RESUMO
Importance: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the noninferiority of shorter radiotherapy (RT) courses (termed hypofractionation) compared with longer RT courses in patients with localized prostate cancer. Although shorter courses are associated with cost-effectiveness, convenience, and expanded RT access, their adoption remains variable. Objective: To identify the current practice patterns of external beam RT for prostate cancer in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study obtained data from the National Cancer Database, which collects hospital registry data from more than 1500 accredited US facilities on approximately 72% of US patients with cancer. Patients were included in the sample if they had localized prostate adenocarcinoma that was diagnosed between 2004 and 2020 and underwent external beam RT with curative intent. Analyses were conducted between February and March 2023. Exposures: Radiotherapy schedules, which were categorized as ultrahypofractionation (≤7 fractions), moderate hypofractionation (20-30 fractions), and conventional fractionation (31-50 fractions). Main Outcomes and Measures: Longitudinal pattern in RT fractionation schedule was the primary outcome. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the variables associated with shorter RT courses. Covariables included age, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, rurality, race, facility location, facility type, median income, insurance type or status, and Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index. Results: A total of 313 062 patients with localized prostate cancer (mean [SD] age, 68.8 [7.7] years) were included in the analysis. There was a temporal pattern of decline in the proportion of patients who received conventional fractionation, from 76.0% in 2004 to 36.6% in 2020 (P for trend <.001). From 2004 to 2020, use of moderate hypofractionation increased from 22.0% to 45.0% (P for trend <.001), and use of ultrahypofractionation increased from 2.0% to 18.3% (P for trend <.001). By 2020, the most common RT schedule was ultrahypofractionation for patients in the low-risk group and moderate hypofractionation for patients in the intermediate-risk group. On multivariable analysis, treatment at a community cancer program (compared with academic or research program; odds ratio [OR], 0.54 [95% CI, 0.52-0.56]; P < .001), Medicaid insurance (compared with Medicare; OR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.41-1.57]; P < .001), Black race (compared with White race; OR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.87-0.92]; P < .001), and higher median income (compared with lower median income; OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.25-1.31]; P < .001) were associated with receipt of shorter courses of RT. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study showed an increase in the use of shorter courses of RT for prostate cancer from 2004 to 2020; a number of social determinants of health appeared to be associated with reduced adoption of shorter treatment courses. Realignment of reimbursement models may be necessary to enable broader adoption of ultrahypofractionation to support technology acquisition costs.
Assuntos
Medicare , Neoplasias da Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Idoso , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Estudos de Coortes , Fracionamento da Dose de Radiação , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , BrancosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Management of localized or recurrent prostate cancer since the 1990s has been based on risk stratification using clinicopathological variables, including Gleason score, T stage (based on digital rectal exam), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). In this study a novel prognostic test, the Decipher Prostate Genomic Classifier (GC), was used to stratify risk of prostate cancer progression in a US national database of men with prostate cancer. METHODS: Records of prostate cancer cases from participating SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program registries, diagnosed during the period from 2010 through 2018, were linked to records of testing with the GC prognostic test. Multivariable analysis was used to quantify the association between GC scores or risk groups and use of definitive local therapy after diagnosis in the GC biopsy-tested cohort and postoperative radiotherapy in the GC-tested cohort as well as adverse pathological findings after prostatectomy. RESULTS: A total of 572â545 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 8927 patients underwent GC testing. GC biopsy-tested patients were more likely to undergo active active surveillance or watchful waiting than untested patients (odds ratio [OR] =2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.04 to 2.38, P < .001). The highest use of active surveillance or watchful waiting was for patients with a low-risk GC classification (41%) compared with those with an intermediate- (27%) or high-risk (11%) GC classification (P < .001). Among National Comprehensive Cancer Network patients with low and favorable-intermediate risk, higher GC risk class was associated with greater use of local therapy (OR = 4.79, 95% CI = 3.51 to 6.55, P < .001). Within this subset of patients who were subsequently treated with prostatectomy, high GC risk was associated with harboring adverse pathological findings (OR = 2.94, 95% CI = 1.38 to 6.27, P = .005). Use of radiation after prostatectomy was statistically significantly associated with higher GC risk groups (OR = 2.69, 95% CI = 1.89 to 3.84). CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong association between use of the biopsy GC test and likelihood of conservative management. Higher genomic classifier scores are associated with higher rates of adverse pathology at time of surgery and greater use of postoperative radiotherapy.In this study the Decipher Prostate Genomic Classifier (GC) was used to analyze a US national database of men with prostate cancer. Use of the GC was associated with conservative management (ie, active surveillance). Among men who had high-risk GC scores and then had surgery, there was a 3-fold higher chance of having worrisome findings in surgical specimens.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Medição de Risco/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/epidemiologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/genética , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia , Antígeno Prostático Específico , Próstata/cirurgia , Próstata/patologia , GenômicaRESUMO
Erectile dysfunction (ED) remains a significant problem in up to 63% of men after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). After the discovery of the neurovascular bundle (NVB), additional anatomic description and variation in nerve-sparing (NS) techniques have been described to improve post-RARP ED. However, it remains questionable whether ED rates have improved over time, and this is concerning as competing treatments are introduced that have better ED outcomes. In this review, we describe RARP NS technical modifications that improve erectile function recovery. We focused on reports that included detailed anatomical descriptions as well as video illustrations to disseminate technique. We found that the alternative RARP NS surgical techniques provide better outcomes compared with standard NS RARP. The use of validated quality of life questionnaires is necessary for the appropriate comparison of outcomes. However, the retrospective character and inherent weaknesses of the included studies do not allow one to conclude which is the best NS approach. Overall, there is significant variation in RARP NS techniques and outcomes, and the ideal technical maneuvers to optimize outcomes remains subject to debate. However, there is a consensus on the importance of anatomically dissecting the NVB, minimizing traction and thermal injury as well as preserving the periprostatic fascia. Well-designed randomized controlled trials with videos describing details of different surgical techniques for generalizability are needed to consistently and objectively evaluate sexual function outcomes after RARP to optimize postoperative potency.
