The impact of comorbidity on survival among men with localized prostate cancer.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. L. Lu-Yao ◽  
D. Moore ◽  
W. Shih ◽  
Y. Lin ◽  
H. Li ◽  
...  

8 Background: To provide patients and clinicians more accurate estimates of co-morbidity specific survival stratified by patient age, tumor stage and tumor grade. Methods: We conducted a ten year competing risk analysis of 19,639 men age 66 years and older identified by the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program linked to Medicare program files. All men were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and received no surgery or radiation within 180 days of diagnosis. The analysis was stratified by tumor grade and stage and by age and co-morbidity at diagnosis classified using the Charlson co-morbidity index. Underlying causes of death were obtained from SEER. Results: During the first ten years following diagnosis men with moderately and poorly differentiated prostate cancer were more likely to die from causes other than their disease. For men age 66-74 years with stage T1c Gleason score 5-7 disease at diagnosis, ten year overall mortality rates and prostate cancer specific rates were 28.8%, 50.5%, 83.1% and 4.8%, 2.0%, 5.3% respectively for men with Charlson scores 0, 1 and > 2. For men age 66-74 years with T1c Gleason score 8-10 disease at diagnosis, the corresponding rates were 55.0%, 52.0%, 64.3% and 25.7%, 20.2%, 13.7% respectively for men with Charlson scores 0, 1, > 2. Death from competing medical hazards was roughly comparable for men with stage T2 disease and higher for all men over age 75. Conclusions: Patients and clinicians should consider using co-morbidity specific data to estimate the threat posed by localized prostate cancer. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

1996 ◽  
Vol 156 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter C. Albertsen ◽  
Dennis G. Fryback ◽  
Barry E. Storer ◽  
Thomas F. Kolon ◽  
Judith Fine

1996 ◽  
pp. 127-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter C. Albertsen ◽  
Dennis G. Fryback ◽  
Barry E. Storer ◽  
Thomas F. Kolon ◽  
Judith Fine

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (10) ◽  
pp. 1335-1341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter C. Albertsen ◽  
Dirk F. Moore ◽  
Weichung Shih ◽  
Yong Lin ◽  
Hui Li ◽  
...  

Purpose To provide patients and clinicians more accurate estimates of comorbidity-specific survival stratified by patient age, tumor stage, and tumor grade. Patients and Methods We conducted a 10-year competing risk analysis of 19,639 men 66 years of age and older identified by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program linked to Medicare program files. All men were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and received no surgery or radiation within 180 days of diagnosis. The analysis was stratified by tumor grade and stage and by age and comorbidity at diagnosis classified using the Charlson comorbidity index. Underlying causes of death were obtained from SEER. Results During the first 10 years after diagnosis, men with moderately and poorly differentiated prostate cancer were more likely to die from causes other than their disease. Depending on patient age, Gleason score, and number of comorbidities present at diagnosis, 5-year overall mortality rates for men with stage T1c disease ranged from 11.7% (95% CI, 10.2% to 13.1%) to 65.7% (95% CI, 55.9% to 70.1%), and prostate cancer–specific mortality rates ranged from 1.1% (95% CI, 0.0% to 2.7%) to 16.3% (95% CI, 13.8% to 19.4%). Ten-year overall mortality rates ranged from 28.8% (95% CI, 25.3% to 32.6%) to 94.3% (95% CI, 87.4% to 100%), and prostate cancer–specific mortality rates ranged from 2.0% (95% CI, 0.0% to 5.3%) to 27.5% (95% CI, 21.5% to 36.5%). Conclusion Patients and clinicians should consider using comorbidity-specific data to estimate the threat posed by newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer and the threat posed by competing medical hazards.


