Björn Löppenberg1, Deepansh Dalela2, Patrick Karabon3, Akshay Sood2, Jesse D Sammon2, Christian P Meyer4, Maxine Sun4, Joachim Noldus5, James O Peabody2, Quoc-Dien Trinh4, Mani Menon2, Firas Abdollah6. 1. VUI Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics, and Evaluation, Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA; Department of Urology, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany. 2. VUI Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics, and Evaluation, Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA. 3. VUI Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics, and Evaluation, Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA; Henry Ford Health System, Public Health Sciences, Detroit, MI, USA. 4. Division of Urology, Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Urology, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany. 6. VUI Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics, and Evaluation, Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA. Electronic address: firas.abdollah@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of local treatment (LT) in patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) at diagnosis is controversial. OBJECTIVE: We set to evaluate the potential impact of LT on overall mortality (OM) in men with mPCa, and how this impact is influenced by tumor and patient characteristics. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 15 501 patients with mPCa were identified in the National Cancer Data Base (2004-2012) and categorized in LT (radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy targeted to prostate) versus nonlocal treatment (NLT; all other patients). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The two arms (LT vs NLT) were matched using propensity scores to minimize selection bias. To evaluate LT impact on OM in relation to baseline characteristics, first multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to predict OM in patients treated with NLT, then interaction between predicted OM risk and LT status was tested. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 9.5% (n=1470) of patients received LT. In the postpropensity matched cohorts, 3-yr OM-free survival was higher in the LT group versus the NLT group (69% vs 54%; p<0.001). In multivariable Cox regression, the NLT group, age, and Charlson comorbidity index were predictors of OM (all p≤0.03). This model was used to predict the 3-yr OM risk. The interaction between predicted OM and LT status was significant (p<0.001). The benefit of LT on OM decreased progressively as predicted OM risk increased. Specifically, the 3-yr absolute improvement in OM-free survival was 15.7%, for patients with predicted OM risk ≤20% versus 0% for those with predicted OM risk ≥72%. CONCLUSIONS: Men with mPCa at diagnosis benefit from LT in terms of OM. This is largely affected by baseline characteristics. Specifically, patients with a relatively low tumor risk and good general health status appear to benefit the most. PATIENT SUMMARY: We used a large hospital-based database to evaluate which patients might benefit from local therapy when metastasized prostate cancer was present at diagnosis. Local therapy is associated with a survival benefit in men with less aggressive tumors and good general health.
BACKGROUND: The role of local treatment (LT) in patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) at diagnosis is controversial. OBJECTIVE: We set to evaluate the potential impact of LT on overall mortality (OM) in men with mPCa, and how this impact is influenced by tumor and patient characteristics. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 15 501 patients with mPCa were identified in the National Cancer Data Base (2004-2012) and categorized in LT (radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy targeted to prostate) versus nonlocal treatment (NLT; all other patients). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The two arms (LT vs NLT) were matched using propensity scores to minimize selection bias. To evaluate LT impact on OM in relation to baseline characteristics, first multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to predict OM in patients treated with NLT, then interaction between predicted OM risk and LT status was tested. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 9.5% (n=1470) of patients received LT. In the postpropensity matched cohorts, 3-yr OM-free survival was higher in the LT group versus the NLT group (69% vs 54%; p<0.001). In multivariable Cox regression, the NLT group, age, and Charlson comorbidity index were predictors of OM (all p≤0.03). This model was used to predict the 3-yr OM risk. The interaction between predicted OM and LT status was significant (p<0.001). The benefit of LT on OM decreased progressively as predicted OM risk increased. Specifically, the 3-yr absolute improvement in OM-free survival was 15.7%, for patients with predicted OM risk ≤20% versus 0% for those with predicted OM risk ≥72%. CONCLUSIONS:Men with mPCa at diagnosis benefit from LT in terms of OM. This is largely affected by baseline characteristics. Specifically, patients with a relatively low tumor risk and good general health status appear to benefit the most. PATIENT SUMMARY: We used a large hospital-based database to evaluate which patients might benefit from local therapy when metastasized prostate cancer was present at diagnosis. Local therapy is associated with a survival benefit in men with less aggressive tumors and good general health.
Authors: Christopher Wallis; Suneil Khana; Mohammad Hajiha; Robert K Nam; Raj Satkunasivam Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Gargi Kothari; Piet Ost; Patrick Cheung; Pierre Blanchard; Alison C Tree; Nicholas J van As; Simon S Lo; Drew Moghanaki; Andrew Loblaw; Shankar Siva Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Benjamin W Fischer-Valuck; Sagar A Patel; Randall J Brenneman; John Christodouleas; Paul Sargos; Eric Kim; Aaron Weiss; Bruce Hershatter; Yuan J Rao; Joel Picus; Bruce Roth; Vivek Arora; Ruben Carmona; Melissa Reimers; Mohamed S Zaghloul; Hiram Gay; Jeff M Michalski; Brian C Baumann Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2022-03-03
Authors: Robert K Nam; Raj Satkunavisam; Joseph L Chin; Jonathan Izawa; John Trachtenberg; Ricardo Rendon; David Bell; Rajiv Singal; Christopher Sherman; Linda Sugar; Kevin Chagin; Michael W Kattan Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Elio Mazzone; Marco Bandini; Felix Preisser; Sebastiano Nazzani; Zhe Tian; Firas Abdollah; Denis Soulieres; Markus Graefen; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh Shariat; Fred Saad; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 1.862