Racial disparities in stage IV prostate cancer outcomes in the Veterans Affairs hospital system.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 199-199
Author(s):  
I. Al-Howaidi ◽  
L. Shatat ◽  
T. Tashi ◽  
W. Gonsalves ◽  
P. T. Silberstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Racial Disparities ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Veterans Affairs ◽  
Hospital System ◽  
Significant Difference

199 Background: Epidemiological studies have demonstrated that African-American (AA) men with prostate cancer have lower overall survival and cancer-specific survival rates than Caucasian (CA) men with prostate cancer. We aim to assess whether racial disparities exist for prostate cancer within an equal access health care system like the Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals. Methods: A retrospective analysis of AA and CA with metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 1995 to 2007 via the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry was conducted. Age, Race and type of treatment received were studied with respect to overall survival by using log-rank and Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: A total of 8,195 patients with advanced prostate cancer were analyzed, majority of them where CA (66.32%), 30.8% were AA and 2.8% belonged to other races. The median survival for AA was 2.71 years, 2.88 years in CA and 4.02 years in other races (P value <0.0001). Subgroup analysis based on treatment modality used showed the following median survival rates in years: No treatment (CA: 1.73, AA: 1.39, other races: 3.79, P<0.816), Hormonal therapy alone (CA: 2.51,AA: 2.45, Others:3.72, P<0.022), Radiation therapy alone (CA: 2.2, AA: 2.7, Others: 2.26, P<0.832), combined hormone and radiation therapy (CA: 2.71, AA: 2.31, Others: 6.64, P<0.029). However when CA and AA survival were compared excluding other races there was no statistically significant difference in survival irrespective of type of therapy received. Conclusions: In advanced prostate cancer, AA and CA have uniformly poor prognosis. Type of therapy received did not influence the survival of both races. The numbers for other races is too small to make a definitive conclusion regarding their prognosis. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Achieving PSA < 0.2 ng/ml before Radiation Therapy Is a Strong Predictor of Treatment Success in Patients with High-Risk Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Akira Kazama ◽  
Toshihiro Saito ◽  
Keisuke Takeda ◽  
Kazuhiro Kobayashi ◽  
Toshiki Tanikawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Treatment Outcome ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
T Stage

Background. To predict long-term treatment outcome of radiation therapy (RT) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer. Methods. In total, 204 patients with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high risk locally advanced prostate cancer (PSA > 20 ng/ml, Gleason score ≧ 8, clinical T stage ≧ 3a) were treated with definitive RT with ADT. Median follow up period was 113 months (IQR: 95–128). Median neoadjuvant ADT and total ADT duration were 7 months (IQR: 6–10) and 27 months (IQR: 14–38), respectively. Results. PSA recurrence-free survival (PSA-RFS), cancer specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years were 84.1%, 98.5%, and 93.6%, respectively, and 67.9%, 91.2%, and 78.1%, respectively, at 10 years. Pre-RT PSA less than 0.2 ng/ml was associated with superior outcomes of PSA-RFS (HR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.25–0.70, p=0.001), CSS (HR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.09–0.82, p=0.013), and OS (HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.26–0.91, p=0.021). On multivariate analysis, age (≥70 y.o.) and pre-RT PSA (≥0.2 ng/ml) were factors predictive of poorer OS (p=0.032) , but iPSA, T stage, Gleason score, number of NCCN high-risk criteria, a combination with anti-androgen therapy and neoadjuvant ADT duration were not predictive of treatment outcome. Conclusion. In patient with high-risk prostate cancer, RT plus ADT achieved good oncologic outcomes. PSA < 0.2 ng/ml before radiation therapy is a strong independent predictor for long overall survival.

Long-term results of Intergroup RTOG 91–11: A phase III trial to preserve the larynx—Induction cisplatin/5-FU and radiation therapy versus concurrent cisplatin and radiation therapy versus radiation therapy

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5517-5517 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. A. Forastiere ◽  
M. Maor ◽  
R. S. Weber ◽  
T. Pajak ◽  
B. Glisson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Lower Death Rate

