G L Lu-Yao1,2, S Kim2,3, D F Moore2,4, W Shih2,4, Y Lin2,4, R S DiPaola1,2, S Shen2, A Zietman5, S-L Yao1,2. 1. Department of Medicine, Rutgers, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ, USA. 2. Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Rutgers, School of Public Health, Piscataway, NJ, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy is the most common curative cancer therapy used for elderly patients with localized prostate cancer. However, the effectiveness of this approach has not been established. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the long-term outcomes of primary radiotherapy compared with conservative management in order to facilitate treatment decisions. METHOD: This population-based study consisted of 57,749 patients with T1-T2 prostate cancers diagnosed during 1992-2007. We utilized an instrumental variable (IV) analytical approach with competing risk models to evaluate the outcomes of primary radiotherapy vs conservative management. The IV was comprised of combined health service areas with high- and low-use areas corresponding to the top and bottom tertile in radiotherapy usage rates. RESULTS: In patients with low-/intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 10-year prostate cancer-specific and overall survival was similar in high- and low-radiotherapy use areas (96.1 vs 95.4% and 56.6 vs 56.3%, respectively). In patients with high-risk disease, however, areas with high-radiotherapy use had a higher 10-year cancer-specific survival (90.2 vs 88.1%, difference 2.1%; 95% CI 0.3-4.0%) and 10-year overall survival (53.3 vs 50.2%, difference 3.1%; 95% CI 1.3-6.3%). Results were similar irrespective of the type of radiotherapy used. To assess the robustness of our choice of IV, we repeated the IV analytical approach using different IVs (using the median utilization rate as the cutoff) and found the results to be similar. CONCLUSIONS: Among men >65 years of age, the benefit of primary radiotherapy for localized disease is largely confined to patients with high-risk prostate cancer (Gleason scores 7-10).
BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy is the most common curative cancer therapy used for elderly patients with localized prostate cancer. However, the effectiveness of this approach has not been established. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the long-term outcomes of primary radiotherapy compared with conservative management in order to facilitate treatment decisions. METHOD: This population-based study consisted of 57,749 patients with T1-T2 prostate cancers diagnosed during 1992-2007. We utilized an instrumental variable (IV) analytical approach with competing risk models to evaluate the outcomes of primary radiotherapy vs conservative management. The IV was comprised of combined health service areas with high- and low-use areas corresponding to the top and bottom tertile in radiotherapy usage rates. RESULTS: In patients with low-/intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 10-year prostate cancer-specific and overall survival was similar in high- and low-radiotherapy use areas (96.1 vs 95.4% and 56.6 vs 56.3%, respectively). In patients with high-risk disease, however, areas with high-radiotherapy use had a higher 10-year cancer-specific survival (90.2 vs 88.1%, difference 2.1%; 95% CI 0.3-4.0%) and 10-year overall survival (53.3 vs 50.2%, difference 3.1%; 95% CI 1.3-6.3%). Results were similar irrespective of the type of radiotherapy used. To assess the robustness of our choice of IV, we repeated the IV analytical approach using different IVs (using the median utilization rate as the cutoff) and found the results to be similar. CONCLUSIONS: Among men >65 years of age, the benefit of primary radiotherapy for localized disease is largely confined to patients with high-risk prostate cancer (Gleason scores 7-10).
Authors: Thérèse A Stukel; Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; David A Alter; Daniel J Gottlieb; Marian J Vermeulen Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-01-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: S O Asbell; K L Martz; M V Pilepich; H H Baerwald; W T Sause; R L Doggett; C A Perez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1989-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Frej Filén; Mirja Ruutu; Hans Garmo; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Stefan Bratell; Anders Spångberg; Juni Palmgren; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-08-11 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Hans Garmo; Jennifer R Rider; Kimmo Taari; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Anders Spångberg; Ove Andrén; Juni Palmgren; Gunnar Steineck; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew J Resnick; Tatsuki Koyama; Kang-Hsien Fan; Peter C Albertsen; Michael Goodman; Ann S Hamilton; Richard M Hoffman; Arnold L Potosky; Janet L Stanford; Antoinette M Stroup; R Lawrence Van Horn; David F Penson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 91.245