Kamyar Ghabili1,2, Henry S Park3,4, James B Yu3,4, Preston C Sprenkle1, Simon P Kim5, Kevin A Nguyen1, Xiaomei Ma4,6, Cary P Gross4,7, Michael S Leapman8,9. 1. Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, 789 Howard Avenue, FMP 300, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 3. Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 4. Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 5. Division of Urology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, CO, USA. 6. Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 8. Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, 789 Howard Avenue, FMP 300, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA. Michael.leapman@yale.edu. 9. Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. Michael.leapman@yale.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate practice patterns of planned post-operative radiation therapy (RT) among men with positive surgical margins (PSM) at radical prostatectomy. METHODS: We identified 43,806 men within the National Cancer Database with pathologic node-negative prostate cancer diagnosed in 2010 through 2014 with PSM. The primary endpoint was receipt of planned (RT) within a patient's initial course of treatment. We examined post-RP androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with RT as a secondary endpoint. We evaluated patterns of post-operative management and characteristics associated with planned post-prostatectomy RT. RESULTS: Within 12 months of RP, 87.0% received no planned RT, 8.5% RT alone, 1.3% ADT alone, and 3.1% RT with ADT. In a multivariable logistic regression model, planned RT use was associated with clinical and pathologic characteristics as estimated by surgical Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA-S) category (intermediate versus low, OR = 2.87, 95% CI 2.19-3.75, P < 0.001; high versus low, OR = 10.23, 95% CI 7.79-13.43, P < 0.001), treatment at community versus academic centers (OR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.15-1.34, P < 0.001), shorter distance to a treatment facility (OR = 0.97 for each 10-mile, 95% CI 0.96-0.98, P < 0.001), and uninsured status (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.10-1.77, P = 0.005). The odds of receiving planned RT were lower in 2014 versus 2010 (OR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.85, P < 0.001). There was no significant change in the use of ADT with RT. High versus low CAPRA-S category was associated with the use of ADT in addition to RT (OR = 5.13, 95% CI 1.57-16.80, P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The use of planned post-prostatectomy RT remained stable among patients with PSM and appears driven primarily by the presence of other adverse pathologic features.
PURPOSE: To evaluate practice patterns of planned post-operative radiation therapy (RT) among men with positive surgical margins (PSM) at radical prostatectomy. METHODS: We identified 43,806 men within the National Cancer Database with pathologic node-negative prostate cancer diagnosed in 2010 through 2014 with PSM. The primary endpoint was receipt of planned (RT) within a patient's initial course of treatment. We examined post-RP androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with RT as a secondary endpoint. We evaluated patterns of post-operative management and characteristics associated with planned post-prostatectomy RT. RESULTS: Within 12 months of RP, 87.0% received no planned RT, 8.5% RT alone, 1.3% ADT alone, and 3.1% RT with ADT. In a multivariable logistic regression model, planned RT use was associated with clinical and pathologic characteristics as estimated by surgical Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA-S) category (intermediate versus low, OR = 2.87, 95% CI 2.19-3.75, P < 0.001; high versus low, OR = 10.23, 95% CI 7.79-13.43, P < 0.001), treatment at community versus academic centers (OR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.15-1.34, P < 0.001), shorter distance to a treatment facility (OR = 0.97 for each 10-mile, 95% CI 0.96-0.98, P < 0.001), and uninsured status (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.10-1.77, P = 0.005). The odds of receiving planned RT were lower in 2014 versus 2010 (OR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.85, P < 0.001). There was no significant change in the use of ADT with RT. High versus low CAPRA-S category was associated with the use of ADT in addition to RT (OR = 5.13, 95% CI 1.57-16.80, P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The use of planned post-prostatectomy RT remained stable among patients with PSM and appears driven primarily by the presence of other adverse pathologic features.
Authors: Michel Bolla; Hein van Poppel; Laurence Collette; Paul van Cangh; Kris Vekemans; Luigi Da Pozzo; Theo M de Reijke; Antony Verbaeys; Jean-François Bosset; Roland van Velthoven; Jean-Marie Maréchal; Pierre Scalliet; Karin Haustermans; Marianne Piérart Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Aug 13-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Catherine M Tangen; Jorge Paradelo; M Scott Lucia; Gary Miller; Dean Troyer; Edward Messing; Jeffrey Forman; Joseph Chin; Gregory Swanson; Edith Canby-Hagino; E David Crawford Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nicolas Mottet; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Nicola Fossati; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Vsevolod B Matveev; Paul C Moldovan; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Thomas Van den Broeck; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Philip Cornford Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Richard K Valicenti; Peter Albertsen; Brian J Davis; S Larry Goldenberg; Carol Hahn; Eric Klein; Jeff Michalski; Mack Roach; Oliver Sartor; J Stuart Wolf; Martha M Faraday Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Thomas Wiegel; Dirk Bottke; Ursula Steiner; Alessandra Siegmann; Reinhard Golz; Stephan Störkel; Norman Willich; Axel Semjonow; Rainer Souchon; Michael Stöckle; Christian Rübe; Lothar Weissbach; Peter Althaus; Udo Rebmann; Tilman Kälble; Horst Jürgen Feldmann; Manfred Wirth; Axel Hinke; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Kurt Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ofer Yossepowitch; Alberto Briganti; James A Eastham; Jonathan Epstein; Markus Graefen; Rodolfo Montironi; Karim Touijer Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-08-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Christine Herforth; Sean P Stroup; Zinan Chen; Lauren E Howard; Stephen J Freedland; Daniel M Moreira; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Matthew R Cooperberg; Christopher L Amling; Christopher J Kane Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-03-25 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Felix Preisser; Elio Mazzone; Sophie Knipper; Sebastiano Nazzani; Marco Bandini; Shahrokh F Shariat; Zhe Tian; Fred Saad; Francesco Montorsi; Kevin C Zorn; Markus Graefen; Derya Tilki; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 2.872