BACKGROUND: The absence of evidence-based guidelines for prostate cancer treatment led the Institute of Medicine to include localized prostate cancer treatment among the 25 most important topics for comparative effectiveness research. OBJECTIVE: This study compared prostate cancer treatment and survival in men with and without prevalent comorbid conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN: The sample comprised elderly men, aged 66 years and older, extracted from SEER-Medicare data, between 2004 and 2009 (N=73,563). Treatment and survival for men with at least 1 of 4 prevalent comorbid conditions were compared with men who did not have any of the 12 Charlson comorbid conditions. The sample was stratified by comorbid condition and low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk disease. RESULTS: Over half of men received some form of cancer-directed treatment, irrespective of comorbid condition. Men who have congestive heart failure (CHF) or multiple comorbid conditions were less likely to be treated, whereas men with diabetes were more likely to be treated. With the exception of men with CHF, men with comorbid conditions and low-risk disease received no survival benefit from any type of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Most men received treatment, particularly radiation therapy, regardless of comorbid condition. The evidence suggests more caution should be used when treating men with low-risk disease and comorbid conditions as they are at risk for adverse events and additional medical costs, without a survival benefit.
BACKGROUND: The absence of evidence-based guidelines for prostate cancer treatment led the Institute of Medicine to include localized prostate cancer treatment among the 25 most important topics for comparative effectiveness research. OBJECTIVE: This study compared prostate cancer treatment and survival in men with and without prevalent comorbid conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN: The sample comprised elderly men, aged 66 years and older, extracted from SEER-Medicare data, between 2004 and 2009 (N=73,563). Treatment and survival for men with at least 1 of 4 prevalent comorbid conditions were compared with men who did not have any of the 12 Charlson comorbid conditions. The sample was stratified by comorbid condition and low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk disease. RESULTS: Over half of men received some form of cancer-directed treatment, irrespective of comorbid condition. Men who have congestive heart failure (CHF) or multiple comorbid conditions were less likely to be treated, whereas men with diabetes were more likely to be treated. With the exception of men with CHF, men with comorbid conditions and low-risk disease received no survival benefit from any type of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Most men received treatment, particularly radiation therapy, regardless of comorbid condition. The evidence suggests more caution should be used when treating men with low-risk disease and comorbid conditions as they are at risk for adverse events and additional medical costs, without a survival benefit.
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Ming-Hui Chen; Joshua A Beckman; Clair J Beard; Neil E Martin; Toni K Choueiri; Jim C Hu; Karen E Hoffman; Daniel E Dosoretz; Brian J Moran; Sharon A Salenius; Michelle H Braccioforte; Philip W Kantoff; Anthony V D'Amico; Ronald D Ennis Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-06-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Madhu B Shetti; Gregory S Merrick; Wayne M Butler; Robert Galbreath; Ashley Torlone; Jonathan H Lief; Edward Adamovich; Kent E Wallner Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Nathan C Sheets; Gregg H Goldin; Anne-Marie Meyer; Yang Wu; YunKyung Chang; Til Stürmer; Jordan A Holmes; Bryce B Reeve; Paul A Godley; William R Carpenter; Ronald C Chen Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-04-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Calpurnyia B Roberts; Peter C Albertsen; Yu-Hsuan Shao; Dirk F Moore; Amit R Mehta; Mark N Stein; Grace L Lu-Yao Journal: Am J Med Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Anthony V D'Amico; Michelle H Braccioforte; Brian J Moran; Ming-Hui Chen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-10-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Patricia A Ganz; John M Barry; Wylie Burke; Nananda F Col; Phaedra S Corso; Everett Dodson; M Elizabeth Hammond; Barry A Kogan; Charles F Lynch; Lee Newcomer; Eric J Seifter; Janet A Tooze; Kasisomayajula Vish Viswanath; Hunter Wessells Journal: NIH Consens State Sci Statements Date: 2011 Dec 5-7
Authors: Ayal A Aizer; Jonathan J Paly; Anthony L Zietman; Paul L Nguyen; Clair J Beard; Sandhya K Rao; Irving D Kaplan; Andrzej Niemierko; Michelle S Hirsch; Chin-Lee Wu; Aria F Olumi; M Dror Michaelson; Anthony V D'Amico; Jason A Efstathiou Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joo Yong Lee; Ho Won Kang; Koon Ho Rha; Nam Hoon Cho; Young Deuk Choi; Sung Joon Hong; Kang Su Cho Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2015-12-12 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Patrick Kierkegaard; Mira D Vale; Spencer Garrison; Brent K Hollenbeck; John M Hollingsworth; Jason Owen-Smith Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Michael A Gorin; Ashley E Ross; Kenneth J Pienta; Phuoc T Tran; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Lisa M Lines; Julia Cohen; Justin Kirschner; Daniel H Barch; Michael T Halpern; Erin E Kent; Michelle A Mollica; Ashley Wilder Smith Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2022-03-07 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Virginia Signal; Christopher Jackson; Louise Signal; Claire Hardie; Kirsten Holst; Marie McLaughlin; Courtney Steele; Diana Sarfati Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 4.430