Assessment of Simulated SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Mortality Risk Associated With Radiation Therapy Among Patients in 8 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer therapy may put patients at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality. The impacts of proposed alternatives on reducing infection risk are unknown. Objective: To investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with the risks and benefits of standard radiation therapy (RT). Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study used estimated individual patient-level data extracted from published Kaplan-Meier survival figures from 8 randomized clinical trials across oncology from 1993 to 2014 that evaluated the inclusion of RT or compared different RT fractionation regimens. Included trials were Dutch TME and TROG 01.04 examining rectal cancer; CALGB 9343, OCOG hypofractionation trial, FAST-Forward, and NSABP B-39 examining early stage breast cancer, and CHHiP and HYPO-RT-PC examining prostate cancer. Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality associated with receipt of RT in the treatment arms were simulated and trials were reanalyzed. Data were analyzed between April 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020. Exposures: COVID-19 risk associated with treatment was simulated across different pandemic scenarios, varying infection risk per fractions (IRFs) and case fatality rates (CFRs). Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards modeling under different pandemic scenarios. Results: Estimated IPLD from a total of 14 170 patients were included in the simulations. In scenarios with low COVID-19-associated risks (IRF, 0.5%; CFR, 5%), fractionation was not significantly associated with outcomes. In locally advanced rectal cancer, short-course RT was associated with better outcomes than long-course chemoradiation (TROG 01.04) and was associated with similar outcomes as RT omission (Dutch TME) in most settings (eg, TROG 01.04 median HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.46-0.96]; Dutch TME median HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.80-1.03] in a scenario with IRF 5% and CFR 20%). Moderate hypofractionation in early stage breast cancer (OCOG hypofractionation trial) and prostate cancer (CHHiP) was not associated with survival benefits in the setting of COVID-19 (eg, OCOG hypofractionation trial median HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.74-1.06]; CHHiP median HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.75-1.01] under high-risk scenario with IRF 10% and CFR 30%). More aggressive hypofractionation (FAST-Forward, HYPO-RT-PC) and accelerated partial breast irradiation (NSABP B-39) were associated with improved survival in higher risk scenarios (eg, FAST-Forward median HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.49-0.68]; HYPO-RT-PC median HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.48-0.75] under scenario with IRF 10% and CFR 30%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness study of data from 8 clinical trials of patients receiving radiation therapy to simulate COVID-19 risk and mortality rates, treatment modification was not associated with altered risk from COVID-19 in lower-risk scenarios and was only associated with decreased mortality in very high COVID-19-risk scenarios. This model, which can be adapted to dynamic changes in COVID-19 risk, provides a flexible, quantitative approach to assess the potential impact of treatment modifications and supports the continued delivery of standard evidence-based care with appropriate precautions against COVID-19.

A Bayesian multi-risks survival (MRS) model in the presence of double censorings.

