Observation Versus Treatment Among Men with Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer in a Community-based Integrated Health Care System: a Retrospective Cohort Study

Overview

Journal BMC Urol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Urology

Date 2018 Jun 6

PMID 29866100

Citations 2

Authors

Furaha Kariburyo

Yuexi Wang

I-Ning Elaine Cheng

Lisa Wang

David Morgenstern

Lin Xie

Eric Meadows

John Danella

Michael L Cher

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The objective of this study was to describe overall survival and the management of men with favorable risk prostate cancer (PCa) within a large community-based health care system in the United States.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using linked electronic health records from men aged ≥40 years with favorable risk PCa (T1 or 2, PSA ≤15, Gleason ≤7 [3 + 4]) diagnosed between January 2005 and October 2013. Cohorts were defined as receiving any treatment (IMT) or no treatment (OBS) within 6 months after index PCa diagnosis. Cohorts' characteristics were compared between OBS and IMT; monitoring patterns were reported for OBS within the first 18 and 24 months. Cox Proportional Hazards models were used for multivariate analysis of overall survival.

Results: A total of 1425 men met the inclusion criteria (OBS 362; IMT 1063). The proportion of men managed with OBS increased from 20% (2005) to 35% (2013). The OBS group was older (65.6 vs 62.8 years, p < 0.01), had higher Charlson comorbidity index scores (CCI ≥2, 21.5% vs 12.2%, p < 0.01), and had a higher proportion of low-risk PCa (65.2% vs 55.0%, p < 0.01). For the OBS cohort, 181 of the men (50%) eventually received treatment. Among those remaining on OBS for ≥24 months (N = 166), 88.6% had ≥1 follow-up PSA test and 26.5% received ≥1 follow-up biopsy within the 24 months. The unadjusted mortality rate was higher for OBS compared with IMT (2.7 vs 1.3/100 person-years [py]; p < 0.001). After multivariate adjustment, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between OBS and IMT groups (HR 0.73, p = 0.138).

Conclusions: Use of OBS management increased over the 10-year study period. Men in the OBS cohort had a higher proportion of low-risk PCa. No differences were observed in overall survival between the two groups after adjustment of covariates. These data provide insights into how favorable risk PCa was managed in a community setting.

Citing Articles

Hypofractionated Proton Therapy in Early Prostate Cancer: Results of a Phase I/II Trial at Loma Linda University.

Slater J, Slater J, Kang J, Namihas I, Jabola B, Brown K Int J Part Ther. 2019; 6(1):1-9.

PMID: 31773043 PMC: 6871628. DOI: 10.14338/IJPT-19-00057.

Patients with Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy: A Real-World Clinical and Economic Analysis of U.S. Claims Data.

Nazareth T, Kariburyo F, Kirkemo A, Xie L, Pavlova-Wolf A, Bartels-Peculis L J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019; 25(9):1011-1020.

PMID: 31283419 PMC: 10397828. DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2019.18456.

References

Schroder F, Hugosson J, Roobol M, Tammela T, Ciatto S, Nelen V . Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(11):981-90. PMC: 6027585. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113135. View

Eldefrawy A, Katkoori D, Abramowitz M, Soloway M, Manoharan M . Active surveillance vs. treatment for low-risk prostate cancer: a cost comparison. Urol Oncol. 2011; 31(5):576-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.04.005. View

Ahmed H, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown L, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar M . Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 389(10071):815-822. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1. View

Roobol M, Kerkhof M, Schroder F, Cuzick J, Sasieni P, Hakama M . Prostate cancer mortality reduction by prostate-specific antigen-based screening adjusted for nonattendance and contamination in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Eur Urol. 2009; 56(4):584-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.07.018. View

Ruseckaite R, Beckmann K, OCallaghan M, Roder D, Moretti K, Millar J . A retrospective analysis of Victorian and South Australian clinical registries for prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and management of the disease. BMC Cancer. 2016; 16:607. PMC: 4974765. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2655-9. View

Barocas D, Cowan J, Smith Jr J, Carroll P . What percentage of patients with newly diagnosed carcinoma of the prostate are candidates for surveillance? An analysis of the CaPSURE database. J Urol. 2008; 180(4):1330-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.019. View

Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Makarov D, Bratt O, Bill-Axelson A, Stattin P . Five-year nationwide follow-up study of active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014; 67(2):233-8. PMC: 4280355. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.010. View

Chen R, Rumble R, Loblaw D, Finelli A, Ehdaie B, Cooperberg M . Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(18):2182-90. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.7759. View

Albertsen P, Hanley J, GLEASON D, Barry M . Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998; 280(11):975-80. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.11.975. View

10.

Newcomb L, Thompson Jr I, Boyer H, Brooks J, Carroll P, Cooperberg M . Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in the Prospective, Multi-Institutional Canary PASS Cohort. J Urol. 2015; 195(2):313-20. PMC: 4970462. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.087. View

11.

Montironi R, Hammond E, Lin D, Gore J, Srigley J, Samaratunga H . Consensus statement with recommendations on active surveillance inclusion criteria and definition of progression in men with localized prostate cancer: the critical role of the pathologist. Virchows Arch. 2014; 465(6):623-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-014-1668-5. View

12.

Herden J, Weissbach L . Utilization of Active Surveillance and Watchful Waiting for localized prostate cancer in the daily practice. World J Urol. 2018; 36(3):383-391. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2175-0. View

13.

Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F, Salo J, Folmerz P, Haggman M . A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347(11):781-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa012794. View

14.

Aizer A, Gu X, Chen M, Choueiri T, Martin N, Efstathiou J . Cost implications and complications of overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015; 13(1):61-8. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2015.0009. View

15.

Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V . [EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer]. Actas Urol Esp. 2011; 35(10):565-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2011.03.011. View

16.

Lang M, Tyson M, Alvarez J, Koyama T, Hoffman K, Resnick M . The Influence of Psychosocial Constructs on the Adherence to Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer in a Prospective, Population-based Cohort. Urology. 2017; 103:173-178. PMC: 5410889. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.12.063. View

17.

Filson C, Marks L, Litwin M . Expectant management for men with early stage prostate cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015; 65(4):265-82. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21278. View

18.

Liu J, Womble P, Merdan S, Miller D, Montie J, Denton B . Factors Influencing Selection of Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer. Urology. 2015; 86(5):901-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.08.024. View

19.

Cooperberg M, Carroll P . Trends in Management for Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer, 1990-2013. JAMA. 2015; 314(1):80-2. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.6036. View

20.

Cooperberg M, Cowan J, Hilton J, Reese A, Zaid H, Porten S . Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 29(2):228-34. PMC: 3058278. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.4252. View