BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess treatment choices among men with prostate cancer who presented at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center multidisciplinary (MultiD) clinic compared with nationwide trends. METHODS: In total, 4451 men with prostate cancer who presented at the MultiD clinic from 2004 to 2016 were analyzed. To assess nationwide trends, the authors analyzed 392,710 men with prostate cancer who were diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The primary endpoint was treatment choice as a function of pretreatment demographics. RESULTS: Univariate analyses revealed similar treatment trends in the MultiD and SEER cohorts. The use of procedural forms of definitive therapy decreased with age, including brachytherapy and prostatectomy (all P < .05). Later year of diagnosis/clinic visit was associated with decreased use of definitive treatments, whereas higher risk grouping was associated with increased use (all P < .001). Patients with low-risk disease treated at the MultiD clinic were more likely to receive nondefinitive therapy than patients in SEER, whereas the opposite trend was observed for patients with high-risk disease, with a substantial portion of high-risk patients in SEER not receiving definitive therapy. In the MultiD clinic, African American men with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease were more likely to receive definitive therapy than white men, but for SEER the opposite was true. CONCLUSIONS: Presentation at a MultiD clinic facilitates the appropriate disposition of patients with low-risk disease to nondefinitive strategies of patients with high-risk disease to definitive treatment, and it may obviate the influence of race.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess treatment choices among men with prostate cancer who presented at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center multidisciplinary (MultiD) clinic compared with nationwide trends. METHODS: In total, 4451 men with prostate cancer who presented at the MultiD clinic from 2004 to 2016 were analyzed. To assess nationwide trends, the authors analyzed 392,710 men with prostate cancer who were diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The primary endpoint was treatment choice as a function of pretreatment demographics. RESULTS: Univariate analyses revealed similar treatment trends in the MultiD and SEER cohorts. The use of procedural forms of definitive therapy decreased with age, including brachytherapy and prostatectomy (all P < .05). Later year of diagnosis/clinic visit was associated with decreased use of definitive treatments, whereas higher risk grouping was associated with increased use (all P < .001). Patients with low-risk disease treated at the MultiD clinic were more likely to receive nondefinitive therapy than patients in SEER, whereas the opposite trend was observed for patients with high-risk disease, with a substantial portion of high-risk patients in SEER not receiving definitive therapy. In the MultiD clinic, African American men with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease were more likely to receive definitive therapy than white men, but for SEER the opposite was true. CONCLUSIONS: Presentation at a MultiD clinic facilitates the appropriate disposition of patients with low-risk disease to nondefinitive strategies of patients with high-risk disease to definitive treatment, and it may obviate the influence of race.
Authors: David F Friedlander; Nicolas von Landenberg; Björn Löppenberg; Joachim Noldus; Stuart R Lipsitz; Alexander P Cole; Firas Abdollah; Paul L Nguyen; Toni K Choueiri; Adam S Kibel; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Suzanne Biehn Stewart; Lionel L Bañez; Cary N Robertson; Stephen J Freedland; Thomas J Polascik; Donghua Xie; Bridget F Koontz; Zeljko Vujaskovic; W Robert Lee; Andrew J Armstrong; Phillip G Febbo; Daniel J George; Judd W Moul Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Nicholas J van As; Andrew R Norman; Karen Thomas; Vincent S Khoo; Alan Thompson; Robert A Huddart; Alan Horwich; David P Dearnaley; Christopher C Parker Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-03-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Lauren M Hurwitz; Jennifer Cullen; Sally Elsamanoudi; Daniel J Kim; Jane Hudak; Maryellen Colston; Judith Travis; Huai-Ching Kuo; Christopher R Porter; Inger L Rosner Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Ayal A Aizer; Jonathan J Paly; Anthony L Zietman; Paul L Nguyen; Clair J Beard; Sandhya K Rao; Irving D Kaplan; Andrzej Niemierko; Michelle S Hirsch; Chin-Lee Wu; Aria F Olumi; M Dror Michaelson; Anthony V D'Amico; Jason A Efstathiou Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anne-Michelle Noone; Jennifer L Lund; Angela Mariotto; Kathleen Cronin; Timothy McNeel; Dennis Deapen; Joan L Warren Journal: Med Care Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: Chad Tang; Xiudong Lei; Grace L Smith; Hubert Y Pan; Karen E Hoffman; Rachit Kumar; Brian F Chapin; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Steven J Frank; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-12-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Maria E Lund; Christopher B Howard; Kristofer J Thurecht; Douglas H Campbell; Stephen M Mahler; Bradley J Walsh Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Christopher J D Wallis; James W F Catto; Antonio Finelli; Adam W Glaser; John L Gore; Stacy Loeb; Todd M Morgan; Alicia K Morgans; Nicolas Mottet; Richard Neal; Tim O'Brien; Anobel Y Odisho; Thomas Powles; Ted A Skolarus; Angela B Smith; Bernadett Szabados; Zachary Klaassen; Daniel E Spratt Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 20.096