» Articles » PMID: 35743522

The Latest Data Specifically Focused on Long-Term Oncologic Prognostication for Very Old Adults with Acute Vulnerable Localized Prostate Cancer: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Overview
Journal J Clin Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2022 Jun 24
PMID 35743522
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Few studies have evaluated the prime treatment choice for men older than 80 years with acute vulnerable localized prostate cancer (AV-LPC). Clinicians have been deeply troubled by this near end-of-life medical choice for a very specific group of patients. We compared the oncological prognostication of very old patients with AV-LPC after they underwent either radical prostatectomy (RP) or massive-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) coupled with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) over a long-term investigation. Methods: In this nationwide cohort study, we used the Taiwan Cancer Registry Database and retrieved information related to patients (aged ≥ 80 years) with AV-LPC who underwent standard RP (the RP group) or massive-dose IMRT + long-term ADT (at least 72 Gy and ADT use ≥18 months; the IMRT + ADT group). After potential confounders were controlled for using propensity score matching (PSM), we utilized the Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate the oncologic prognostication. Results: The IMRT + ADT group had a significantly higher adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41−2.87) than the RP group. Analysis of the secondary outcomes revealed that compared with the RP group, the aHRs of biochemical failure, locoregional recurrence, and distant metastasis in the IMRT + ADT group were 1.77 (95% CI: 1.36−2.11, p < 0.0001), 1.12 (95% CI: 1.04−1.33, p < 0.0001), and 1.15 (95% CI: 1.06−1.71, p = 0.0311), respectively. Conclusion: RP provides more favorable oncological prognostication than IMRT in very old adults with AV-LPC.

Citing Articles

Six-year outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis.

Noda M, Taguchi S, Shiraishi K, Fujimura T, Naito A, Kawai T Strahlenther Onkol. 2024; 200(8):676-683.

PMID: 38180494 PMC: 11272719. DOI: 10.1007/s00066-023-02192-5.


Efficacy and Complications of the Re-Adjustable Male Sling System for Stress Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy.

Chiu L, Chen W, Hsieh P, Chen Y, Huang C J Clin Med. 2022; 11(22).

PMID: 36431241 PMC: 9698314. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11226764.

References
1.
Austin P . Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2010; 10(2):150-61. PMC: 3120982. DOI: 10.1002/pst.433. View

2.
Zhang J, Lu C, Chen H, Wu S . Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Endocrine Therapy for Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast With High Hormone Receptor Positivity and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Negativity. JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4(3):e211785. PMC: 7955271. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1785. View

3.
Wu S, Fang S, Shih H, Wen Y, Shao Y . Mortality associated with statins in men with advanced prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy. Eur J Cancer. 2019; 112:109-117. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.11.032. View

4.
Ling D, Kabolizadeh P, Heron D, Ohr J, Wang H, Johnson J . Incidence of hospitalization in patients with head and neck cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Head Neck. 2014; 37(12):1750-5. DOI: 10.1002/hed.23821. View

5.
Cooperberg M, Cowan J, Broering J, Carroll P . High-risk prostate cancer in the United States, 1990-2007. World J Urol. 2008; 26(3):211-8. PMC: 2948572. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-008-0250-7. View