Adam B Weiner1, Oliver S Ko2, Alec Zhu2, Daniel E Spratt3, Jim C Hu4, Edward M Schaeffer2. 1. Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: adam.weiner@northwestern.edu. 2. Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 4. Department of Urology, New York Presbyterian - Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Controversy surrounds the benefit of pelvic lymph node irradiation (PLN-RT) in localized prostate cancer (CaP). Our objective was to determine the practice patterns and predictors of PLN-RT in a national cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base (2005-2015) was leveraged to obtain men diagnosed with nonmetastatic CaP treated with external beam radiotherapy (n = 197,378). Multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess temporal trends and factors associated with PLN-RT. RESULTS: PLN-RT occurred in 37% of patients overall, which increased to 41% by 2015. When stratified by risk group, there was no significant difference in PLN-RT over time in low, favorable intermediate, unfavorable intermediate, or high-risk CaP. PLN-RT increased for men with very high-risk disease (51%-60%; odds ratio per year 1.34, 95% confidence inrerval 1.06-1.70, P = 0.013). Increased odds of PLN-RT was associated with higher risk disease, addition of hormone therapy, treatment at community hospitals, and shorter patient travel distance to treatment facilities. Surprisingly, 26% and 34% of low and favorable intermediate risk CaP received PLN-RT, respectively. Predictors of PLN-RT among these patients included treatment at a community practice and use of brachytherapy or hormone therapy. CONCLUSIONS: PLN-RT occurred in about one-third of men receiving external beam radiotherapy and increased over time, mostly in men with very high-risk CaP for unclear reasons. Of concern, over one-quarter of low-risk men receive PLN-RT. Further work is needed to understand the heterogeneity in PLN-RT use. We await the completion of RTO G 09-24 to better understand the role of PLN-RT for men with localized CaP.
PURPOSE: Controversy surrounds the benefit of pelvic lymph node irradiation (PLN-RT) in localized prostate cancer (CaP). Our objective was to determine the practice patterns and predictors of PLN-RT in a national cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base (2005-2015) was leveraged to obtain men diagnosed with nonmetastatic CaP treated with external beam radiotherapy (n = 197,378). Multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess temporal trends and factors associated with PLN-RT. RESULTS:PLN-RT occurred in 37% of patients overall, which increased to 41% by 2015. When stratified by risk group, there was no significant difference in PLN-RT over time in low, favorable intermediate, unfavorable intermediate, or high-risk CaP. PLN-RT increased for men with very high-risk disease (51%-60%; odds ratio per year 1.34, 95% confidence inrerval 1.06-1.70, P = 0.013). Increased odds of PLN-RT was associated with higher risk disease, addition of hormone therapy, treatment at community hospitals, and shorter patient travel distance to treatment facilities. Surprisingly, 26% and 34% of low and favorable intermediate risk CaP received PLN-RT, respectively. Predictors of PLN-RT among these patients included treatment at a community practice and use of brachytherapy or hormone therapy. CONCLUSIONS:PLN-RT occurred in about one-third of men receiving external beam radiotherapy and increased over time, mostly in men with very high-risk CaP for unclear reasons. Of concern, over one-quarter of low-risk men receive PLN-RT. Further work is needed to understand the heterogeneity in PLN-RT use. We await the completion of RTO G 09-24 to better understand the role of PLN-RT for men with localized CaP.
Authors: Mack Roach; Jennifer Moughan; Colleen A F Lawton; Adam P Dicker; Kenneth L Zeitzer; Elizabeth M Gore; Young Kwok; Michael J Seider; I-Chow Hsu; Alan C Hartford; Eric M Horwitz; Kosj Yamoah; Christopher U Jones; Jeff M Michalski; W Robert Lee; Thomas M Pisansky; Rachel Rabinovitch; Marvin Rotman; Rodger M Pryzant; Harold E Kim; Charles R Thomas; William U Shipley; Howard M Sandler Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jeff M Michalski; Jennifer Moughan; James Purdy; Walter Bosch; Deborah W Bruner; Jean-Paul Bahary; Harold Lau; Marie Duclos; Matthew Parliament; Gerard Morton; Daniel Hamstra; Michael Seider; Michael I Lock; Malti Patel; Hiram Gay; Eric Vigneault; Kathryn Winter; Howard Sandler Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Michael J Zelefsky; Jennifer Moughan; Jean Owen; Anthony L Zietman; Mack Roach; Gerald E Hanks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Colleen A Lawton; Michelle DeSilvio; Mack Roach; Valery Uhl; Robert Kirsch; Michael Seider; Marvin Rotman; Christopher Jones; Sucha Asbell; Richard Valicenti; Stephen Hahn; Charles R Thomas Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-05-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Pascal Pommier; Sylvie Chabaud; Jean Leon Lagrange; Pierre Richaud; François Lesaunier; Elisabeth Le Prise; Jean Philippe Wagner; Meng Huor Hay; Veronique Beckendorf; Jean Philippe Suchaud; Pierre Marie Pabot du Chatelard; Valerie Bernier; Nicolas Voirin; David Perol; Christian Carrie Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ayal A Aizer; James B Yu; Anne M McKeon; Roy H Decker; John W Colberg; Richard E Peschel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M Protopapa; V Kouloulias; A Kougioumtzopoulou; Z Liakouli; C Papadimitriou; A Zygogianni Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 3.405