N J Kinnear1,2, G Kichenadasse3,4,5, S Plagakis6, M E O'Callaghan3,4,7,6, T Kopsaftis4,6, S Walsh4,6, D Foreman3,4,5,7,6. 1. Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. ned.kinnear@gmail.com. 2. Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. ned.kinnear@gmail.com. 3. Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. 4. South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative, Adelaide, Australia. 5. Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. 6. Urology Unit, Repatriation General Hospital, SA Health, Adelaide, Australia. 7. University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (CaP) in younger men (age ≤50 years) appears to present differently compared with older men. This study describes CaP characteristics and outcomes in Australian young men. METHODS: The South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative database was used to identify men diagnosed with CaP 1998-2012. Men were stratified by age at diagnosis into groups ≤50, 50-70 and ≥70 years. Primary outcomes of cumulative biochemical recurrence (BCR) and cumulative prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) were assessed at 5 and 10 years. RESULTS: In total, 7018 men were included. At time of diagnosis, 182 (2.6 %) were aged ≤50 years. Median follow-up exceeded 4 years. Younger men had a greater proportion of T stage <2 disease, lower median PSA and higher rates of Gleason score <7 (all p < 0.001). They were more likely to experience active surveillance (AS) (4.9, 3.1, 1.5 %) or radical prostatectomy (RP) (70, 55, 8 %) and less likely radiotherapy (13, 24, 29 %) as their principal modality (all p < 0.001). Although only 4.9 % underwent AS, 48 % of men ≤50 years were eligible for AS. Men ≤50 years had both the lowest unadjusted cumulative BCR and PCSM at 10 years. After multivariate analysis, BCR was not significantly different. Sample size limited multivariate analysis of PCSM. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, men ≤50 years with CaP had less aggressive clinical characteristics, but were more likely to undergo RP. They appear to experience lower unadjusted PCSM, but similar rates of adjusted BCR. Further studies are needed to assess whether AS is appropriately utilised in these men.
PURPOSE:Prostate cancer (CaP) in younger men (age ≤50 years) appears to present differently compared with older men. This study describes CaP characteristics and outcomes in Australian young men. METHODS: The South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative database was used to identify men diagnosed with CaP 1998-2012. Men were stratified by age at diagnosis into groups ≤50, 50-70 and ≥70 years. Primary outcomes of cumulative biochemical recurrence (BCR) and cumulative prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) were assessed at 5 and 10 years. RESULTS: In total, 7018 men were included. At time of diagnosis, 182 (2.6 %) were aged ≤50 years. Median follow-up exceeded 4 years. Younger men had a greater proportion of T stage <2 disease, lower median PSA and higher rates of Gleason score <7 (all p < 0.001). They were more likely to experience active surveillance (AS) (4.9, 3.1, 1.5 %) or radical prostatectomy (RP) (70, 55, 8 %) and less likely radiotherapy (13, 24, 29 %) as their principal modality (all p < 0.001). Although only 4.9 % underwent AS, 48 % of men ≤50 years were eligible for AS. Men ≤50 years had both the lowest unadjusted cumulative BCR and PCSM at 10 years. After multivariate analysis, BCR was not significantly different. Sample size limited multivariate analysis of PCSM. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, men ≤50 years with CaP had less aggressive clinical characteristics, but were more likely to undergo RP. They appear to experience lower unadjusted PCSM, but similar rates of adjusted BCR. Further studies are needed to assess whether AS is appropriately utilised in these men.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biochemical recurrence; Mortality; Prostate cancer; Young men
Authors: Frederik B Thomsen; Klaus Brasso; Laurence H Klotz; M Andreas Røder; Kasper D Berg; Peter Iversen Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: C V Smith; J J Bauer; R R Connelly; T Seay; C Kane; J Foley; J B Thrasher; L Kusuda; J W Moul Journal: J Urol Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: B F Hankey; E J Feuer; L X Clegg; R B Hayes; J M Legler; P C Prorok; L A Ries; R M Merrill; R S Kaplan Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-06-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Patrick M Parker; Kevin R Rice; Joseph R Sterbis; Yongmei Chen; Jennifer Cullen; David G McLeod; Stephen A Brassell Journal: Urology Date: 2011-03-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Mun Su Chung; Myungsun Shim; Jin Seon Cho; Woojin Bang; Sun Il Kim; Sung Yong Cho; Koon Ho Rha; Sung Joon Hong; Kyo Chul Koo; Kwang Suk Lee; Byung Ha Chung; Seung Hwan Lee Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Yuan C Ding; Huiqing Wu; Elai Davicioni; R Jeffrey Karnes; Eric A Klein; Robert B Den; Linda Steele; Susan L Neuhausen Journal: J Transl Genet Genom Date: 2021-03-09
Authors: Yu Zheng; Sharron X Lin; Shulin Wu; Douglas M Dahl; Michael L Blute; Wei-De Zhong; Xing Zhou; Chin-Lee Wu Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 4.452