Grace L Lu-Yao1, Peter C Albertsen2, Dirk F Moore3, Yong Lin3, Robert S DiPaola4, Siu-Long Yao4. 1. Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ, USA. Electronic address: luyaogr@cinj.rutgers.edu. 2. Department of Surgery (Urology), University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, USA. 3. Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; Department of Biostatistics, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, NJ, USA. 4. Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To understand the threat posed by localized prostate cancer and the potential impact of surgery or radiation, patients and healthcare providers require information on long-term outcomes following conservative management. OBJECTIVE: To describe 15-yr survival outcomes and cancer therapy utilization among men 65 years and older managed conservatively for newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a population-based cohort study with participants living in predefined geographic areas covered by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. The study includes 31 137 Medicare patients aged ≥65 yr diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in 1992-2009 who initially received conservative management (no surgery, radiotherapy, cryotherapy, or androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]). All patients were followed until death or December 31, 2009 (for prostate cancer-specific mortality [PCSM]) and December 31, 2011 (for overall mortality). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Competing-risk analyses were used to examine PCSM, overall mortality, and utilization of cancer therapies. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The 15-yr risk of PCSM for men aged 65-74 yr diagnosed with screening-detected prostate cancer was 5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7-8.0%) for T1c Gleason 5-7 and 22% (95% CI 16-35%) for Gleason 8-10 disease. After 15 yr of follow-up, 24% (95% CI 21-27%) of men aged 65-74 yr with screening-detected Gleason 5-7 cancer received ADT. The corresponding result for men with Gleason 8-10 cancer was 38% (95% CI 32-44%). The major study limitations are the lack of data for men aged <65 yr and detailed clinical information associated with secondary cancer therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The 15-yr outcomes following conservative management of newly diagnosed Gleason 5-7 prostate cancer among men aged ≥65 yr are excellent. Men with Gleason 8-10 disease managed conservatively face a significant risk of PCSM. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined the long-term survival outcomes for a large group of patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who did not have surgery, radiotherapy, cryotherapy, or androgen deprivation therapy in the first 6 mo after cancer diagnosis. We found that the 15-yr disease-specific survival is excellent for men diagnosed with Gleason 5-7 disease. The data support conservative management as a reasonable choice for elderly patients with low-grade localized prostate cancer.
BACKGROUND: To understand the threat posed by localized prostate cancer and the potential impact of surgery or radiation, patients and healthcare providers require information on long-term outcomes following conservative management. OBJECTIVE: To describe 15-yr survival outcomes and cancer therapy utilization among men 65 years and older managed conservatively for newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a population-based cohort study with participants living in predefined geographic areas covered by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. The study includes 31 137 Medicare patients aged ≥65 yr diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in 1992-2009 who initially received conservative management (no surgery, radiotherapy, cryotherapy, or androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]). All patients were followed until death or December 31, 2009 (for prostate cancer-specific mortality [PCSM]) and December 31, 2011 (for overall mortality). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Competing-risk analyses were used to examine PCSM, overall mortality, and utilization of cancer therapies. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The 15-yr risk of PCSM for men aged 65-74 yr diagnosed with screening-detected prostate cancer was 5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7-8.0%) for T1c Gleason 5-7 and 22% (95% CI 16-35%) for Gleason 8-10 disease. After 15 yr of follow-up, 24% (95% CI 21-27%) of men aged 65-74 yr with screening-detected Gleason 5-7 cancer received ADT. The corresponding result for men with Gleason 8-10 cancer was 38% (95% CI 32-44%). The major study limitations are the lack of data for men aged <65 yr and detailed clinical information associated with secondary cancer therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The 15-yr outcomes following conservative management of newly diagnosed Gleason 5-7 prostate cancer among men aged ≥65 yr are excellent. Men with Gleason 8-10 disease managed conservatively face a significant risk of PCSM. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined the long-term survival outcomes for a large group of patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who did not have surgery, radiotherapy, cryotherapy, or androgen deprivation therapy in the first 6 mo after cancer diagnosis. We found that the 15-yr disease-specific survival is excellent for men diagnosed with Gleason 5-7 disease. The data support conservative management as a reasonable choice for elderly patients with low-grade localized prostate cancer.
Authors: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Mirja Ruutu; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Stefan Bratell; Anders Spångberg; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Hans Garmo; Juni Palmgren; Hans-Olov Adami; Bo Johan Norlén; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-05-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Peter C Albertsen; James A Hanley; George H Barrows; David F Penson; Pam D H Kowalczyk; M Melinda Sanders; Judith Fine Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-09-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jun Kawakami; Janet E Cowan; Eric P Elkin; David M Latini; Janeen DuChane; Peter R Carroll Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Gerrit Draisma; Rob Boer; Suzie J Otto; Ingrid W van der Cruijsen; Ronald A M Damhuis; Fritz H Schröder; Harry J de Koning Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-06-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jan Herden; Lena Ansmann; Nicole Ernstmann; Dietrich Schnell; Lotharh Weißbac Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2016-05-13 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Niall M Corcoran; Anthony T Papenfuss; Christopher M Hovens; Stefano Mangiola; Patrick McCoy; Martin Modrak; Fernando Souza-Fonseca-Guimaraes; Daniel Blashki; Ryan Stuchbery; Simon P Keam; Michael Kerger; Ken Chow; Chayanica Nasa; Melanie Le Page; Natalie Lister; Simon Monard; Justin Peters; Phil Dundee; Scott G Williams; Anthony J Costello; Paul J Neeson; Bhupinder Pal; Nicholas D Huntington Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Daphne Y Lichtensztajn; John T Leppert; James D Brooks; Sumit A Shah; Weiva Sieh; Benjamin I Chung; Scarlett L Gomez; Iona Cheng Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 12.693
Authors: Ted A Skolarus; Sarah T Hawley; Daniela A Wittmann; Jane Forman; Tabitha Metreger; Jordan B Sparks; Kevin Zhu; Megan E V Caram; Brent K Hollenbeck; Danil V Makarov; John T Leppert; Jeremy B Shelton; Vahakn Shahinian; Sriram Srinivasaraghavan; Anne E Sales Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 7.327