Article

Radical prostatectomy vs radiotherapy vs observation among older patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: A comparative effectiveness evaluation

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada.
BJU International (Impact Factor: 3.13). 06/2013; 113(2). DOI: 10.1111/bju.12321
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare efficacy between radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy and observation with respect to overall survival (OS) in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa).
Using data (1988-2005) from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database, 67 087 men with localized PCa were identified. The prevalence of the initial treatment strategy was quantified according to patients' life expectancy ([LE] <10 vs ≥10 years) at initial diagnosis and according to tumour stage. To reduce the unmeasured bias associated with treatment, we performed an instrumental variable analysis. Stratified (by stage and LE) Cox regression and competing-risks regression analyses were generated for the prediction of OS and cancer-specific mortality, respectively.
Among patients with <10 years of LE, most were treated with radiotherapy (49%) or observation (47%). Among patients with ≥10 years of LE, most received radiotherapy (49%), followed by RP (26%). In men with <10 years of LE, RP and radiotherapy were not different with respect to OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45-1.48, P = 0.499). Conversely, in men with ≥10 years of LE, RP was associated with an improved OS compared with observation (HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.49-0.71, P < 0.001) and radiotherapy (HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.56-0.79, P < 0.001). Similar results were recorded in competing-risks regression analyses.
In patients with an estimated LE ≥10 years at initial diagnosis, RP was associated with improved survival compared with radiotherapy and observation, regardless of disease stage.

0 Followers
 · 
90 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Positron emission tomography (PET) with a number of tracers targeted to particular biological features of cancer has been explored for the imaging evaluation of patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after curative primary treatment. However, these reports are often heterogeneous in study design, patient cohorts, standards of reference for the imaging findings, data analysis, and data reporting. The aim of our study was to address these limitations by extracting and re-analyzing the PET detection data only from studies that satisfied pre-defined sets of patient selection criteria and verification standards. Our investigation analyzed the effects of 5 tracers ((18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), (11)C-acetate (ACET), (11)C- or (18)F-choline (CHOL), anti-1-amino-3-(18)F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid (FACBC), and radiolabeled ligand targeted to prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)), 2 treatment types (radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy), and whether the detected disease was local or metastatic, including lesion type (bone, lymph node, soft tissue). FDG exhibited the lowest detection rate for any suspected disease. ACET tended to be advantageous over CHOL in detecting local recurrence and lymph node lesions, even though the difference was not statistically significant. FACBC had greater likelihood of detecting local recurrence, when compared to CHOL, though this difference was not statistically significant. PSMA tended to show a higher proportion of patients with suspected disease compared to the other four tracers. Patients treated with radiation therapy had greater odds of displaying local recurrence on PET than those treated with radical prostatectomy. We also provide suggestions for future investigations that facilitate communication and the impact of the findings.
    American Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 01/2014; 4(6):580-601. · 3.25 Impact Factor
  • BJU International 02/2014; 113(2):179-80. DOI:10.1111/bju.12393 · 3.13 Impact Factor
  • BMJ (online) 03/2014; 348:g2273. DOI:10.1136/bmj.g2273 · 16.38 Impact Factor
Show more