scholarly journals Infrequent Involvement of the Anterior Base in Low-risk Patients with Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer and Its Possible Significance in Definitive Radiation Therapy

2000 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 126-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Egawa
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Patients

Impact of genomic risk scores on treatment decisions following radical prostatectomy in a prospective Medicare registry.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 72-72
Author(s):  
John L. Gore ◽  
Darlene Dai ◽  
Robert Benjamin Den ◽  
Kasra Yousefi ◽  
Tiffany Le ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
The Impact

72 Background: Prostate cancer patients and providers confront uncertainty as they consider adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy (ART, SRT) after radical prostatectomy (RP). We prospectively evaluated the impact of the Decipher RP test, which predicts metastasis risk after RP, on decision-making for postoperative radiation therapy. Methods: Between October 2016 and May 2017, 1,319 patients treated with RP and considering ART or SRT were enrolled into a Medicare Certification and Training Registry (CTR). Providers submitted a management recommendation based on initial clinical and pathology findings prior to obtaining the Decipher RP test and again upon receiving test results. Only Medicare patients that met the Local Coverage Determination inclusion criteria (i.e., non-organ confined prostate cancer or positive margins or rising PSA) and whose provider was certified in the CTR registry were included in the analysis. Results: Based on clinical variables alone, treatment was recommended for 26% of adjuvant and 19% of salvage patients. Obtaining a Decipher score, changed treatment recommendations in 34% (95% CI 30-39%) and 28% (95% CI 19-38%) of men considering adjuvant or salvage therapy respectively. Among men considering ART, 9% of Decipher low risk patients and 45% of Decipher high-risk patients were recommended treatment. Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that – independent of pathology risk factors, a high-risk Decipher score was associated with an odds ratio of 7.3 (95% CI 3.9-14.2 p < 0.001) in the adjuvant and 5.5 (95% CI, 1.3-27.8, p = 0.026) in the salvage setting. Conclusions: A prospective CTR demonstrated that use of Decipher resulted in significant changes in treatment decisions for Medicare beneficiaries with PCa considering adjuvant and salvage therapies. Ongoing prospective studies aim at determining how increased use of therapy in men with high Decipher risk impacts oncologic outcomes and whether decreased use in Decipher low risk individuals improves health related quality of life without harming patient survival.

Shifting patterns of care in localized prostate cancer: Impact on patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16603-e16603
Author(s):  
Brendan James Connell ◽  
Rima Patel ◽  
Hong Chang ◽  
Tony Luongo ◽  
Liyan Zhuang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Bowel Function ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Patterns Of Care ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Patient Reported

e16603 Background: In localized prostate cancer (LPC), evolving therapeutic techniques and patterns of care including the use of active surveillance (AS) are expected to have had a positive effect on quality of life. A longitudinal assessment of changes in disease presentations and patterns of care in LPC correlated to PROMs is required. Methods: All cases of LPC (T1-T4, N0-N1) at a tertiary care institution were identified between 2005 and 2015. Two cohorts (C1: 2005-10, C2: 2010-15) with a minimum of 2-years follow-up, were identified. Demographics, disease characteristics and management strategies were compared across cohorts. To assess PROMs, a one-time questionnaire including EPIC-26 and Clark’s Quality of Life was administered. Domain summary scores were compared across cohorts. Results: 873 patients met criteria [C1: 422, C2: 535]. Demographics were well balanced (p = 0.10): overall 64.1% white, 12.7% AA, 12.7% Asian. D’Amico risk scores increased over time (p = 0.001): fewer low-risk cases [C1: 49.2%, C2: 43.7%], higher intermediate-risk disease [C1: 34.6%, C2: 40.3%], and stable high-risk proportions [C1: 15.7%, C2: 14.9%]. Patterns of care shifted significantly (p = 0.005) with a marked decrease in radiation therapy [C1: 25.7%, C2: 15.4%], unchanged radical prostatectomy rates [C1: 47.9%, C2: 51.0%], a shift to robotic surgery [C1: 23.8%, C2: 90.3%], and an increase in AS [C1: 21.8%, C2: 30.8%], particularly in low-risk disease [C1: 32.4%, C2: 53.5%]. Questionnaire response rate was 45.1%. Using multivariate regression, C2 demonstrated an improvement in bowel function (p = 0.031) but not in urinary, sexual, or psychometric scores. Conclusions: Notwithstanding an increase in AS utilization for low-risk disease, an improvement in bowel function and lack of improvement in urinary/sexual PROMs in LPC across time-cohorts was noted. This may be accounted for by increased presentations of higher-risk disease managed with robotic surgeries at the expense of radiation therapy. Although time-length bias can influence comparisons, given national trends with a similar shift in presentation and care patterns, these PROM correlations are likely generalizable to the U.S. population.

