Raj Satkunasivam1, Andre E Kim2, Mihir Desai3, Mike M Nguyen3, David I Quinn4, Leslie Ballas5, Juan Pablo Lewinger2, Mariana C Stern2, Ann S Hamilton2, Monish Aron3, Inderbir S Gill3. 1. University of Southern California Institute of Urology, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: raj.satkunasivam@gmail.com. 2. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 3. University of Southern California Institute of Urology, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed survival after radical prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy or conformal radiation therapy vs no local therapy for metastatic prostate cancer adjusting for patient comorbidity, androgen deprivation therapy and other factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men 66 years old or older with metastatic prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, conformal radiation therapy or no local therapy in the SEER-Medicare linked database from 2004 to 2009. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models before and after inverse propensity score weighting were used to assess all cause and prostate cancer specific mortality. Competing risk regression analysis was done to assess prostate cancer specific mortality. RESULTS: Of 4,069 men with metastatic prostate cancer radical prostatectomy in 47, intensity modulated radiation therapy in 88 and conformal radiation therapy in 107 were selected as local therapy vs no local therapy in 3,827. Radical prostatectomy was associated with a 52% decrease (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.27-0.85) in the risk of prostate cancer specific mortality after adjusting for sociodemographics, primary tumor characteristics, comorbidity, androgen deprivation therapy and bone radiation within 6 months of diagnosis. Intensity modulated radiation therapy was associated with a 62% decrease (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24-0.61) in the risk of prostate specific cancer specific mortality. Conformal radiation therapy was not associated with improved survival compared to no local therapy. Propensity score weighting yielded comparable results. Competing risk analysis revealed a 42% and 57% decrease (SHR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.95 and SHR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27-0.68, respectively) in the risk of prostate cancer specific mortality for radical prostatectomy and intensity modulated radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Local therapy with radical prostatectomy and intensity modulated radiation therapy but not with conformal radiation therapy was associated with a survival benefit in men with metastatic prostate cancer. This finding warrants prospective evaluation in clinical trials.
PURPOSE: We assessed survival after radical prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy or conformal radiation therapy vs no local therapy for metastatic prostate cancer adjusting for patient comorbidity, androgen deprivation therapy and other factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men 66 years old or older with metastatic prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, conformal radiation therapy or no local therapy in the SEER-Medicare linked database from 2004 to 2009. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models before and after inverse propensity score weighting were used to assess all cause and prostate cancer specific mortality. Competing risk regression analysis was done to assess prostate cancer specific mortality. RESULTS: Of 4,069 men with metastatic prostate cancer radical prostatectomy in 47, intensity modulated radiation therapy in 88 and conformal radiation therapy in 107 were selected as local therapy vs no local therapy in 3,827. Radical prostatectomy was associated with a 52% decrease (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.27-0.85) in the risk of prostate cancer specific mortality after adjusting for sociodemographics, primary tumor characteristics, comorbidity, androgen deprivation therapy and bone radiation within 6 months of diagnosis. Intensity modulated radiation therapy was associated with a 62% decrease (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24-0.61) in the risk of prostate specific cancer specific mortality. Conformal radiation therapy was not associated with improved survival compared to no local therapy. Propensity score weighting yielded comparable results. Competing risk analysis revealed a 42% and 57% decrease (SHR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.95 and SHR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27-0.68, respectively) in the risk of prostate cancer specific mortality for radical prostatectomy and intensity modulated radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Local therapy with radical prostatectomy and intensity modulated radiation therapy but not with conformal radiation therapy was associated with a survival benefit in men with metastatic prostate cancer. This finding warrants prospective evaluation in clinical trials.
Authors: Vassiliki Tzelepi; Eleni Efstathiou; Sijin Wen; Patricia Troncoso; Maria Karlou; Curtis A Pettaway; Louis L Pisters; Anh Hoang; Christopher J Logothetis; Lance C Pagliaro Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Steven T Fleming; Ann S Hamilton; Susan A Sabatino; Gretchen G Kimmick; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Jean B Owen; Bin Huang; Wenke Hwang Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Gregg H Goldin; Nathan C Sheets; Anne-Marie Meyer; Tzy-Mey Kuo; Yang Wu; Til Stürmer; Paul A Godley; William R Carpenter; Ronald C Chen Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jim C Hu; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Michael J Barry; Anthony V D'Amico; Aaron C Weinberg; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Maha Hussain; Catherine M Tangen; Donna L Berry; Celestia S Higano; E David Crawford; Glenn Liu; George Wilding; Stephen Prescott; Subramanian Kanaga Sundaram; Eric Jay Small; Nancy Ann Dawson; Bryan J Donnelly; Peter M Venner; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Paul F Schellhammer; David I Quinn; Derek Raghavan; Benjamin Ely; Carol M Moinpour; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Ian M Thompson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C B Roberts; T L Jang; Yu-Hsuan Shao; S Kabadi; D F Moore; G L Lu-Yao Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2011-04-26 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Joseph R Zabell; Oluwakayode Adejoro; Stephanie L Jarosek; Sean P Elliott; Badrinath R Konety Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Raj Satkunasivam; Christopher J D Wallis; James Byrne; Azik Hoffman; Douglas C Cheung; Girish S Kulkarni; Avery B Nathens; Robert K Nam Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Matthew J O'Shaughnessy; Sean M McBride; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Karim A Touijer; Michael J Morris; Daniel C Danila; Vincent P Laudone; Bernard H Bochner; Joel Sheinfeld; Erica S Dayan; Lawrence P Bellomo; Daniel D Sjoberg; Glenn Heller; Michael J Zelefsky; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Howard I Scher Journal: Urology Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 2.649