5517 Background: The 2-year results of Intergroup RTOG 91–11 were published in 2003 (NEJM 349:2091–8,2003). We now present the 5-year results (after median follow-up for surviving patients of 6.9 years) of 515 eligible pts with resectable stage III or IV (excluding T1 and high volume T4), cancer of the glottic or supraglottic larynx. Methods: Patients were randomized to induction cisplatin/5-FU (CF) with responders then receiving RT (I+RT) (n = 173); or concurrent cisplatin (100 mg/m2 q 21 days × 3) and RT (CRT) (n = 171); or RT alone (R) (n = 171). Laryngectomy was performed for < partial response to induction CF, for persistent/recurrent disease or for laryngeal dysfunction. Results: At 5 years, laryngectomy-free survival (LFS) was significantly better with either I+RT (44.6%, p = 0.011) or CRT (46.6%, p = 0.011) compared to R (33.9%). There was no difference in LFS between I+RT and CRT (p = 0.98). Laryngeal preservation (LP) was significantly better with CRT (83.6%) compared to I+RT (70.5%, p = 0.0029) or R (65.7%, p = 0.00017). Local-regional control (LRC) was significantly better with CRT (68.8%) compared to I+RT (54.9%, p = 0.0018) or R (51%, p = 0.0005). I+RT compared to R for LP and LRC showed no significant difference (p = 0.37 and 0.62, respectively). The distant metastatic rate was low (I+RT 14.3%, CRT 13.2%, R 22.3%) with a trend (p ∼0.06) for benefit from chemotherapy. Disease-free survival (DFS) was significantly better with either I+RT (38.6%, p = 0.016) or CRT (39%, p = 0.0058) compared to R (27.3%). Overall survival rates were similar for the first 5 years (I+RT 59.2%, CRT 54.6%, R 53.5%); thereafter I+RT had a non-significant lower death rate. Compared to CRT, significantly more pts in the R group died of their cancer (34% vs 58.3%, p = 0.0007); the rate for I+RT was 43.8%. Conclusion: These 5-year results differ from the 2-year analysis by a significant improvement in LFS now seen for both I+RT and CRT treatments compared to R. For the endpoints of LP and LRC, CRT is still the superior treatment with no advantage seen to the addition of induction CF to R. There is no significant difference in overall survival. [Table: see text]

Racial disparities in stage II prostate cancer outcomes in the Veterans Affairs hospital system.

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6119-6119
Author(s):  
D. Crockett ◽  
W. Gonsalves ◽  
T. Tashi ◽  
I. Aldoss ◽  
A. R. Sama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Racial Disparities ◽  
Veterans Affairs ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Cancer Outcomes ◽  
Hospital System

Small cell carcinoma of the prostate: National patterns of care and outcomes.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9-9
Author(s):  
Zachary D. Horne ◽  
Ryan P Smith ◽  
Sushil Beriwal ◽  
Ronny Kalash ◽  
Ashwin Shinde ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Cancer Data

9 Background: Small cell prostate cancer (SCPC) is a rare entity with treatment patterns extrapolated from small cell cancer of the lung. Outcomes have been evaluated in small series but prognostic factors are relatively poorly defined. Methods: We utilized the National Cancer Data Base to analyze men diagnosed with SCPC from 2004-2015. Only men with known clinical TNM staging, treatment modalities, and follow up were included. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed and compared with Kaplan-Meier, log-rank, and Cox proportional hazards ratios. Associations with baseline and tumor properties were performed with Chi-squared, independent t-test, and bivariate regression analyses. Results: 800 men with SCPC were identified. Median PSA was 79.0 ng/dL. 55.6% of men had cM1 disease at diagnosis, 31.4% had cN0M0 disease, and 13.0% were cN1M0. Median follow up was 12.4 months for all patients and 19.3 months for cM0 patients. Median survival for cM1, cN0M0, and cN1M0 patients was 9.8, 28.5, and 17.1 months, respectively (p<0.001). In cM0 patients, 66 (18.7%) underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), 177 (50.1%) received radiation therapy (XRT), and 195 (45.2%) received chemotherapy (CT). Median survival for men undergoing RP was not reached vs those who did not undergo RP (p<0.001). XRT also showed a trend towards improved median OS (25.2 vs. 19.1 months, p=0.139). On multivariable analysis for cM0 men, only age (HR 1.044 [95% CI 1.025-10.64] p<0.001), cN1 (HR 1.378 [95% CI 1.001-1.898] p=0.050, RP (HR 0.429 [95% CI 0.259-0.709] p=0.001), and XRT (HR 0.520 [95% CI 0.384-0.704] p<0.001) were predictive for overall survival. When examining only men who received systemic therapy, XRT was the only additional treatment modality to exhibit a survival benefit (HR 0.623 [95% CI 0.425-0.912] p=0.015). Of men with cM1 disease, 78 (17.5%) underwent definitive local therapy (RP/XRT), but no difference in OS was observed. Conclusions: Small cell prostate cancer is an aggressive disease with the majority of men presenting with metastases. In those with pelvis-confined disease who are fit for systemic therapy, radiation therapy to the primary should be considered.

