14.3%, 48.2% and 91.7% for men aged 40–59, 60–69, 70–79 and 80+ years, respectively. After adjusting for clinical and socio-demographic factors, age remained the main determinant of treatment non-receipt. Men aged 70–79 had a significant five-fold increased risk of not having curative treatment compared with men aged 60–69 (odds ratio (OR)=5.5; 95% confidence interval 4.7, 6.5). In age-stratified analyses, clinical factors had a higher weight for men aged 60–69 than in other age strata. Over time, non-receipt of curative treatment increased among men aged 40–59 and decreased among men aged 70–79.

Conclusion:

Age remains the dominant factor in determining non-receipt of curative treatment. There have been some changes in clinical practice over time, but whether these will impact on prostate cancer mortality remains to be established.