Karen E. Hoffman

Marital Status and Survival in Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE To examine the impact of marital status on stage at diagnosis, use of definitive therapy, and cancer-specific mortality among each of the 10 leading causes of cancer-related death in the United States. METHODS We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program to identify 1,260,898 patients diagnosed in 2004 through 2008 with lung, colorectal, breast, pancreatic, prostate, liver/intrahepatic bile duct, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, head/neck, ovarian, or esophageal cancer. We used multivariable logistic and Cox regression to analyze the 734,889 patients who had clinical and follow-up information available. RESULTS Married patients were less likely to present with metastatic disease (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.84; P < .001), more likely to receive definitive therapy (adjusted OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.51 to 1.56; P < .001), and less likely to die as a result of their cancer after adjusting for demographics, stage, and treatment (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.81; P < .001) than unmarried patients. These associations remained significant when each individual cancer was analyzed (P < .05 for all end points for each malignancy). The benefit associated with marriage was greater in males than females for all outcome measures analyzed (P < .001 in all cases). For prostate, breast, colorectal, esophageal, and head/neck cancers, the survival benefit associated with marriage was larger than the published survival benefit of chemotherapy. CONCLUSION Even after adjusting for known confounders, unmarried patients are at significantly higher risk of presentation with metastatic cancer, undertreatment, and death resulting from their cancer. This study highlights the potentially significant impact that social support can have on cancer detection, treatment, and survival.

Association of Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Prostate Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

CONTEXT Whether androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) causes excess cardiovascular deaths in men with prostate cancer is highly controversial and was the subject of a joint statement by multiple medical societies and a US Food and Drug Administration safety warning. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials to determine whether ADT is associated with cardiovascular mortality, prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), and all-cause mortality in men with unfavorable-risk, nonmetastatic prostate cancer. DATA SOURCES A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for relevant randomized controlled trials in English between January 1, 1966, and April 11, 2011. STUDY SELECTION Inclusion required nonmetastatic disease, intervention group with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist-based ADT, control group with no immediate ADT, complete information on cardiovascular deaths, and median follow-up of more than 1 year. DATA EXTRACTION Extraction was by 2 independent reviewers. Summary incidence, relative risk (RR), and CIs were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models. RESULTS Among 4141 patients from 8 randomized trials, cardiovascular death in patients receiving ADT vs control was not significantly different (255/2200 vs 252/1941 events; incidence, 11.0%; 95% CI, 8.3%-14.5%; vs 11.2%; 95% CI, 8.3%-15.0%; RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.79-1.10; P = .41). ADT was not associated with excess cardiovascular death in trials of at least 3 years (long duration) of ADT (11.5%; 95% CI, 8.1%-16.0%; vs 11.5%; 95% CI, 7.5%-17.3%; RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.75-1.10; P = .34) or in trials of 6 months or less (short duration) of ADT (10.5%; 95% CI, 6.3%-17.0%; vs 10.3%; 95% CI, 8.2%-13.0%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.73-1.37; P = .99). Among 4805 patients from 11 trials with overall death data, ADT was associated with lower PCSM (443/2527 vs 552/2278 events; 13.5%; 95% CI, 8.8%-20.3%; vs 22.1%; 95% CI, 15.1%-31.1%; RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.84; P < .001) and lower all-cause mortality (1140/2527 vs 1213/2278 events; 37.7%; 95% CI, 27.3%-49.4%; vs 44.4%; 95% CI, 32.5%-57.0%; RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P < .001). CONCLUSION In a pooled analysis of randomized trials in unfavorable-risk prostate cancer, ADT use was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death but was associated with a lower risk of PCSM and all-cause mortality.

Cost Implications of the Rapid Adoption of Newer Technologies for Treating Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and laparoscopic or robotic minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) are costlier alternatives to three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and open radical prostatectomy for treating prostate cancer. We assessed temporal trends in their utilization and their impact on national health care spending. METHODS Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data, we determined treatment patterns for 45,636 men age ≥ 65 years who received definitive surgery or radiation for localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 2002 to 2005. Costs attributable to prostate cancer care were the difference in Medicare payments in the year after versus the year before diagnosis. RESULTS Patients received surgery (26%), external RT (38%), or brachytherapy with or without RT (36%). Among surgical patients, MIRP utilization increased substantially (1.5% among 2002 diagnoses v 28.7% among 2005 diagnoses, P < .001). For RT, IMRT utilization increased substantially (28.7% v 81.7%; P < .001) and for men receiving brachytherapy, supplemental IMRT increased significantly (8.5% v 31.1%; P < .001). The mean incremental cost of IMRT versus 3D-CRT was

Psychological Distress in Long-term Survivors of Adult-Onset Cancer: Results From a National Survey

10,986 (in 2008 dollars); of brachytherapy plus IMRT versus brachytherapy plus 3D-CRT was

Multidisciplinary considerations in the implementation of the findings from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 study: a practice-changing trial.

10,789; of MIRP versus open RP was

Disparities in Stage at Diagnosis, Treatment, and Survival in Nonelderly Adult Patients With Cancer According to Insurance Status

293. Extrapolating these figures to the total US population results in excess spending of

Risk of Late Toxicity in Men Receiving Dose-Escalated Hypofractionated Intensity Modulated Prostate Radiation Therapy: Results From a Randomized Trial

282 million for IMRT,

Cancer-Specific Outcomes Among Young Adults Without Health Insurance

59 million for brachytherapy plus IMRT, and

Recommendations for Post-Prostatectomy Radiation Therapy in the United States Before and After the Presentation of Randomized Trials

4 million for MIRP, compared to less costly alternatives for men diagnosed in 2005. CONCLUSION Costlier prostate cancer therapies were rapidly and widely adopted, resulting in additional national spending of more than

Association Between Radiation Therapy, Surgery, or Observation for Localized Prostate Cancer and Patient-Reported Outcomes After 3 Years

350 million among men diagnosed in 2005 and suggesting the need for comparative effectiveness research to weigh their costs against their benefits.