PURPOSE: To examine consequences of deferred treatment (DT) as initial management of prostate cancer (PCa) in a contemporary, prospective cohort of American men diagnosed with PCa. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We evaluated deferred treatment for PCa in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, a prospective study of 51,529 men. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for time to eventual treatment among men who deferred treatment for more than 1 year after diagnosis. HRs for time to metastasis or death as a result of PCa were compared between patients who deferred treatment and those who underwent immediate treatment within 1 year of diagnosis. RESULTS: From among 3,331 cohort participants diagnosed with PCa from 1986 to 2007, 342 (10.3%) initially deferred treatment. Of these, 174 (51%) remained untreated throughout follow-up (mean 7.7 years); the remainder were treated an average of 3.9 years after diagnosis. Factors associated with progression to treatment among DT patients included younger age, higher clinical stage, higher Gleason score, and higher prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis. We observed similar rates for development of metastases (n = 20 and n = 199; 7.2 v 8.1 per 1,000 person-years; P = .68) and death as a result of PCa (n = 8 and n = 80; 2.4 v 2.6 per 1,000 person-years; P = .99) for DT and immediate treatment, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide cohort, more than half the men who opted for DT remained without treatment for 7.7 years after diagnosis. Older men and men with lesser cancer severity at diagnosis were more likely to remain untreated. PCa mortality did not differ between DT and active treatment patients.
PURPOSE: To examine consequences of deferred treatment (DT) as initial management of prostate cancer (PCa) in a contemporary, prospective cohort of American men diagnosed with PCa. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We evaluated deferred treatment for PCa in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, a prospective study of 51,529 men. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for time to eventual treatment among men who deferred treatment for more than 1 year after diagnosis. HRs for time to metastasis or death as a result of PCa were compared between patients who deferred treatment and those who underwent immediate treatment within 1 year of diagnosis. RESULTS: From among 3,331 cohort participants diagnosed with PCa from 1986 to 2007, 342 (10.3%) initially deferred treatment. Of these, 174 (51%) remained untreated throughout follow-up (mean 7.7 years); the remainder were treated an average of 3.9 years after diagnosis. Factors associated with progression to treatment among DTpatients included younger age, higher clinical stage, higher Gleason score, and higher prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis. We observed similar rates for development of metastases (n = 20 and n = 199; 7.2 v 8.1 per 1,000 person-years; P = .68) and death as a result of PCa (n = 8 and n = 80; 2.4 v 2.6 per 1,000 person-years; P = .99) for DT and immediate treatment, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide cohort, more than half the men who opted for DT remained without treatment for 7.7 years after diagnosis. Older men and men with lesser cancer severity at diagnosis were more likely to remain untreated. PCa mortality did not differ between DT and active treatment patients.
Authors: T M Koppie; G D Grossfeld; D Miller; J Yu; D Stier; J M Broering; D Lubeck; J M Henning; S C Flanders; P R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: A L Potosky; J Legler; P C Albertsen; J L Stanford; F D Gilliland; A S Hamilton; J W Eley; R A Stephenson; L C Harlan Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-10-04 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: G W Chodak; R A Thisted; G S Gerber; J E Johansson; J Adolfsson; G W Jones; G D Chisholm; B Moskovitz; P M Livne; J Warner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1994-01-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Manish I Patel; Dino T DeConcini; Ernesto Lopez-Corona; Makato Ohori; Thomas Wheeler; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Julie L Kasperzyk; William V Shappley; Stacey A Kenfield; Lorelei A Mucci; Tobias Kurth; Jing Ma; Meir J Stampfer; Martin G Sanda Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Sophie M Bruinsma; Joseph Nicholson; Alberto Briganti; Tom Pickles; Yoshiyuki Kakehi; Sigrid V Carlsson; Monique J Roobol Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: H Ballentine Carter; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; Bruce J Trock; Robert W Veltri; William G Nelson; Donald S Coffey; Eric A Singer; Jonathan I Epstein Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ronald E Myers; Amy E Leader; Jean Hoffman Censits; Edouard J Trabulsi; Scott W Keith; Anett M Petrich; Anna M Quinn; Robert B Den; Mark D Hurwitz; Costas D Lallas; Sarah E Hegarty; Adam P Dicker; Charnita M Zeigler-Johnson; Veda N Giri; Hasan Ayaz; Leonard G Gomella Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; George Luta; Richard M Hoffman; Kimberly M Davis; Tania Lobo; Yingjun Zhou; Amethyst Leimpeter; Jun Shan; Roxanne E Jensen; David S Aaronson; Stephen K Van Den Eeden Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Scott P Kelly; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Richard M Hoffman; David S Aaronson; Tania Lobo; George Luta; Amethyst D Leimpter; Jun Shan; Arnold L Potosky; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 7.450