UNLABELLED: Study Type--Therapy (practice patterns). Level of Evidence 2b. What's known on the subject? And what does the study add? The treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer varies widely even though there is level one evidence supporting the use of multimodality therapy as compared with monotherapy. This study defines treatment patterns of locally advanced prostate cancer within the United States and identifies predicators of who receives multimodality therapy rather than monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: • To identify treatment patterns and predictors of receiving multimodality therapy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: • The cohort comprised patients ≥66 years with clinical stage T3 or T4 non-metastatic prostate cancer diagnosed between 1998 and 2005 identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry records linked with Medicare claims. • Treatments were classified as radical prostatectomy (RP), radiation therapy (RT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) received within 6 and 24 months of diagnosis. • We assessed trends over time and used multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors of multimodality treatment. RESULTS: • Within the first 6 months of diagnosis, 1060 of 3095 patients (34%) were treated with a combination of RT and ADT, 1486 (48%) received monotherapy (RT alone, ADT alone or RP alone), and 461 (15%) received no active treatment. • The proportion of patients who received RP increased, exceeding 10% in 2005. • Use of combined RT and ADT and use of ADT alone fluctuated throughout the study period. • In all 6% of patients received RT alone in 2005. • Multimodality therapy was less common in patients who were older, African American, unmarried, who lived in the south, and who had co-morbidities or stage T4 disease. CONCLUSIONS: • Treatment of LAPC varies widely, and treatment patterns shifted during the study period. • The slightly increased use of multimodality therapy since 2003 is encouraging, but further work is needed to increase combination therapy in appropriate patients and to define the role of RP.
UNLABELLED: Study Type--Therapy (practice patterns). Level of Evidence 2b. What's known on the subject? And what does the study add? The treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer varies widely even though there is level one evidence supporting the use of multimodality therapy as compared with monotherapy. This study defines treatment patterns of locally advanced prostate cancer within the United States and identifies predicators of who receives multimodality therapy rather than monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: • To identify treatment patterns and predictors of receiving multimodality therapy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: • The cohort comprised patients ≥66 years with clinical stage T3 or T4 non-metastatic prostate cancer diagnosed between 1998 and 2005 identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry records linked with Medicare claims. • Treatments were classified as radical prostatectomy (RP), radiation therapy (RT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) received within 6 and 24 months of diagnosis. • We assessed trends over time and used multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors of multimodality treatment. RESULTS: • Within the first 6 months of diagnosis, 1060 of 3095 patients (34%) were treated with a combination of RT and ADT, 1486 (48%) received monotherapy (RT alone, ADT alone or RP alone), and 461 (15%) received no active treatment. • The proportion of patients who received RP increased, exceeding 10% in 2005. • Use of combined RT and ADT and use of ADT alone fluctuated throughout the study period. • In all 6% of patients received RT alone in 2005. • Multimodality therapy was less common in patients who were older, African American, unmarried, who lived in the south, and who had co-morbidities or stage T4 disease. CONCLUSIONS: • Treatment of LAPC varies widely, and treatment patterns shifted during the study period. • The slightly increased use of multimodality therapy since 2003 is encouraging, but further work is needed to increase combination therapy in appropriate patients and to define the role of RP.
Authors: N T Ueno; A U Buzdar; S E Singletary; F C Ames; M D McNeese; F A Holmes; R L Theriault; E A Strom; B J Wasaff; L Asmar; D Frye; G N Hortobagyi Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 1997 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: M E Gleave; S L Goldenberg; J L Chin; J Warner; F Saad; L H Klotz; M Jewett; V Kassabian; M Chetner; C Dupont; S Van Rensselaer Journal: J Urol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael J Zelefsky; James A Eastham; Angel M Cronin; Zvi Fuks; Zhigang Zhang; Yoshiya Yamada; Andrew Vickers; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michel Bolla; Laurence Collette; Léo Blank; Padraig Warde; Jean Bernard Dubois; René-Olivier Mirimanoff; Guy Storme; Jacques Bernier; Abraham Kuten; Cora Sternberg; Johan Mattelaer; José Lopez Torecilla; J Rafael Pfeffer; Carmel Lino Cutajar; Alfredo Zurlo; Marianne Pierart Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-07-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Anders Widmark; Olbjørn Klepp; Arne Solberg; Jan-Erik Damber; Anders Angelsen; Per Fransson; Jo-Asmund Lund; Ilker Tasdemir; Morten Hoyer; Fredrik Wiklund; Sophie D Fosså Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jens Hansen; Giorgio Gandaglia; Marco Bianchi; Maxine Sun; Michael Rink; Zhe Tian; Malek Meskawi; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Shahrokh F Shariat; Paul Perrotte; Felix K-H Chun; Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.862