Semi-competing risks data include the time to a nonterminating event and the time to a terminating event, while competing risks data include the time to more than one terminating event. Our work is motivated by a prostate cancer study, which has one nonterminating event and two terminating events with both semi-competing risks and competing risks present as well as two censoring times. In this paper, we propose a new multi-risks survival (MRS) model for this type of data. In addition, the proposed MRS model can accommodate noninformative right-censoring times for nonterminating and terminating events. Properties of the proposed MRS model are examined in detail. Theoretical and empirical results show that the estimates of the cumulative incidence function for a nonterminating event may be biased if the information on a terminating event is ignored. A Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling algorithm is also developed. Our methodology is further assessed using simulations and also an analysis of the real data from a prostate cancer study. As a result, a prostate-specific antigen velocity greater than 2.0 ng/mL per year and higher biopsy Gleason scores are positively associated with a shorter time to death due to prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer incidence across stage, NCCN risk groups, and age before and after USPSTF Grade D recommendations against prostate-specific antigen screening in 2012.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the extent to which US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2012 Grade D recommendations against prostate-specific antigen screening may have impacted recent prostate cancer disease incidence patterns in the United States across stage, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk groups, and age groups. METHODS: SEER*Stat version 8.3.4 was used to calculate annual prostate cancer incidence rates from 2010 to 2015 for men aged ≥50 years according to American Joint Committee on Cancer stage at diagnosis (localized vs metastatic), NCCN risk group (low vs unfavorable [intermediate or high-risk]), and age group (50-74 years vs ≥75 years). Age-adjusted incidences per 100,000 persons with corresponding year-by-year incidence ratios (IRs) were calculated using the 2000 US Census population. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2015, the incidence (per 100,000 persons) of localized prostate cancer decreased from 195.4 to 131.9 (Ptrend  < .001) and from 189.0 to 123.4 (Ptrend  < .001) among men aged 50-74 and ≥75 years, respectively. The largest relative year-by-year decline occurred between 2011 and 2012 in NCCN low-risk disease (IR, 0.77 [0.75-0.79, P < .0001] and IR 0.68 [0.62-0.74, P < .0001] for men aged 50-74 and ≥75 years, respectively). From 2010-2015, the incidence of metastatic disease increased from 6.2 to 7.1 (Ptrend  < .001) and from 16.8 to 22.6 (Ptrend  < .001) among men aged 50-74 and ≥75 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This report illustrates recent prostate cancer "reverse migration" away from indolent disease and toward more aggressive disease beginning in 2012. The incidence of localized disease declined across age groups from 2012 to 2015, with the greatest relative declines occurring in low-risk disease. Additionally, the incidence of distant metastatic disease increased gradually throughout the study period.

Low testosterone at first prostate-specific antigen failure and assessment of risk of death in men with unfavorable-risk prostate cancer treated on prospective clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Low testosterone at the time of diagnosis of prostate cancer has been associated with a worse prognosis. Whether this is true and how to define the best treatment approach at the time of first prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure to the authors' knowledge has not been elucidated to date and was studied herein. METHODS: Between 1995 and 2001, a total of 58 men with unfavorable-risk PC who were treated on clinical trials with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) had available testosterone levels at the time of PSA failure. Cox and Fine and Gray regressions were performed to ascertain whether low versus normal testosterone was associated with the risk of PC-specific mortality, other-cause mortality, and all-cause mortality adjusting for age, salvage ADT, and known PC prognostic factors. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 6.68 years after PSA failure, 31 men (53.4%) had died; 10 of PC (32.3%), of which 8 of 11 (72.7%) versus 2 of 47 (4.3%) deaths occurred in men with low versus normal testosterone at the time of PSA failure, respectively. A significant increase in the risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 2.54; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.04-6.21 [P = .04]) and PC-specific mortality (AHR, 13.71; 95% CI, 2.4-78.16 [P = .003]), with a reciprocal trend toward a decreased risk of other-cause mortality (AHR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.02-1.55 [P = .12]) was observed in men with low versus normal testosterone. CONCLUSIONS: Low, but not necessarily castrate, testosterone levels at the time of PSA failure confer a very poor prognosis. These observations provide evidence to support testosterone testing at the time of PSA failure. Given prolonged survival when abiraterone or docetaxel is added to ADT in men with castrate-sensitive metastatic PC and possibly localized high-risk PC provides a rationale supporting their use with ADT in men with low testosterone in the setting of a phase 2 trial. Cancer 2018;124:1383-90. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Weighing Risk of Cardiovascular Mortality Against Potential Benefit of Hormonal Therapy in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Background: The purpose of this study is to determine the optimal strategy for men with newly diagnosed intermediate-risk prostate cancer by age and cardiac risk. Methods: A Markov model was calibrated to the EORTC 22991 trial, which randomly assigned men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy (RT) with or without six months of hormonal therapy (HT). We compared quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in men age 50, 60, and 70 years by age decile and cardiac risk group. Competing risks of cardiovascular mortality were estimated from the published literature. Sensitivity analyses were used to assess the impact of varying model assumptions. Results: HT was associated with a net decrease of 0.3 to 0.4 QALYs in men with a history of myocardial infarction. However, for all other men, HT improved QALYs (range = 0.4-2.6 QALYs). Younger men with fewer cardiac risk factors experienced the largest benefit from HT. In sensitivity analyses, the model was only found to be sensitive to the probability of biochemical failure. Men at low risk for biochemical failure (≤8.7% at five years) did not benefit from HT. Further, the benefits of HT did not begin to manifest until after 7.3 years of follow-up. Conclusions: The optimal choice of therapy depends upon age, cardiac risk, and disease recurrence risk. Young men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer with no cardiac risk factors benefit most from HT. Men with a history of myocardial infarction who are at very low risk for biochemical failure may be negatively impacted by the addition of HT.

