Ramsankar Basak

Association Between Choice of Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, Brachytherapy, or Active Surveillance and Patient-Reported Quality of Life Among Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

Importance Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer have to decide among treatment strategies that may differ in their likelihood of adverse effects. Objective To compare quality of life (QOL) after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, and brachytherapy vs active surveillance. Design, Setting, and Participants Population-based prospective cohort of 1141 men (57% participation among eligible men) with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were enrolled from January 2011 through June 2013 in collaboration with the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Median time from diagnosis to enrollment was 5 weeks, and all men were enrolled with written informed consent prior to treatment. Final follow-up date for current analysis was September 9, 2015. Exposures Treatment with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, or active surveillance. Main Outcomes and Measures Quality of life using the validated instrument Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices was assessed at baseline (pretreatment) and 3, 12, and 24 months after treatment. The instrument contains 4 domains—sexual dysfunction, urinary obstruction and irritation, urinary incontinence, and bowel problems—each scored from 0 (no dysfunction) to 100 (maximum dysfunction). Propensity-weighted mean domain scores were compared between each treatment group vs active surveillance at each time point. Results Of 1141 enrolled men, 314 pursued active surveillance (27.5%), 469 radical prostatectomy (41.1%), 249 external beam radiotherapy (21.8%), and 109 brachytherapy (9.6%). After propensity weighting, median age was 66 to 67 years across groups, and 77% to 80% of participants were white. Across groups, propensity-weighted mean baseline scores were 41.8 to 46.4 for sexual dysfunction, 20.8 to 22.8 for urinary obstruction and irritation, 9.7 to 10.5 for urinary incontinence, and 5.7 to 6.1 for bowel problems. Compared with active surveillance, mean sexual dysfunction scores worsened by 3 months for patients who received radical prostatectomy (36.2 [95% CI, 30.4-42.0]), external beam radiotherapy (13.9 [95% CI, 6.7-21.2]), and brachytherapy (17.1 [95% CI, 7.8-26.6]). Compared with active surveillance at 3 months, worsened urinary incontinence was associated with radical prostatectomy (33.6 [95% CI, 27.8-39.2]); acute worsening of urinary obstruction and irritation with external beam radiotherapy (11.7 [95% CI, 8.7-14.8]) and brachytherapy (20.5 [95% CI, 15.1-25.9]); and worsened bowel symptoms with external beam radiotherapy (4.9 [95% CI, 2.4-7.4]). By 24 months, mean scores between treatment groups vs active surveillance were not significantly different in most domains. Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, each treatment strategy was associated with distinct patterns of adverse effects over 2 years. These findings can be used to promote treatment decisions that incorporate individual preferences.

Use of stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer in the United States from 2004 through 2012

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a newer treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer. The rates of diffusion of this technology across the United States are unknown. The goal of the current study was to describe the use of SBRT among patients with prostate cancer based on different risk groups (low, intermediate, or high risk) and by type of facility (community cancer program, comprehensive community cancer program, or academic program) in which patients were treated.

Stage at presentation and survival outcomes of patients with Gleason 8–10 prostate cancer and low prostate-specific antigen

OBJECTIVE To evaluate outcomes for men with high Gleason score and low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) prostate cancer. Low PSA levels among men with Gleason 8-10 prostate cancer may be owing to cellular dedifferentiation rather than low disease burden. We hypothesized that men with Gleason 8-10 prostate cancer and low PSA levels have increased risk for advanced disease and worse survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS Men diagnosed from 2004 to 2007 with Gleason 8-10 prostate adenocarcinoma in the National Cancer Data Base were included. Patients were stratified by PSA levels at diagnosis: 0.1 to 3.9, 4.0 to 9.9, 10.0 to 19.9, and≥20.0ng/ml. Outcomes were clinical TNM category, pathologic stage (for prostatectomy patients), and overall survival (OS). Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models were used. RESULTS A total of 37,283 patients were included. Men with PSA levels of<4.0ng/ml were more likely than those with PSA levels of 4 to 9.9ng/ml to present with clinical T3-4 disease (15% vs. 10%, P<0.001), nodal (4% vs. 2%, P<0.001) and distant (5% vs. 3%, P<0.001) metastasis. However, among patients treated with prostatectomy, lower PSA levels were not associated with increased likelihood of pathologic T3-4 disease or nodal metastasis. Six-year OS was 89.1% (PSA: 0.1-3.9ng/ml) vs. 91.0% (PSA: 4.0-9.9ng/ml) for prostatectomy (log-rank P<0.001), and 75.8% vs. 81.0% for radiotherapy (P<0.001). Multivariable analyses showed OS of patients with PSA levels of 0.1 to 3.9ng/ml to be similar to those with PSA levels of 10 to 19.9ng/ml. CONCLUSIONS Patients with Gleason 8-10 cancer and PSA levels of<4.0ng/ml have more aggressive disease than those with PSA levels of 4 to 9.9ng/ml; these low PSA cancers behave more like those with PSA levels of 10 to 19.9ng/ml. Further study is needed to evaluate potential biological differences in these patients with low PSA-producing cancers.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of adding androgen deprivation to modern dose-escalated radiotherapy for men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Randomized trials have shown that androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival for men with intermediate‐risk prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy (RT). The benefit of ADT to patients with favorable intermediate‐risk prostate cancer treated with modern dose‐escalated RT is unknown. This study evaluated the effectiveness of ADT on survival of men with favorable intermediate‐risk prostate cancer treated with dose‐escalated RT.