scholarly journals Local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5126-5126
Author(s):  
M. R. Cooperberg ◽  
J. M. Broering ◽  
P. R. Carroll
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sociodemographic Factors ◽  
Primary Treatment ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Risk Patients

5126 Background: We aimed to characterize and quantify variation in the primary management of localized prostate cancer at the level of clinical practice sites. Methods: Data were abstracted from patients accrued to the CaPSURE national prostate cancer registry. Patients were accrued from the 36 clinical practice sites which contributed at least 30 patients to the registry, and represented all those diagnosed since 1990 with localized disease who received radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), brachytherapy, active surveillance / watchful waiting (WW), or primary androgen deprivation therapy (PADT) were included. Descriptive analyses were performed, and a random effects logit hierarchical model was constructed, controlling for year of diagnosis, age, comorbidity, PSA, Gleason score, clinical T stage, and percent of biopsy cores positive, to estimate the proportion of variation in primary treatment selection explicable by practice site. Analyses were conducted for all patients and for low-risk patients (Gleason score ≤6, PSA ≤10 ng/ml, clinical stage ≤T2a). Results: 10,080 men were analyzed. The distribution among primary treatments at each clinical practice site varied widely: use of RP, for example, ranged from 12% to 95% of enrolled patients. Patterns of treatment are not reliably explained by patient risk distribution at each site. The proportion of variation attributable to clinical practice sites was 10% for PADT, 19% for WW, 21% for EBRT, 28% for RP, 37% for brachytherapy, and 75% for cryotherapy. For low-risk patients only, this proportion was higher for all treatment types except brachytherapy and cryotherapy. Only a small amount of the variation attributable to practice site can be explained by measured sociodemographic factors such as ethnicity, income, education, and geographic region. There are significant trends in treatments over time, including more use of PADT for intermediate- and high-risk patients, and more use of RP and WW for low-risk patients. Conclusions: These data do not represent a random sampling of the United States population. However, the significant variation in practice patterns across individual clinical sites suggests that factors other than patient clinical and sociodemographic factors may be driving selection of primary treatment. [Table: see text]

Prostate cancer–specific mortality after definitive radiation therapy: Who dies of disease?

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 181-181
Author(s):  
M. M. Kim ◽  
K. E. Hoffman ◽  
L. B. Levy ◽  
S. J. Frank ◽  
S. Choi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
High Risk Disease ◽  
Specific Mortality ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Cancer Specific Mortality

181 Background: A competing risks analysis was undertaken to identify patient subgroups at greatest risk of dying from prostate cancer (CAP) after treatment with definitive external beam radiation therapy (RT) +/− androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the PSA era, and to determine which factors predict for survival from disease. Methods: A total of 2,675 men with localized CAP treated with RT +/− ADT at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center from 1987-2007 were evaluated. Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and other cause mortality rates were calculated after stratifying patients according to NCCN risk group, RT dose, use of ADT, and age at treatment. In total, 21% had low-risk, 40% had intermediate-risk, and 39% had high-risk disease. Multivariate analysis (MVA) was performed using Cox regression modeling. Results: Median age was 68.5 years and median follow-up was 6.4 years. For patients with low-risk disease, only 0.2% died of CAP 10 years after treatment. None of the low-risk patients <70 years old who received ≥72 Gy died of CAP. The majority of deaths in the intermediate-risk group were also due to other causes; men ≥70 years old who received <72 Gy had the highest 10-year PCSM (5%). High-risk patients <70 years old who received <72 Gy without ADT had similar 10-year rates of CAP (15.2%) and non-CAP (18.5%) mortality. Men with high-risk disease <70 years old treated with higher doses >72 Gy were twice as likely to die from non-CAP causes (15.9%) than die from CAP (8.6%). In older men ≥70 years old with high risk disease, dose-escalation with ADT reduced 10-year PCSM from 14% to 4%, and most deaths were due to other causes (41% and 20%). On MVA, dose (p=0.002), ADT (p=0.007), PSA (p<0.0001) and Gleason score (p<0.0001) were predictive of PCSM in the high-risk group. Conclusions: Men with low- and intermediate-risk CAP treated with definitive RT are unlikely to die of disease. PCSM is higher in men with high-risk disease but can be reduced with dose escalation and ADT, although patients are still twice as likely to die of other causes. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Role of Radiotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joelle Helou ◽  
Andrew Loblaw
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Pathologic Features ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Postoperative Setting