The Impact of Economic Recession on the Incidence and Treatment of Cancer.

PURPOSE: The impact of economic recessions on the incidence and treatment of cancer is unknown. We test the hypothesis that cancer incidence and treatment rates decrease during a recession, and that this relationship is more pronounced in cancers that present with mild, more easily ignored symptoms. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data on incidence and treatment for all cancers, and breast and pancreatic cancers specifically, from 1973-2008, were collected using Surveillance Epidemiology and End RESULTS (SEER). The data was adjusted for race, income, and education. Unemployment rate was used as the measure of economic recession. Data was log-transformed, and multivariate linear mixed regression was used. RESULTS: Adjusting for socioeconomic factors, the data revealed a significant inverse correlation between unemployment and rates of cancer incidence and treatment. Every 1% increase in unemployment was associated with a 2.2% (95% CI: 1.6-2.8%, p<0.001) reduction in cancer incidence, a 2.0% (1.2-2.8%, p=0.0157) decrease in surgery, and a 9.1% (8.2-10.0% p<0.001) decrease in radiation therapy (RT). Breast cancer incidence and treatment had a dramatic inverse relationship - 7.2% (6.3-8.1%), 6.7% (5.7-7.6%), and 19.0% (18.1-19.8%), respectively (p<0.001 for all). The decrease in incidence was only significant for in situ and localized tumors, but not in regional or distant breast cancer. Compared to breast cancer, pancreatic cancer had a weaker relationship between unemployment and incidence: 2.6% (1.8-3.3%, p=0.0005), surgery: 2.4% (2.0-2.7%, p<0.001), and RT: 1.9% (1.5-2.2% p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing unemployment rates are associated with a decrease in the incidence and treatment of all cancers. This effect is exaggerated in breast cancer, where symptoms can more easily be ignored and where there are widely used screening tests relative to pancreatic cancer.

Competing events and costs of clinical trials: Analysis of a randomized trial in prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial costs may be reduced by identifying enriched subpopulations of patients with favorable risk profiles for the events of interest. However, increased selectivity affects accrual rates, with uncertain impact on clinical trial cost. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) 8794 randomized trial of adjuvant radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer. The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival (MFS), defined as time to metastasis or death from any cause (competing mortality). We used competing risks regression models to identify an enriched subgroup at high risk for metastasis and low risk for competing mortality. We applied a cost model to estimate the impact of enrichment on trial cost and duration. RESULTS: The treatment effect on metastasis was similar in the enriched subgroup (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.76) compared to the whole cohort (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81) while the effect on competing mortality was not significant in the subgroup or the whole cohort (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.39-1.23, vs. HR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.68-1.31). Due to the higher incidence of metastasis relative to competing mortality in the enriched subgroup, the treatment effect on MFS was greater in the subgroup compared to the whole cohort (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.36-0.82, vs. HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.58-1.01). Trial cost was 75% less in the subgroup compared to the whole cohort ($1.7 million vs. $6.8 million), and the trial duration was 30% shorter (8.4 vs. 12.0 years). CONCLUSION: Competing event enrichment can reduce clinical trial cost and duration, without sacrificing generalizability.

