Literature DB >> 31935027

Patient-Reported Outcomes Through 5 Years for Active Surveillance, Surgery, Brachytherapy, or External Beam Radiation With or Without Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Karen E Hoffman1, David F Penson2, Zhiguo Zhao3, Li-Ching Huang3, Ralph Conwill4, Aaron A Laviana2, Daniel D Joyce2, Amy N Luckenbaugh2, Michael Goodman5, Ann S Hamilton6, Xiao-Cheng Wu7, Lisa E Paddock8, Antoinette Stroup8, Matthew R Cooperberg9, Mia Hashibe10, Brock B O'Neil11, Sherrie H Kaplan12, Sheldon Greenfield12, Tatsuki Koyama3, Daniel A Barocas2.   

Abstract

Importance: Understanding adverse effects of contemporary treatment approaches for men with favorable-risk and unfavorable-risk localized prostate cancer could inform treatment selection. Objective: To compare functional outcomes associated with prostate cancer treatments over 5 years after treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective, population-based cohort study of 1386 men with favorable-risk (clinical stage cT1 to cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≤20 ng/mL, and Grade Group 1-2) prostate cancer and 619 men with unfavorable-risk (clinical stage cT2cN0M0, PSA of 20-50 ng/mL, or Grade Group 3-5) prostate cancer diagnosed in 2011 through 2012, accrued from 5 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program sites and a US prostate cancer registry, with surveys through September 2017. Exposures: Treatment with active surveillance (n = 363), nerve-sparing prostatectomy (n = 675), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT; n = 261), or low-dose-rate brachytherapy (n = 87) for men with favorable-risk disease and treatment with prostatectomy (n = 402) or EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 217) for men with unfavorable-risk disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient-reported function, based on the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (range, 0-100), 5 years after treatment. Regression models were adjusted for baseline function and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important difference was 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritative symptoms, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormonal function.
Results: A total of 2005 men met inclusion criteria and completed the baseline and at least 1 postbaseline survey (median [interquartile range] age, 64 [59-70] years; 1529 of 1993 participants [77%] were non-Hispanic white). For men with favorable-risk prostate cancer, nerve-sparing prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence at 5 years (adjusted mean difference, -10.9 [95% CI, -14.2 to -7.6]) and sexual function at 3 years (adjusted mean difference, -15.2 [95% CI, -18.8 to -11.5]) compared with active surveillance. Low-dose-rate brachytherapy was associated with worse urinary irritative (adjusted mean difference, -7.0 [95% CI, -10.1 to -3.9]), sexual (adjusted mean difference, -10.1 [95% CI, -14.6 to -5.7]), and bowel (adjusted mean difference, -5.0 [95% CI, -7.6 to -2.4]) function at 1 year compared with active surveillance. EBRT was associated with urinary, sexual, and bowel function changes not clinically different from active surveillance at any time point through 5 years. For men with unfavorable-risk disease, EBRT with ADT was associated with lower hormonal function at 6 months (adjusted mean difference, -5.3 [95% CI, -8.2 to -2.4]) and bowel function at 1 year (adjusted mean difference, -4.1 [95% CI, -6.3 to -1.9]), but better sexual function at 5 years (adjusted mean difference, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.2-18.7]) and incontinence at each time point through 5 years (adjusted mean difference, 23.2 [95% CI, 17.7-28.7]), than prostatectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, most functional differences associated with contemporary management options attenuated by 5 years. However, men undergoing prostatectomy reported clinically meaningful worse incontinence through 5 years compared with all other options, and men undergoing prostatectomy for unfavorable-risk disease reported worse sexual function at 5 years compared with men who underwent EBRT with ADT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31935027      PMCID: PMC6990712          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.20675

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  30 in total

1.  Development and validation of an abbreviated version of the expanded prostate cancer index composite instrument for measuring health-related quality of life among prostate cancer survivors.

Authors:  Konrad M Szymanski; John T Wei; Rodney L Dunn; Martin G Sanda
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-03-28       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Intensity-modulated radiotherapy improves lymph node coverage and dose to critical structures compared with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Alice Wang-Chesebro; Ping Xia; Joy Coleman; Clayton Akazawa; Mack Roach
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2006-11-01       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  The Effect of Nerve Sparing Status on Sexual and Urinary Function: 3-Year Results from the CEASAR Study.

Authors:  Svetlana Avulova; Zhiguo Zhao; Daniel Lee; Li-Ching Huang; Tatsuki Koyama; Karen E Hoffman; Ralph M Conwill; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Vivien Chen; Matthew R Cooperberg; Michael Goodman; Sheldon Greenfield; Ann S Hamilton; Mia Hashibe; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette Stroup; Matthew J Resnick; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-12-16       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Minimally important difference for the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form.

