Counterpoint: The Case for Immediate Active Treatment

2007 ◽  
Vol 5 (7) ◽  
pp. 699-702
Author(s):  
Stacy Loeb ◽  
William J. Catalona

Active monitoring strategies recently have received attention as possible treatment options for men with low-risk prostate cancer who have a life expectancy of more than 10 years. However, no current criteria sufficiently predict outcomes for individuals with clinically localized disease and an otherwise long life expectancy who undergo either immediate or delayed treatment, or no treatment. This article describes the available evidence regarding treatment outcomes in men with low-risk prostate cancer and presents the case for immediate active treatment.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard M. Hoffman ◽  
Stephen K. Van Den Eeden ◽  
Kimberly M. Davis ◽  
Tania Lobo ◽  
George Luta ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 161-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayal A. Aizer ◽  
Xiangmei Gu ◽  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Neil E. Martin ◽  
Jim C. Hu ◽  
...  

161 Background: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends active surveillance as the sole option for men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) and a life expectancy <10 years. We sought to describe the incidence, risk factors, cost, and morbidity related to overtreatment of LRPC within the United States. Methods: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Program to identify 11,744 men ≥66 years with LRPC diagnosed from 2004-2007. Expected survival was estimated using the 2007 Social Security Life Table and was increased and decreased by 50% in men in the upper and lower quartiles of comorbidity, respectively, as specified by the NCCN. Overtreatment was definitive treatment in men with LRPC and life expectancy <10 years. Costs were the amount paid by Medicare in the year following minus the year prior to diagnosis. Toxicities were defined as relevant Medicare diagnoses or interventions. Results: Of 3001 men with LRPC and a life expectancy <10 years, 2011 (67%) were treated definitively. On multivariable logistic regression, men overtreated for prostate cancer were more likely to be younger (p<.001), white (vs black, OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.03-2.02, p=.03), married (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05-1.61, p=.02), urban (trend, OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.98-2.00, p=.06), have higher Elixhauser comorbidity (p<.001), and have a higher clinical stage (T2 vs T1, OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.19-2.07, p=.001) and prostate-specific antigen level (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.02-1.02, p<.001). Relative to expectant management, the mean added cost per definitive treatment was $15,308. When extrapolated nationally the cumulative net cost of overtreatment in men ≥66 years is $32 million per annum. Long-term urinary, erectile, and bowel toxicity occurred in 59.2% and 50.0%, 47.9% and 19.7%, and 7.1% and 17.8% of prostatectomy and radiation patients, respectively. Conclusions: Overtreatment of prostate cancer is partially driven by sociodemographic factors and occurs in a high percentage of men with LRPC and limited life expectancy, with marked impact on patient quality of life and health care costs. Efforts to enhance appropriate management of LRPC would reduce the harms associated with screening.


2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e291
Author(s):  
I.C. Acar ◽  
C. Schoffelmeer ◽  
C. Tillier ◽  
W. De Blok ◽  
E. Van Muilekom ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 531-535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katsuyoshi Hashine ◽  
Hiroyuki Iio ◽  
Yoshiteru Ueno ◽  
Shohei Tsukimori ◽  
Iku Ninomiya

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 68-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Maurice ◽  
Robert Abouassaly ◽  
Hui Zhu

68 Background: Expectant management (EM), including active surveillance and watchful waiting, is a strategy to minimize prostate cancer overtreatment. We sought to evaluate contemporary trends in EM utilization and to identify factors associated with its uptake. Methods: Using the National Cancer Database, a joint project of the Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons and the American Cancer Society, we identified men with biopsy-proven low-risk (Gleason score 6 or lower, no Gleason pattern 4 or 5, cT1-cT2a) prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2011. We then classified men within this cohort as having undergone EM (no first-course surgery, radiation, hormone therapy, or chemotherapy) or active treatment. Patient and provider variables were analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models to determine predictors of EM selection. Results: Of 287,562 men with low-risk prostate cancer, we identified 34,132 patients (11.9%) who received EM. Beginning in 2008, we observed a significant and steady rise in EM usage with time (range, 9.8% to 18.6%). Compared to 2004, patients diagnosed in 2011 had 2.5 times the odds of receiving EM (odds ratio [OR] 2.52, confidence interval [CI] 2.39-2.64, p<0.0001). Aside from year of diagnosis, age, and Charlson score were strong predictors of EM usage (p<0.0001). Other strong predictors of EM included hospital type and insurance provider. Specifically, patients who were treated at comprehensive cancer centers or who had personal health insurance were significantly less likely to receive EM (OR 0.63, 0.60-0.66, p<0.0001 or OR 0.90, CI 0.88-0.93, p<0.0001, respectively). Patient race, income, and area of residence as well as hospital location were significantly but weakly associated with EM. Conclusions: In recent years, low-risk prostate cancer has been increasingly managed with EM, especially in older patients or patients with multiple comorbidities, who are least likely to benefit from active treatment. Unexpectedly, hospital type and insurance provider also predict EM usage, calling into question whether non-clinical factors are influencing EM selection.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document