Defining a standard set of patient-centered outcomes for men with localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Value-based health care has been proposed as a unifying force to drive improved outcomes and cost containment. OBJECTIVE: To develop a standard set of multidimensional patient-centered health outcomes for tracking, comparing, and improving localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment value. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We convened an international working group of patients, registry experts, urologists, and radiation oncologists to review existing data and practices. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The group defined a recommended standard set representing who should be tracked, what should be measured and at what time points, and what data are necessary to make meaningful comparisons. Using a modified Delphi method over a series of teleconferences, the group reached consensus for the Standard Set. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We recommend that the Standard Set apply to men with newly diagnosed localized PCa treated with active surveillance, surgery, radiation, or other methods. The Standard Set includes acute toxicities occurring within 6 mo of treatment as well as patient-reported outcomes tracked regularly out to 10 yr. Patient-reported domains of urinary incontinence and irritation, bowel symptoms, sexual symptoms, and hormonal symptoms are included, and the recommended measurement tool is the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form. Disease control outcomes include overall, cause-specific, metastasis-free, and biochemical relapse-free survival. Baseline clinical, pathologic, and comorbidity information is included to improve the interpretability of comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: We have defined a simple, easily implemented set of outcomes that we believe should be measured in all men with localized PCa as a crucial first step in improving the value of care. PATIENT SUMMARY: Measuring, reporting, and comparing identical outcomes across treatments and treatment centers will provide patients and providers with information to make informed treatment decisions. We defined a set of outcomes that we recommend being tracked for every man being treated for localized prostate cancer.

Income inequality and treatment of African American men with high-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Definitive treatment of high-risk prostate cancer with radical prostatectomy or radiation improves survival. We assessed whether racial disparities in the receipt of definitive therapy for prostate cancer vary by regional income. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cohort of 102,486 men (17,594 African American [AA] and 84,892 non-Hispanic white) with localized high-risk prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/ml or Gleason ≥ 8 or stage ≥ cT2c) diagnosed from 2004 to 2010 was identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Income was measured at the census-tract-level. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess patient and cancer characteristics associated with the receipt of definitive therapy for prostate cancer. Multivariable Fine and Gray competing risks analysis was used to evaluate factors associated with prostate cancer death. RESULTS: Overall, AA men were less likely to receive definitive therapy than white men (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.49-0.54; P<0.001), and there was a significant race/income interaction (Pinteraction = 0.016) such that there was a larger racial treatment disparity in the bottom income quintile (AOR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.45-0.55; P<0.001) than in the top income quintile (AOR = 0.60; 95% CI: 0.51-0.71; P<0.001). After a median follow-up of 35 months, AA men in the bottom income quintile suffered the greatest prostate cancer mortality (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.47; 95% CI: 1.17-1.84; P = 0.001), compared with white men in the top income quintile. CONCLUSIONS: Racial disparities in the receipt of definitive therapy for high-risk prostate cancer are greatest in low-income communities, suggesting that interventions to reduce racial disparities should target low-income populations first.

Racial disparities in prostate cancer-specific mortality in men with low-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Men with low-risk prostate cancer (CaP) are considered unlikely to die of CaP and have the option of active surveillance. This study evaluated whether African American (AA) men who present with low-risk disease are at higher risk for death from CaP than white men. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The authors identified 56,045 men with low-risk CaP (T1-T2a, Gleason score ≤ 6, prostate-specific antigen ≤ 10 ng/mL) diagnosed between 2004 and 2009 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Fine-Gray competing-risks regression analyses were used to analyze the effect of race on prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) after adjusting for known prognostic and sociodemographic factors in 51,315 men (43,792 white; 7523 AA) with clinical follow-up information available. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 46 months, 258 patients (209 [0.48%] white and 49 [0.65%] AA men) died from CaP. Both AA race (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.03-2.05; P = .032) and noncurative management (AHR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.15-1.95; P = .003) were significantly associated with an increased risk of PCSM. When analyzing only patients who underwent curative treatment, AA race (AHR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.04-2.53; P = .034) remained significantly associated with increased PCSM. CONCLUSION: Among men with low-risk prostate cancer, AA race compared with white race was associated with a higher risk of PCSM, raising the possibility that clinicians may need to exercise caution when recommending active surveillance for AA men with low-risk disease. Further studies are needed to ultimately determine whether guidelines for active surveillance should take race into account.

