Karim Chamie1, Stephen B Williams2, Jim C Hu1. 1. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles. 2. Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Many men with indolent prostate cancer often opt for radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy treatment for their disease. These men may experience considerable detriments of quality of life owing to sexual, urinary, and/or rectal toxic effects associated with these treatments. Without a better understanding of the mutable agents and predictors of treatment types, diffusion of expectant management among these men will be slow. OBJECTIVE: To determine population-based predictors for treatment and use of watchful waiting or active surveillance for indolent prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data. A total of 37,621 men in the general community diagnosed as having prostate cancer from 2004 to 2007 were followed until December 31, 2009. EXPOSURES: Watchful waiting or active surveillance, radiation therapy, or radical prostatectomy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We used mixed-effects logistic regression analysis to determine the factors associated with aggressive treatment and use of watchful waiting or active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. RESULTS: The most common treatment type is radiation therapy (57.9% [95% CI, 57.4%-58.4%]), followed by radical prostatectomy (19.1% [95% CI, 18.7%-19.5%]) and watchful waiting or active surveillance (9.6% [95% CI, 9.3%-9.9%]). Moreover, patients and providers significantly integrate age (odds ratio [OR], 0.32 [95% CI, 0.29-0.35]) and comorbidities (OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.56-0.68]) when determining radical prostatectomy, while regional variation (OR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.47-0.68]) and referral patterns (OR, 44.46 [95% CI, 41.04-48.17]) influence the use of radiation therapy. Patient demographics and tumor characteristics significantly account for 40% of patients undergoing prostatectomy, 12% choosing watchful waiting or active surveillance, and only 3% undergoing radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There is increased use of radiotherapy among patients with indolent prostate cancer with limited to no correlation with tumor biology. Active surveillance was underused, and a significant proportion of the variance was unexplained. Further research into qualitatively describing the contributing factors that drive decision-making recommendations for prostate cancer patients is needed.
IMPORTANCE: Many men with indolent prostate cancer often opt for radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy treatment for their disease. These men may experience considerable detriments of quality of life owing to sexual, urinary, and/or rectal toxic effects associated with these treatments. Without a better understanding of the mutable agents and predictors of treatment types, diffusion of expectant management among these men will be slow. OBJECTIVE: To determine population-based predictors for treatment and use of watchful waiting or active surveillance for indolent prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data. A total of 37,621 men in the general community diagnosed as having prostate cancer from 2004 to 2007 were followed until December 31, 2009. EXPOSURES: Watchful waiting or active surveillance, radiation therapy, or radical prostatectomy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We used mixed-effects logistic regression analysis to determine the factors associated with aggressive treatment and use of watchful waiting or active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. RESULTS: The most common treatment type is radiation therapy (57.9% [95% CI, 57.4%-58.4%]), followed by radical prostatectomy (19.1% [95% CI, 18.7%-19.5%]) and watchful waiting or active surveillance (9.6% [95% CI, 9.3%-9.9%]). Moreover, patients and providers significantly integrate age (odds ratio [OR], 0.32 [95% CI, 0.29-0.35]) and comorbidities (OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.56-0.68]) when determining radical prostatectomy, while regional variation (OR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.47-0.68]) and referral patterns (OR, 44.46 [95% CI, 41.04-48.17]) influence the use of radiation therapy. Patient demographics and tumor characteristics significantly account for 40% of patients undergoing prostatectomy, 12% choosing watchful waiting or active surveillance, and only 3% undergoing radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There is increased use of radiotherapy among patients with indolent prostate cancer with limited to no correlation with tumor biology. Active surveillance was underused, and a significant proportion of the variance was unexplained. Further research into qualitatively describing the contributing factors that drive decision-making recommendations for prostate cancerpatients is needed.
Authors: Patrick O Richard; Shabbir M H Alibhai; Tony Panzarella; Laurence Klotz; Maria Komisarenko; Neil E Fleshner; David Urbach; Antonio Finelli Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Robin Wm Vernooij; Michelle Lancee; Anne Cleves; Philipp Dahm; Chris H Bangma; Katja Kh Aben Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-06-04
Authors: Stephen B Williams; Jinhai Huo; Karim Chamie; Marc C Smaldone; Christopher D Kosarek; Justin E Fang; Leslie A Ynalvez; Simon P Kim; Karen E Hoffman; Sharon H Giordano; Brian F Chapin Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Raj Satkunasivam; Mary Lo; Mariana Stern; Inderbir S Gill; Steven Fleming; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Roger T Anderson; Trevor D Thompson; Ann S Hamilton Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Sarah L Kerns; Ashley Amidon Morlang; Sharon M Lee; Derick R Peterson; Brian Marples; Hong Zhang; Kevin Bylund; Doug Rosenzweig; William Hall; Kim De Ruyck; Barry S Rosenstein; Richard G Stock; Antonio Gómez-Caamaño; Ana Vega; Paloma Sosa-Fajardo; Begoña Taboada-Valladares; Miguel E Aguado-Barrera; Chris Parker; Liv Veldeman; Valérie Fonteyne; Renée Bultijnck; Christopher J Talbot; R Paul Symonds; Kerstie Johnson; Tim Rattay; Adam Webb; Maarten Lambrecht; Dirk de Ruysscher; Ben Vanneste; Ananya Choudhury; Rebecca M Elliott; Elena Sperk; Carsten Herskind; Marlon R Veldwijk; Tiziana Rancati; Barbara Avuzzi; Riccardo Valdagni; David Azria; Marie-Pierre Farcy Jacquet; Jenny Chang-Claude; Petra Seibold; Catharine West; Michelle Janelsins; Yuhchyau Chen; Edward Messing; Gary Morrow Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2022-01-22 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; Richard M Hoffman; Kimberly M Davis; George Luta; Amethyst Leimpeter; Tania Lobo; Scott P Kelly; Jun Shan; David Aaronson; Catherine A Tomko; Amy J Starosta; Charlotte J Hagerman; Stephen K Van Den Eeden Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: José Expósito; Isabel Linares; Isabel Castillo; Miguel Martínez; Pilar Vargas; Ismael Herruzo; José Antonio Medina; Amalia Palacios; Eloísa Bayo; Francisco Peracaula; Javier Jaén; José Antonio Sánchez; María José Ortiz Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Ravishankar Jayadevappa; Sumedha Chhatre; Yu-Ning Wong; Marsha N Wittink; Ratna Cook; Knashawn H Morales; Neha Vapiwala; Diane K Newman; Thomas Guzzo; Alan J Wein; Stanley B Malkowicz; David I Lee; Jerome S Schwartz; Joseph J Gallo Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: John W Peabody; Lisa M DeMaria; Diana Tamondong-Lachica; Jhiedon Florentino; M Czarina Acelajado; Othman Ouenes; Jerome P Richie; Trever Burgon Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 2.264