Ten-Year Follow-Up of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 92-02: A Phase III Trial of the Duration of Elective Androgen Deprivation in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (15) ◽  
pp. 2497-2504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric M. Horwitz ◽  
Kyounghwa Bae ◽  
Gerald E. Hanks ◽  
Arthur Porter ◽  
David J. Grignon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
End Points

PurposeTo determine whether adding 2 years of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improved outcome for patients electively treated with ADT before and during radiation therapy (RT).Patients and MethodsProstate cancer patients with T2c-T4 prostate cancer with no extra pelvic lymph node involvement and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) less than 150 ng/mL were included. All patients received 4 months of goserelin and flutamide before and during RT. They were randomized to no further ADT (short-term ADT [STAD] + RT) or 24 months of goserelin (long-term ADT [LTAD] + RT). A total of 1,554 patients were entered. RT was 45 Gy to the pelvic nodes and 65 to 70 Gy to the prostate. Median follow-up of all survival patients is 11.31 and 11.27 years for the two arms.ResultsAt 10 years, the LTAD + RT group showed significant improvement over the STAD + RT group for all end points except overall survival: disease-free survival (13.2% v 22.5%; P < .0001), disease-specific survival (83.9% v 88.7%; P = .0042), local progression (22.2% v 12.3%; P < .0001), distant metastasis (22.8% v 14.8%; P < .0001), biochemical failure (68.1% v 51.9%; P ≤ .0001), and overall survival (51.6% v 53.9%, P = .36). One subgroup analyzed consisted of all cancers with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 cancers. An overall survival difference was observed (31.9% v 45.1%; P = .0061), as well as in all other end points herein.ConclusionLTAD as delivered in this study for the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer is superior to STAD for all end points except survival. A survival advantage for LTAD + RT in the treatment of locally advanced tumors with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 suggests that this should be the standard of treatment for these high-risk patients.

scholarly journals Comparison of single- and five-fraction schedules of stereotactic body radiation therapy for central lung tumours: a single institution experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung Jun Ma ◽  
Yusef A. Syed ◽  
Charlotte I. Rivers ◽  
Jorge A. Gomez Suescun ◽  
Anurag K. Singh
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Single Institution ◽  
Lung Tumours ◽  
Stereotactic Body Radiation ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractBackgroundStereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a treatment option for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer who are medically inoperable or decline surgery. Here we compare the outcome of patients with centrally located lung tumours who underwent either single fraction (SF)- or five-fraction (FF-) SBRT at a single institution over 5 years.MethodsBetween January 2009 and October 2014, patients with centrally located lung tumours who underwent SBRT were included in this study. Data were retrospectively collected using an institutional review board-approved database. For analysis, the Kaplan–Meier method and competing risks method were used.ResultsIn total, 11 patients received 26–30 Gy in 1 fraction, whereas 31 patients received 50–60 Gy (median 55 Gy) in 5 fractions. After a median follow-up of 12 months for SF-SBRT and 17 months for FF-SBRT groups (p=0·64), 1-year overall survival rates were 82 and 87%, respectively. SF- and FF-SBRT groups showed no significant difference in grade 3+ toxicity (p=0·28). The only grade 4 toxicity (n=1) was reported in the SF-SBRT group. All toxicities occurred >12 months after the SBRT.ConclusionsSF- and FF-SBRT have comparable overall survival. SF-SBRT may have some utility for patients unable to have multi-fraction SBRT.

The effect of front-line chemotherapy on overall survival in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18560-e18560
Author(s):  
Emin Tamer Elkiran ◽  
Alper Sevinc ◽  
Hakan Harputluoglu
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Pleural Mesothelioma ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Platinum Analogues ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