Racial disparities in an aging population: the relationship between age and race in the management of African American men with high-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between age and race on the receipt of definitive therapy among men with high-risk prostate cancer (CaP). METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program to identify 62,644 men with high-risk CaP (PSA >20 or Gleason 8-10 or stage ≥cT3a) diagnosed from 2004 to 2010. Multivariable logistic regression analysis modeled the interaction between age and race and its association with receipt of definitive therapy on 57,674 patients (47,879 white men; 9,795 African American [AA] men) with complete data on the covariates of interest. RESULTS: Among men age ≥70, AA men had a higher risk of CaP-specific mortality (PCSM) compared to white men after adjusting for sociodemographic and prostate cancer-specific factors (Adjusted HR 1.20; 95% CI 1.02-1.38; P=0.02). Nevertheless, a significant interaction between race and age was found (Pinteraction=0.01), such that the adjusted odds of receiving definitive treatment for AA vs. white was 0.67 (95% CI 0.62-0.73; P<0.001) among men age <70, but was 0.60 (95% CI 0.55-0.66; P<0.001) among men age ≥70, suggesting increased racial disparity in the receipt of definitive treatment among older men. CONCLUSION: AA men with high-risk CaP are less likely to receive definitive therapy than white men. This disparity is significantly larger among men age ≥70, despite excess PCSM among AA men in this group. With a rapidly expanding population of older minority men, this disparity should be urgently addressed to prevent increasing disparities in cancer care.

Getting back to equal: The influence of insurance status on racial disparities in the treatment of African American men with high-risk prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Treating high-risk prostate cancer (CaP) with definitive therapy improves survival. We evaluated whether having health insurance reduces racial disparities in the use of definitive therapy for high-risk CaP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program was used to identify 70,006 men with localized high-risk CaP (prostate-specific antigen level > 20 ng/ml or Gleason score 8-10 or stage > cT3a) diagnosed from 2007 to 2010. We used multivariable logistic regression to analyze the 64,277 patients with complete data to determine the factors associated with receipt of definitive therapy. RESULTS: Compared with white men, African American (AA) men were significantly less likely to receive definitive treatment (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.60; 95% CI: 0.56-0.64; P < 0.001) after adjusting for sociodemographics and known CaP prognostic factors. There was a significant interaction between race and insurance status (P interaction = 0.01) such that insurance coverage was associated with a reduction in racial disparity between AA and white patients regarding receipt of definitive therapy. Specifically, the AOR for definitive treatment for AA vs. white was 0.38 (95% CI: 0.27-0.54, P < 0.001) among uninsured men, whereas the AOR was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.57-0.66, P < 0.001) among insured men. CONCLUSIONS: AA men with high-risk CaP were significantly less likely to receive potentially life-saving definitive treatment when compared with white men. Having health insurance was associated with a reduction in this racial treatment disparity, suggesting that expansion of health insurance coverage may help reduce racial disparities in the management of aggressive cancers.

Death from high-risk prostate cancer versus cardiovascular mortality with hormonal therapy: a decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have demonstrated improved survival when hormonal therapy (HT) is added to radiation therapy (RT) for high-risk prostate cancer. However, it is still unknown whether men who have a history of myocardial infarction (MI) or MI risk factors achieve a superior outcome from HT. METHODS: A Markov decision analysis model was used to compare quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) in men aged 50, 60, and 70 years who received RT and no HT, 6 months of HT (short-term), or 3 years of HT (long-term) for high-risk prostate cancer stratified by cardiac risk group. RESULTS: In men with a history of MI, there was a decrease of 0.1 to 0.2 quality-adjusted life years and 0.5 to 0.6 quality-adjusted life years across all ages with short-term HT and long-term HT, respectively, compared with no HT. In men without MI, receipt of short-term or long-term HT was associated with a QALE benefit versus no HT in all cohorts. Among men without MI, the optimal duration of HT was a function of age and the number of MI risk factors. Long-term HT improved QALE (range, 1.4-5.4 years) for men aged 50 or 60 years except those with MI; whereas, for men aged 70 years with 4 cardiac risk factors, short-term and long-term HT yielded identical QALE. CONCLUSIONS: Men who received RT for high-risk prostate cancer and had a history of MI experienced net harm when they received HT. Men without MI gained a QALE benefit from HT, even if they had up to 4 cardiac risk factors. The optimal duration of HT is a function of patient age and the number of cardiac risk factors.