2008 ◽  
Vol 136 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 373-378
Author(s):  
Tatjana Josifovski ◽  
Ljiljana Radosevic-Jelic ◽  
Cane Tulic ◽  
Aleksandar Milosevic

INTRODUCTION Although there is no consensus on which is the best option in prostate cancer treatment, these patients could be successfully treated with radiotherapy. Regarding some prognostic factors, it is possible today to classify prostate cancer patients into several risk groups for clinical and biochemical relapse, and therefore to choose the right treatment modality. OBJECTIVE The objective in our study was to analyze the impact of tumor stage and grade, previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TUR), initial prostate specific antigen (PSA) level and age on disease relapse after radical radiotherapy of the prostate cancer. METHOD Between January 1991 and December 2005, a clinical, retrospective study was performed at the Radiotherapy Department of the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, which included 283 patients with prostate cancer treated only with radical radiotherapy. During regular follow-up we analyzed response to treatment and disease relapse. RESULTS After radical radiotherapy disease relapse more often occurred (with statistical significance) in patients with locally advanced tumor (stage C 35% vs. A 13% vs. B 19%), low tumor grade (grade III 38% vs. grade II 23% vs. grade I 17%), initial PSA level over 10 ng/ml (29%) and over 20 ng/ml (37%) compared to 11% in the patients with initial PSA level below10 ng/ml, and patients of lower age (less than 55 years 50% vs. 16% in patients over 70 years). CONCLUSION Tumor stage C, low tumor grade (grade II-III), initial PSA level over 10 ng/ml (over 20 ng/ml) and younger age are poor prognostic factors for disease relapse. In this case, radiotherapy as monotherapy is not an adequate approach, and it needs to be combined with other therapeutic modalities.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 96-96
Author(s):  
Daniel Taussky ◽  
Julie Piotte ◽  
Kevin Zorn ◽  
Marc Zanaty ◽  
Vimal Krishnan ◽  
...  

96 Background: To investigate the impact of 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) usage on radiotherapy outcomes for localized prostate cancer. Methods: From our institutional database of over 2500 patients, we identified 203 patients on a 5-ARI. They were all treated with either external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. Patients receiving a 5-ARI were analyzed according to the following prostate cancer progression criteria: a) progression of Gleason score or increase in cancer volume on the biopsy, b) first biopsy positive for cancer after being treated for urinary symptoms with a 5-ARI, and c) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression with or without a previous cancer diagnosis. Biochemical failure (BF) was defined by the Phoenix definition. Log-rank test was used for survival analysis. Results: At a median follow-up of 36 months (interquartile range [IQR] 22-52 months), 10 (4.9%) patients experienced BF. 52% of men demonstrated none of the progression criteria, 37% showed only one prostate cancer progression criteria and 11% showed two. Using a univariate analysis, PSA progression (p = 0.004) and appearance of a positive biopsy (p < 0.001) but not Gleason progression (p = 0.3) were a significant predictive factor of BF. With separate multivariate analysis adjusted for the CAPRA score (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.3, p = 0.003), a rising PSA (HR 5.7, 95% CI 1.1-28.8, p = 0.04) and the number of cancer progression factors (HR 2.9, 95%CI 1.2-7.0, p = 0.02) remained adverse risk factors. Both Gleason score progression (p = 0.4) and first biopsy positive for cancer (p = 0.13) failed to remain significant. Age and obesity were not significant factors in univariate or multivariate analysis. Conclusions: A PSA progression experienced while under 5-ARI treatment before EBRT or brachytherapy is predictive of worse biochemical outcome. Such details should be considered when counseling men prior to radiation therapy.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 117955571774013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Luiz Serrano Usón ◽  
Ricardo Silvestre e Silva Macarenco ◽  
Fernando Nunes Oliveira ◽  
Oren Smaletz

Background: The Gleason score is an essential tool in the decision to treat localized prostate cancer. However, experienced pathologists can classify Gleason score differently than do low-volume pathologists, and this may affect the treatment decision. This study sought to assess the impact of pathology review of external biopsy specimens from 23 men with a recent diagnosis of localized prostate cancer. Methods: All external biopsy specimens were reviewed at our pathology department. Data were retrospectively collected from scanned charts. Results: The median patient age was 63 years (range: 46-74 years). All patients had a Karnofsky performance score of 90% to 100%. The median prostate-specific antigen level was 23.6 ng/dL (range: 1.04-13.6 ng/dL). Among the 23 reviews, the Gleason score changed for 8 (35%) patients: 7 upgraded and 1 downgraded. The new Gleason score affected the treatment decision in 5 of 8 cases (62.5%). Conclusions: This study demonstrates the need for pathology review in patients with localized prostate cancer before treatment because Gleason score can change in more than one-third of patients and can affect treatment decision in almost two-thirds of recategorized patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document