Assuntos
Disfunção Erétil , Neoplasias da Próstata , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos , Robótica , Disfunção Erétil/etiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Prostatectomia/efeitos adversos , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Qualidade de Vida , Estudos Retrospectivos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
PURPOSE: Novel minimally invasive therapies like the prostatic urethral lift are among the many endoscopic options for the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement and lower urinary tract symptoms (BPE/LUTS). To further understand the relative uptake, complications and retreatment rates of contemporary endoscopic procedures for BPE/LUTS across diverse practice types, we performed a retrospective study of inpatient and ambulatory surgery encounters in the Premier Healthcare database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included men who underwent endoscopic procedures for BPE/LUTS between 2000 and 2018. We determined the utilization of endoscopic therapies for BPE/LUTS, 30-day and 90-day readmission rates, and retreatment rate. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association of procedure type with outcomes for the 3 most commonly performed procedures. RESULTS: We identified 175,150 men treated with endoscopic surgery for BPE/LUTS. The annual percent utilization of the prostatic urethral lift increased from <1% in 2014 to 10.4% in 2018. Compared to transurethral resection of the prostate and prostate photovaporization, prostatic urethral lift was associated with a lower odds of readmission at 30 (OR 0.58, p <0.01) and 90 (OR 0.55, p <0.01) days and a higher odds of retreatment within 2 years of followup (OR 1.78, p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Providers have rapidly adopted prostatic urethral lift which accounted for more than 1 in 10 endoscopic procedures captured for BPE/LUTS in 2018. Men treated with prostatic urethral lift are readmitted less within 30 and 90 days but are more likely to be retreated within 2 years of their index procedure as compared to men treated with transurethral resection of the prostate or prostate photovaporization.
Assuntos
Hiperplasia Prostática/cirurgia , Slings Suburetrais , Idoso , Endoscopia , Humanos , Terapia a Laser , Tempo de Internação/estatística & dados numéricos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Readmissão do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Reoperação/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Ressecção Transuretral da PróstataRESUMO
PURPOSE: Guidelines from the NCCN® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) advocate digital rectal examination screening only in men with elevated prostate specific antigen. We investigated the effect of prostate specific antigen on the association of digital rectal examination and clinically significant prostate cancer in a large American cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the records of the 35,350 men who underwent digital rectal examination in the screening arm of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening trial for the development of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason 7 or greater). Followup was 343,273 person-years. The primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant prostate cancer among men with vs without suspicious digital rectal examination. We performed competing risks regression to evaluate the interaction between time varying suspicious digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen. RESULTS: A total of 1,713 clinically significant prostate cancers were detected with a 10-year cumulative incidence of 5.9% (95% CI 5.6-6.2). Higher risk was seen for suspicious vs nonsuspicious digital rectal examination. Increases in absolute risk were small and clinically irrelevant for normal (less than 2 ng/ml) prostate specific antigen (1.5% vs 0.7% risk of clinically significant prostate cancer at 10 years), clinically relevant for elevated (3 ng/ml or greater) prostate specific antigen (23.0% vs 13.7%) and modestly clinically relevant for equivocal (2 to 3 ng/ml) prostate specific antigen (6.5% vs 3.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Digital rectal examination demonstrated prognostic usefulness when prostate specific antigen was greater than 3 ng/ml, limited usefulness for less than 2 ng/ml and marginal usefulness for 2 to 3 ng/ml. These findings support the restriction of digital rectal examination to men with higher prostate specific antigen as a reflex test to improve specificity. It should not be used as a primary screening modality to improve sensitivity.