Prostate cancer screening in men 75 years old or older: an assessment of self-reported health status and life expectancy.

PURPOSE: Opinions vary regarding the appropriate age at which to stop prostate specific antigen screening. Some groups recommend screening men with a greater than 10-year life expectancy while the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends against screening men 75 years old or older. In this study we evaluated the influence of health status and life expectancy on prostate specific antigen screening in older men in the United States before the 2008 United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study cohort comprised 718 men age 75 years or older without a history of prostate cancer who responded to the 2005 National Health Interview Survey, representing an estimated 4.47 million noninstitutionalized men in the United States. Life expectancy was estimated from age and self-reported health status. RESULTS: Overall 19% of the men were 85 years old or older and 27% reported fair or poor health. In the previous 2 years 52% had a prostate specific antigen screening test. After adjustment for age, race, education and physician access, men with fair or poor health were less likely to receive prostate specific antigen screening than those with excellent or very good health (adjusted OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33-0.80, p = 0.003). Overall 42% of the men predicted to live less than 5 years and 65% of those predicted to live more than 10 years reported having recent prostate specific antigen screening. CONCLUSIONS: Before the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendation, health status and life expectancy were used to select older men for prostate specific antigen screening. However, many men expected to live less than 5 years were screened. A strict age cutoff of 75 years reduces over screening but also prohibits screening in healthy older men with a long life expectancy who may benefit from screening.

Decision analysis using individual patient preferences to determine optimal treatment for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Selecting treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer remains an ongoing challenge. Previous decision analyses focused on a hypothetical patient with average preferences, but preferences differ for clinically similar patients, implying that their optimal therapies may also differ. METHODS: A decision model was constructed comparing 4 treatments for localized prostate cancer: 1) radical prostatectomy (RP); 2) external beam radiation (EB); 3) brachytherapy (BT); and 4) watchful waiting (WW). Published data were used regarding treatment success, side effects, and noncancer survival, and 156 men with prostate cancer were surveyed to elicit preferences in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The clinical scenarios were determined (age, tumor grade, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA]) for which variations in patient preferences led to different optimal treatments and those for which the optimal treatment was unaffected by preferences. RESULTS: Patient preferences were critical in determining treatment for low-risk cancers (Gleason score

Assessing a prostate cancer brachytherapy technique using early patient-reported symptoms: a potential early indicator for technology assessment?

Brachytherapy for early prostate cancer can cause long-term urinary, bowel, and sexual dysfunction. Modifying technique may mitigate complications, but definitive outcome assessment requires long-term follow-up. Although radiation dose plausibly mediates all treatment-related toxicity, short-term symptoms may indicate long-term outcomes. We sought an early indication of whether a modified brachytherapy technique successfully decreased toxicity in the anticipated direction by assessing changes in symptoms and symptom distress 3 months after treatment. In a prospective study of clinically localized prostate cancer using a validated, patient-reported questionnaire, we assessed 85 men, whose primary treatment was brachytherapy alone, prior to treatment and 3 months after the procedure. Twenty-two men received standard ultrasound-guided brachytherapy (SB), and 63 men received magnetic resonance imaging-guided brachytherapy (MB), a technique intended to decrease urinary toxicity by reducing urethral irradiation. Patient age and other sociodemographic variables were similar in the 2 groups. The MB group experienced a greater increase in urinary obstruction/irritation symptoms (P = 0.02) and sexual function distress, but not sexual dysfunction (P = 0.22), whereas the SB group reported a smaller increase in bowel symptoms (P = 0.04) and bowel distress (P = 0.02). We found reduced short-term urinary obstruction/irritation and increased bowel problems after MB consistent with the hypothesized effects of the modified technique, although no obvious mechanism explains the decreased sexual function distress in MB patients. Whether these short-term changes predict long-term outcome differences will require much longer follow-up. However, these results suggest that measuring early symptoms may indicate whether an altered brachytherapy treatment technique has intended favorable consequences, potentially accelerating technology assessment.