BACKGROUND: Men with low-risk prostate cancer and significant comorbidity are susceptible to overtreatment. The authors sought to compare the impact of comorbidity and age on treatment choice in men with low-risk disease. METHODS: The authors sampled 509 men with low-risk prostate cancer diagnosed at the Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Veterans Affairs Medical Centers between 1997 and 2004. Rates of aggressive treatment (radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, brachytherapy) were determined among men of different ages and with different Charlson comorbidity scores. Multivariate modeling was used to determine the influence of both variables in predicting nonaggressive treatment, and Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to compare the risk of other-cause mortality among groups according to Charlson score and age. RESULTS: Men with Charlson scores ≥ 3 were treated aggressively in 54% of cases (30 of 56 men), while men aged >75 years at diagnosis were treated aggressively in 16% of cases (7 of 44 men). In multivariate analysis, age >75 years was a much stronger predictor of nonaggressive treatment (relative risk, 12.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.4-28.3) than a Charlson score ≥ 3 (relative risk, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9). In survival analysis, men with Charlson scores ≥ 3 had an 8-fold increased risk (hazard ratio, 8.4; 95% CI, 4.2-16.6) and 70% probability of other-cause mortality at 10 years, whereas age >75 years was associated with a 5-fold increased risk (hazard ratio, 4.9; 95%CI, 1.7-13.8) and a 24% probability of other-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Men with significant comorbidity often were overtreated for low-risk prostate cancer. Like advanced age, significant comorbidity should be a strong relative contraindication to aggressive treatment in men with low-risk disease. 2010 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND:Men with low-risk prostate cancer and significant comorbidity are susceptible to overtreatment. The authors sought to compare the impact of comorbidity and age on treatment choice in men with low-risk disease. METHODS: The authors sampled 509 men with low-risk prostate cancer diagnosed at the Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Veterans Affairs Medical Centers between 1997 and 2004. Rates of aggressive treatment (radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, brachytherapy) were determined among men of different ages and with different Charlson comorbidity scores. Multivariate modeling was used to determine the influence of both variables in predicting nonaggressive treatment, and Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to compare the risk of other-cause mortality among groups according to Charlson score and age. RESULTS:Men with Charlson scores ≥ 3 were treated aggressively in 54% of cases (30 of 56 men), while men aged >75 years at diagnosis were treated aggressively in 16% of cases (7 of 44 men). In multivariate analysis, age >75 years was a much stronger predictor of nonaggressive treatment (relative risk, 12.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.4-28.3) than a Charlson score ≥ 3 (relative risk, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9). In survival analysis, men with Charlson scores ≥ 3 had an 8-fold increased risk (hazard ratio, 8.4; 95% CI, 4.2-16.6) and 70% probability of other-cause mortality at 10 years, whereas age >75 years was associated with a 5-fold increased risk (hazard ratio, 4.9; 95%CI, 1.7-13.8) and a 24% probability of other-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS:Men with significant comorbidity often were overtreated for low-risk prostate cancer. Like advanced age, significant comorbidity should be a strong relative contraindication to aggressive treatment in men with low-risk disease. 2010 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Shazia Irshad; Mukesh Bansal; Mireia Castillo-Martin; Tian Zheng; Alvaro Aytes; Sven Wenske; Clémentine Le Magnen; Paolo Guarnieri; Pavel Sumazin; Mitchell C Benson; Michael M Shen; Andrea Califano; Cory Abate-Shen Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Adam B Murphy; Ramona Bhatia; Iman K Martin; David A Klein; Courtney M P Hollowell; Yaw Nyame; Elodi Dielubanza; Chad Achenbach; Rick A Kittles Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Karen E Hoffman; Jiangong Niu; Yu Shen; Jing Jiang; John W Davis; Jeri Kim; Deborah A Kuban; George H Perkins; Jay B Shah; Grace L Smith; Robert J Volk; Thomas A Buchholz; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Haley Hieronymus; Nikolaus Schultz; Anuradha Gopalan; Brett S Carver; Matthew T Chang; Yonghong Xiao; Adriana Heguy; Kety Huberman; Melanie Bernstein; Melissa Assel; Rajmohan Murali; Andrew Vickers; Peter T Scardino; Chris Sander; Victor Reuter; Barry S Taylor; Charles L Sawyers Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Shrujal S Baxi; Minal Kale; Salomeh Keyhani; Benjamin R Roman; Annie Yang; Antonio P Derosa; Deborah Korenstein Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Amy N Luckenbaugh; Gregory B Auffenberg; Scott R Hawken; Apoorv Dhir; Susan Linsell; Sanjeev Kaul; David C Miller Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Louise C Walter; Kathy Z Fung; Katharine A Kirby; Ying Shi; Roxanne Espaldon; Sarah O'Brien; Stephen J Freedland; Adam A Powell; Richard M Hoffman Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-05-27 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Michael A Liss; John Billimek; Kathryn Osann; Jane Cho; Ross Moskowitz; Adam Kaplan; Richard J Szabo; Sherrie H Kaplan; Sheldon Greenfield; Atreya Dash Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 6.860