e18560 Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a relatively rare, but aggressive tumor that causes high mortality. The major risk factor involved in the etiology is environmental and occupational exposure to asbestos. The optimal modality of therapy is controversial. Methods: The present study retrospectively evaluated the 141 patients from the database. Results: There were 80 males and 61 females with a mean age of 56 ± 1.07 years. The median survival in patients who were administered front-line chemotherapy was 17 months (95% CI: 13.19-20.81). 106 patients were administered pemetrexed-platinum combination and 35 patients were administered gemcitabine-platinum combination as front-line chemotherapy. For the patients who received pemetrexed-platinum regimen, a median of 6 cycles of chemotherapy was administered and 50 patients (47.2%) were able to receive all 6 cycles as planned. For the patients who received gemcitabine-platinum regimen, a median of 6 cycles of chemotherapy was administered and 19 patients (54.3%) were able to receive all 6 cycles. Median survival was found 16 months in the pemetrexed-platinum regimen and 26 months in the gemcitabine- platinum regimen. There was no statistically significant difference between the patients who received pemetrexed-platinum and gemcitabine-platinum regimens in terms of the median overall survival (p = 0.15). Conclusions: Results of our study suggest that chemotherapy prolongs overall survival. Survival rates in patients who received combining platinum analogues with pemetrexed or gemcitabine as front-line chemotherapy were found to be similar.

Overall survival advantage with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 37-37
Author(s):  
Christopher David Kosarek ◽  
Stephen Bentley Williams ◽  
Jinhai Huo ◽  
Karim Chamie ◽  
Marc C. Smaldone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Proportional Hazards ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Survival Advantage ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Significant Difference

37 Background: To compare overall survival of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy versus non-cancer controls in order to discern if there is a survival advantage according to prostate cancer treatment. Methods: A matched cohort study was performedusingthe Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database. We identified 34,473 patients age 66 to 75 years without significant comorbidity from who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer treated with surgery or radiotherapy between 2004 and 2011. These patients were matched to a non-cancer control cohort. We compared the rates of all-cause mortality that occurred within the study period. We used Cox Proportional Hazards Regression analysis to identify determinants associated with overall survival. Results: Of the total 34,473 patients who were included in the analysis, 21,740 (63%) received radiation therapy and 12,733 (37%) received surgery. When compared to the non-cancer control, there was no significant difference between the prostate cancer cohort and the non-cancer control group with exception of race/ethnicity (p < 0.001). There was improved survival in patients treated with surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.32-0.38) as well as with radiotherapy (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.68-0.75) when compared to non-cancer controls. There was significantly improved overall survival among both treatment groups with most benefit observed among patients who underwent surgery ( log rank p < 0.001). Conclusions: Using population based data, treatment with either surgery or radiotherapy demonstrated improved overall survival when compared to a cohort of matched non-cancer controls. Treatment with surgery resulted in longer overall survival compared to those receiving radiation therapy. These results suggest inherent selection-bias due to unmeasured confounding variables when using cancer registry data.

scholarly journals Survival rates and prognostic factors in right- and left-sided colon cancer stage I–IV: an unselected retrospective single-center trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudius E. Degro ◽  
Richard Strozynski ◽  
Florian N. Loch ◽  
Christian Schineis ◽  
Fiona Speichinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Blood Level ◽  
Proportional Hazards ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Cancer Stage ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Purpose Colorectal cancer revealed over the last decades a remarkable shift with an increasing proportion of a right- compared to a left-sided tumor location. In the current study, we aimed to disclose clinicopathological differences between right- and left-sided colon cancer (rCC and lCC) with respect to mortality and outcome predictors. Methods In total, 417 patients with colon cancer stage I–IV were analyzed in the present retrospective single-center study. Survival rates were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method and uni/multivariate analyses were performed with a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Results Our study showed no significant difference of the overall survival between rCC and lCC stage I–IV (p = 0.354). Multivariate analysis revealed in the rCC cohort the worst outcome for ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score IV patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 16.0; CI 95%: 2.1–123.5), CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) blood level > 100 µg/l (HR: 3.3; CI 95%: 1.2–9.0), increased lymph node ratio of 0.6–1.0 (HR: 5.3; CI 95%: 1.7–16.1), and grade 4 tumors (G4) (HR: 120.6; CI 95%: 6.7–2179.6) whereas in the lCC population, ASA score IV (HR: 8.9; CI 95%: 0.9–91.9), CEA blood level 20.1–100 µg/l (HR: 5.4; CI 95%: 2.4–12.4), conversion to laparotomy (HR: 14.1; CI 95%: 4.0–49.0), and severe surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo III–IV) (HR: 2.9; CI 95%: 1.5–5.5) were identified as predictors of a diminished overall survival. Conclusion Laterality disclosed no significant effect on the overall prognosis of colon cancer patients. However, group differences and distinct survival predictors could be identified in rCC and lCC patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document