Radiation is a standard treatment approach in the treatment of prostate cancer, in either a definitive or postoperative setting. There is mounting evidence of improved cancer outcomes with higher doses of radiation in all risk categories, including low-risk prostate cancer patients. Technical advances with the emergence of inverse planning intensity-modulated techniques combined with image guidance have allowed for dose escalation using external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT). However, despite more accurate treatment delivery, dose-escalated radiation has consistently translated into increased toxicity. Stereotactic body radiotherapy and brachytherapy offer great means of dose escalation to the prostate without increasing the dose to the surrounding organs. Radiation options for low-risk patients include hypofractionated EBRT and brachytherapy monotherapy. Intermediate-risk patients can be divided into favorable and unfavorable groups. For favorable-risk disease, monotherapeutic approaches could be considered, whereas for unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk disease, a combination of therapies must be considered. In the postoperative setting, adjuvant radiation improves biochemical outcomes in patients with adverse pathologic features (pT3 and/or positive margins).   This review contains 2 figures, 5 tables, 1 video and 135 refereces Key words: prostate cancer, radiation therapy, brachytherapy, stereotactic ablative body radiation, hypofractionation, hormonal therapy

Role of Radiotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joelle Helou ◽  
Andrew Loblaw
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Pathologic Features ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Postoperative Setting

Radiation is a standard treatment approach in the treatment of prostate cancer, in either a definitive or postoperative setting. There is mounting evidence of improved cancer outcomes with higher doses of radiation in all risk categories, including low-risk prostate cancer patients. Technical advances with the emergence of inverse planning intensity-modulated techniques combined with image guidance have allowed for dose escalation using external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT). However, despite more accurate treatment delivery, dose-escalated radiation has consistently translated into increased toxicity. Stereotactic body radiotherapy and brachytherapy offer great means of dose escalation to the prostate without increasing the dose to the surrounding organs. Radiation options for low-risk patients include hypofractionated EBRT and brachytherapy monotherapy. Intermediate-risk patients can be divided into favorable and unfavorable groups. For favorable-risk disease, monotherapeutic approaches could be considered, whereas for unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk disease, a combination of therapies must be considered. In the postoperative setting, adjuvant radiation improves biochemical outcomes in patients with adverse pathologic features (pT3 and/or positive margins).   This review contains 2 figures, 5 tables, 1 video and 135 refereces Key words: prostate cancer, radiation therapy, brachytherapy, stereotactic ablative body radiation, hypofractionation, hormonal therapy

Is radiation therapy superior to conservative management in men with localized prostate cancer?

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 73-73
Author(s):  
G. L. Lu-Yao ◽  
S. Kim ◽  
D. Moore ◽  
W. Shih ◽  
Y. Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Disease Specific Survival ◽  
Moderate Risk ◽  
Geographic Variations ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Disease Specific

73 Background: Radiation therapy is commonly employed for localized prostate cancer; however, there is little data regarding the comparative effectiveness of radiation therapy (RAD) vs. conservative management (CM). Methods: We performed a population-based cohort study, using Medicare claims data linked to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, to evaluate outcomes in 42,039 men aged 65-85 years treated with either primary RAD or CM for T1-T2 prostate cancer diagnosed in 1992-2005. To overcome potential biases associated with unmeasured confounding variables, we used instrumental variable analysis (IVA), a pseudo-randomization technique that captures the randomness associated with geographic variations in the use of RAD, to control for overt and hidden confounders. Results: The majority of patients (57%) had low-risk disease (Gleason score ≤7, PSA <10, and T stage ≤T2a), and RAD was commonly used (60%) with considerable geographic variations. With median age 74 years and median follow-up 119 months, higher RAD use was not associated with improved survival in low-risk patients (10-year disease-specific survival differed by −0.9%, 94.9% vs. 95.8% in the highest and lowest tertile RAD use areas respectively; 95% C.I. −.1 to 0.6%). Among high-risk patients (Gleason score >7 or PSA >20), highest tertile RAD areas showed a borderline improved (2.7%) 10-year disease-survival (83.9% vs. 81.2% in the highest and lowest tertile radiation use areas; 95% C.I. −1.1% to 7.0%). The results in the moderate-risk group were between that of the low- and high-risk group. Primary RAD did not reduce future ADT use (odds ratios 0.95 for low-risk, 1.02 for moderate-risk, and 1.07 for high-risk with corresponding P values of 0.50, 0.86, and 0.51, respectively). Conclusions: In patients aged over 65 years old with low-risk prostate cancer, primary RAD is unlikely to improve 10-year disease-specific survival or prevent future ADT use. Weighing the potential risks and benefits of radiation therapy is critical for decision making. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document