Although elderly men, particularly patients with low-risk prostate cancer and a life expectancy less than 10 years, are unlikely to benefit from prostate cancer active therapy, treatment rates in this group are high.
By using the population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program linked to Medicare data from 2004 to 2005, we examined the effects of clinical and nonclinical factors on the selection of prostate cancer active therapy (ie, radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, brachytherapy, or androgen deprivation therapy) in men aged≥75 years with a new diagnosis of localized prostate cancer. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for receiving prostate cancer active therapy.
The majority of men aged≥75 years were treated with prostate cancer active therapy (81.7%), which varied by disease risk level: low, 72.2%; intermediate, 83.7%; and high, 86.4%. Overall, in older men, the percentage of the total variance in the use of prostate cancer active therapy attributable to clinical and nonclinical factors was minimal, 5.1% and 2.6%, respectively. In men with low-risk disease, comorbidity status did not affect treatment selection, such that patients with 1 or 2+ comorbidities were as likely to receive prostate cancer active therapy as healthy men: OR=0.98; 95% CI, 0.76-1.27 and OR=1.19; 95% CI, 0.84-1.68, respectively. Geographic location was the most powerful predictor of treatment selection (Northeast vs Greater California: OR=2.41; 95% CI, 1.75-3.32).
Clinical factors play a limited role in treatment selection among elderly patients with localized prostate cancer.
"In a small population-based study from the Netherlands (n=505), 88% of patients aged 70 and older did not undergo curative treatment (Houterman et al, 2006). However, US studies show higher frequencies of curative treatment among men aged 75 and older; 41% in one study (Schymura et al, 2010) and between 46% (high-risk) and 59% (low/intermediate risk) in another, with little effect of comorbidity (Roberts et al, 2011). One study, from the US using data from Veteran Affairs Medical Centres, reported overtreatment of men with low-risk disease and significant comorbidity (Daskivich et al, 2011). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background:
Geriatric oncology guidelines state that fit older men with prostate cancer should receive curative treatment. In a population-based study, we investigated associations between age and non-receipt of curative treatment in men with localised prostate cancer, and the effect of clinical variables on this in different age groups.
Clinically localised prostate cancers (T1–T2N0M0) diagnosed from 2002 to 2008 among men aged ⩾40 years, with hospital in-patient episode(s) within 1 year post-diagnosis, were included (n=5456). Clinical and socio-demographic variables were obtained from cancer registrations. Comorbidity was determined from hospital episode data. Logistic regression was used to investigate associations between age and non-receipt of treatment, adjusting for confounders; the outcome was non-receipt of curative treatment (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy).
The percentage who did not receive curative treatment was 9.2%, 14.3%, 48.2% and 91.7% for men aged 40–59, 60–69, 70–79 and 80+ years, respectively. After adjusting for clinical and socio-demographic factors, age remained the main determinant of treatment non-receipt. Men aged 70–79 had a significant five-fold increased risk of not having curative treatment compared with men aged 60–69 (odds ratio (OR)=5.5; 95% confidence interval 4.7, 6.5). In age-stratified analyses, clinical factors had a higher weight for men aged 60–69 than in other age strata. Over time, non-receipt of curative treatment increased among men aged 40–59 and decreased among men aged 70–79.
Age remains the dominant factor in determining non-receipt of curative treatment. There have been some changes in clinical practice over time, but whether these will impact on prostate cancer mortality remains to be established.
British Journal of Cancer 05/2013; 109(1). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2013.268 · 4.84 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.