Patterns and correlates of prostate cancer treatment in older men.

Department of Medicine, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
The American journal of medicine (Impact Factor: 5.3). 03/2011; 124(3):235-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.10.016
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The absence of evidence-based guidelines for prostate cancer treatment led the Institute of Medicine to include localized prostate cancer treatment among the 25 most important topics for comparative effectiveness research. This study compared prostate cancer treatment and survival in men with and without prevalent comorbid conditions. The sample comprised elderly men, aged 66 years and older, extracted from SEER-Medicare data, between 2004 and 2009 (N=73,563). Treatment and survival for men with at least 1 of 4 prevalent comorbid conditions were compared with men who did not have any of the 12 Charlson comorbid conditions. The sample was stratified by comorbid condition and low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk disease. Over half of men received some form of cancer-directed treatment, irrespective of comorbid condition. Men who have congestive heart failure (CHF) or multiple comorbid conditions were less likely to be treated, whereas men with diabetes were more likely to be treated. With the exception of men with CHF, men with comorbid conditions and low-risk disease received no survival benefit from any type of treatment. Most men received treatment, particularly radiation therapy, regardless of comorbid condition. The evidence suggests more caution should be used when treating men with low-risk disease and comorbid conditions as they are at risk for adverse events and additional medical costs, without a survival benefit.
    Medical care 06/2014; 52(6):482-9. DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000113 · 2.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Radiotherapy (RT) is a key component of the management of older cancer patients. Level I evidence in older patients is limited. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) established a task force to make recommendations for curative radiotherapy in older patients and to identify future research priorities. Evidence-based guidelines are provided for breast, lung, endometrial, prostate, rectal, pancreatic, oesophageal, head and neck, CNS malignancies and lymphomas. Patient selection should include comorbidity and geriatric evaluation. Advances in radiation planning and delivery improve target coverage, reduce toxicity and widen eligibility for treatment. Shorter courses of hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy are safe and effective. Conformal radiotherapy and involved field techniques without elective nodal irradiation have improved outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without increasing toxicity. Where comorbidities preclude surgery, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an option for early stage NSCLC and pancreatic cancer. Modern involved field radiotherapy for lymphoma based on pretreatment PET data has reduced toxicity. Significant comorbidity is a relative contraindication to aggressive treatment in low-risk prostate cancer (PC). For intermediate-risk disease 4-6 months of hormones are combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). For high-risk PC combined modality therapy is advised. For high-intermediate risk EMC vaginal brachytherapy is recommended. Short-course EBRT is an alternative to combined modality therapy in older patients with rectal cancer without significant comorbidities. Endorectal RT may be an option for early disease. For primary brain tumours shorter courses of postoperative radiotherapy following maximal debulking provide equivalent survival to longer schedules. MGMT methylation status may help select older patients for temozolomide alone. Stereotactic RT provides an alternative to whole-brain RT in patients with limited brain metastases. IMRT provides an excellent technique to reduce dose to the carotids in head and neck cancer and improves loco-regional control in oesophageal cancer. Best practice and research priorities are summarised.
    Annals of Oncology 03/2014; 25(11). DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdu104 · 6.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Up-front treatment of older men with low-risk prostate cancer can cause morbidity without clear survival benefit; however, most such patients receive treatment instead of observation. The impact of physicians on the management approach is uncertain.
    JAMA Internal Medicine 07/2014; 174(9). DOI:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3021 · 13.25 Impact Factor