Literature DB >> 11752011

Factors associated with initial therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: prostate cancer outcomes study.

L C Harlan1, A Potosky, F D Gilliland, R Hoffman, P C Albertsen, A S Hamilton, J W Eley, J L Stanford, R A Stephenson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Because of the lack of results from randomized clinical trials comparing the efficacy of aggressive therapies with that of more conservative therapies for clinically localized prostate cancer, men and their physicians may select treatments based on other criteria. We examined the association of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics with four management options: radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, hormonal therapy, and watchful waiting.
METHODS: We studied 3073 participants of the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study diagnosed from October 1, 1994, through October 31, 1995, with clinically localized disease (T1 or T2). Participants completed a baseline survey, and diagnostic and treatment information was abstracted from medical records. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified factors associated with initial treatment. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: Patients with clinically localized disease received the following treatments: radical prostatectomy (47.6%), radiation therapy (23.4%), hormonal therapy (10.5%), or watchful waiting (18.5%). Men aged 75 years or older more often received conservative treatment (i.e., hormonal therapy alone or watchful waiting; 57.9% of men aged 75-79 years and 82.1% of men aged 80 years and older) than aggressive treatment (i.e., radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy) (for all age groups, P</=.001). After adjustment for age, clinical stage, baseline prostate-specific antigen level, and histologic grade, the following factors were associated with conservative treatment: history of a heart attack, being unmarried, geographic region, poor pretreatment bladder control, and impotence. In men younger than 60 years, use of aggressive treatment was similar by race/ethnicity (adjusted percentages = 85.5%, 88.1%, and 85.3% for white, African-American, and Hispanic men, respectively). However, among men 60 years old and older, African-American men underwent aggressive treatment less often than did white men or Hispanic men (adjusted percentages for men aged 60-64 years = 67.1%, 84.7%, and 79.2%, respectively; 65-74 years = 64.8%, 73.4%, and 79.5%, respectively; and 75 years old and older = 25.2%, 45.7%, and 36.6%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The association of nonclinical factors with treatment suggests that, in the absence of definitive information regarding treatment effectiveness, men diagnosed with prostate cancer should be better informed of the risks and benefits of all treatment options.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11752011     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/93.24.1864

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  59 in total

1.  Comorbidities, treatment and ensuing survival in men with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Karim Chamie; Timothy J Daskivich; Lorna Kwan; Jessica Labo; Atreya Dash; Sheldon Greenfield; Mark S Litwin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Race/ethnicity and the receipt of watchful waiting for the initial management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Vickie L Shavers; Martin L Brown; Arnold L Potosky; Carrie N Klabunde; W W Davis; Judd W Moul; Angela Fahey
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  African-American Men with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: Modern Treatment and Outcome Trends.

Authors:  Augustine C Obirieze; Ambria Moten; Delenya Allen; Chiledum A Ahaghotu
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2014-12-16

4.  Cavernous nerve stimulation and interposition grafting: a critical assessment and future perspectives.

Authors:  John P Mulhall
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2005

5.  [Elderly prostate cancer patients: patient information and shared decision making].

Authors:  N Ernstmann; J Jaeger; C Kowalski; H Pfaff; L Weißbach
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  Nadir prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and time to PSA nadir following primary androgen deprivation therapy as independent prognostic factors in a Japanese large-scale prospective cohort study (J-CaP).

Authors:  Yasuhide Kitagawa; Satoru Ueno; Kouji Izumi; Atsushi Mizokami; Shiro Hinotsu; Hideyuki Akaza; Mikio Namiki
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-02-13       Impact factor: 4.553

7.  Survival after radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a population-based study.

Authors:  Claudio Jeldres; Nazareno Suardi; Paul Perrotte; Umberto Capitanio; Jochen Walz; Georg C Hutterer; Fred Saad; Luc Valiquette; Markus Graefen; Hugues Widmer; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.862

8.  Prostate cancer in elderly men.

Authors:  Anton Stangelberger; Matthias Waldert; Bob Djavan
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2008

9.  Race, healthcare access and physician trust among prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Young Kyung Do; William R Carpenter; Pamela Spain; Jack A Clark; Robert J Hamilton; Joseph A Galanko; Anne Jackman; James A Talcott; Paul A Godley
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2009-09-24       Impact factor: 2.506

10.  What Is a "Good" Treatment Decision? Decisional Control, Knowledge, Treatment Decision Making, and Quality of Life in Men with Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Heather Orom; Caitlin Biddle; Willie Underwood; Christian J Nelson; D Lynn Homish
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 2.583

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.