Authors:  Ted A Skolarus; Rodney L Dunn; Martin G Sanda; Peter Chang; Thomas K Greenfield; Mark S Litwin; John T Wei
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Assessment of prognosis with the total illness burden index for prostate cancer: aiding clinicians in treatment choice.

Authors:  Mark S Litwin; Sheldon Greenfield; Eric P Elkin; Deborah P Lubeck; Jeanette M Broering; Sherrie H Kaplan
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer: asking men what's important.

Authors:  E S Holmboe; J Concato
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors.

Authors:  Martin G Sanda; Rodney L Dunn; Jeff Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Laurel Northouse; Larry Hembroff; Xihong Lin; Thomas K Greenfield; Mark S Litwin; Christopher S Saigal; Arul Mahadevan; Eric Klein; Adam Kibel; Louis L Pisters; Deborah Kuban; Irving Kaplan; David Wood; Jay Ciezki; Nikhil Shah; John T Wei
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-03-20       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study.

Authors:  Arnold L Potosky; William W Davis; Richard M Hoffman; Janet L Stanford; Robert A Stephenson; David F Penson; Linda C Harlan
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 10.  Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: Risk Stratification, Shared Decision Making, and Care Options.

Authors:  Martin G Sanda; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Erin Kirkby; Ronald C Chen; Tony Crispino; Joann Fontanarosa; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Greene; Laurence H Klotz; Danil V Makarov; Joel B Nelson; George Rodrigues; Howard M Sandler; Mary Ellen Taplin; Jonathan R Treadwell
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  35 in total

1.  Reconsidering the Trade-offs of Prostate Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Jonathan E Shoag; Yaw A Nyame; Roman Gulati; Ruth Etzioni; Jim C Hu
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  MRI-guided focused ultrasound focal therapy for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a phase 2b, multicentre study.

Authors:  Behfar Ehdaie; Clare M Tempany; Ford Holland; Daniel D Sjoberg; Adam S Kibel; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jeremy C Durack; Oguz Akin; Andrew J Vickers; Peter T Scardino; Dan Sperling; Jeffrey Y C Wong; Bertram Yuh; David A Woodrum; Lance A Mynderse; Steven S Raman; Allan J Pantuck; Marc H Schiffman; Timothy D McClure; Geoffrey A Sonn; Pejman Ghanouni
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 54.433

Review 3.  The role of ferroptosis in prostate cancer: a novel therapeutic strategy.

Authors:  Yue Wang; Yifan Ma; Kui Jiang
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2022-09-02       Impact factor: 5.455

Review 4.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: selection criteria, guidelines, and outcomes.

Authors:  Colton H Walker; Kathryn A Marchetti; Udit Singhal; Todd M Morgan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Influence of Geography on Prostate Cancer Treatment.

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

6.  Magnetic resonance imaging-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (mirage): a phase iii randomized trial.

Authors:  Ting Martin Ma; James M Lamb; Maria Casado; Xiaoyan Wang; T Vincent Basehart; Yingli Yang; Daniel Low; Ke Sheng; Nzhde Agazaryan; Nicholas G Nickols; Minsong Cao; Michael L Steinberg; Amar U Kishan
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 4.430

7.  Treatment decision satisfaction and regret after focal HIFU for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Niklas Westhoff; Ramona Ernst; Karl Friedrich Kowalewski; Laura Schmidt; Thomas Stefan Worst; Maurice Stephan Michel; Jost von Hardenberg
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 8.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Daniela K Shill; Monique J Roobol; Behfar Ehdaie; Andrew J Vickers; Sigrid V Carlsson
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-06

9.  Difference in Incontinence Pad Use between Patients after Radical Prostatectomy and Cancer-Free Population with Subgroup Analysis for Open vs. Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy: A Descriptive Analysis of Insurance Claims-Based Data.

Authors:  Dong-Ho Mun; Lin Yang; Shahrokh F Shariat; Sylvia Reitter-Pfoertner; Gerald Gredinger; Thomas Waldhoer
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-06-27       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  Helenalin Facilitates Reactive Oxygen Species-Mediated Apoptosis and Cell Cycle Arrest by Targeting Thioredoxin Reductase-1 in Human Prostate Cancer Cells.

Authors:  Mei Yang; Weihua Zhang; Xiuxiu Yu; Feng Wang; Yeping Li; Yan Zhang; Yu Yang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2021-06-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.