Aggressive End-of-Life Care for Metastatic Cancer Patients Younger Than Age 65 Years

Background Aggressive medical care at the end of life can be harmful to patients and families, but its prevalence in use among younger cancer patients is unknown. The goal of the study was to report on the use of aggressive care and hospice services for patients younger than age 65 years. Methods Using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, we analyzed patients who died between 2007 and 2014 with metastatic lung (n = 12 764), colorectal (n = 5207), breast (n = 5855), pancreatic (n = 3397), or prostate (n = 1508) cancer. Based on published quality measures, we assessed uses of chemotherapy, intensive care, emergency room visits, and hospice care at the end of life. We examined additional items including radiotherapy, invasive procedures, hospitalization, and in-hospital deaths. Multivariable modified Poisson regression models were used to adjust for age, sex, geographic region, rural/urban location, year of death, and regional education and income measures. Results Across the five cancers, 10.1% to 14.1% of patients received chemotherapy within the last 14 days of life, 15.9% to 20.6% received intensive care in last 30 days, and 1.5% to 2.5% went to the emergency room two or more times in last 30 days. Hospice enrollment at least three days before death was 54.4% to 59.6%. However, 55.3% to 59.3% of patients had a hospital admission in the last 30 days, and one-third died (30.3%-35.4%) in the hospital. Conclusions There was low use of cancer-directed treatment at the end of life for younger cancer patients, and hospice use was higher than 50%. However, there was a relatively high utilization of hospital-based care. These results demonstrate an opportunity for continued improvements in the provision of high-value, patient-centered care at the end of life.

Total Medicare Costs Associated With Diagnosis and Treatment of Prostate Cancer in Elderly Men

Importance Localized prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment among elderly men who are not likely to benefit represents a potential source of low-value health care services. Objective To quantify the costs to the Medicare program associated with detection and treatment of prostate cancer among elderly men in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants This nationwide, population-based, retrospective cohort study uses the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database to identify men 70 years or older diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2007 and to ascertain Medicare costs associated with diagnosis and workup, treatment, follow-up, and morbidity management of the disease. National Medicare costs were estimated using per-person costs, stage-adjusted prostate cancer incidence rates by age from SEER 2007 through 2011, and 2010 Census population estimates by age. Main Outcomes and Measures Estimated costs to the Medicare program overall, and in each (mutually exclusive) category related to diagnosis and workup, treatment, follow-up, and morbidity management. Results This nationwide, population-based, retrospective cohort study included 49 692 men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer from the SEER-Medicare database (all participants were 70 years or older; 25 981 [52.3%] were 76 years or older). The median per-patient cost within 3 years after prostate cancer diagnosis was

Aggressive care at the end-of-life for younger patients with cancer: Impact of ASCO's Choosing Wisely campaign.

14 453 (interquartile range [IQR],

Use of Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Radiotherapy for Intermediate- and High-Risk Prostate Cancer Across the United States.

4887-

The role of perceived impact on relationship quality in pharmacists' willingness to influence indication-based off-label prescribing decisions

27 899). The majority of this cost was attributable to treatment costs (median,

Adherence to multiple medications prescribed for a chronic disease: a methodological investigation.

10 558; IQR,