Impact of prostate radiotherapy on survival outcomes in clinically node-positive prostate cancer: A multicentre retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical outcomes for cN1M0 prostate cancer treated with varied modalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with radiological stage cN1M0 prostate cancer on conventional imaging, treated from 2011-2019 with various modalities across four centres in the UK were included. Demographics, tumour grade and stage, and treatment details were collected. Biochemical and radiological progression-free survival (bPFS, rPFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan Meier analyses. Potential factors impacting survival were tested with univariable log-rank test and multivariable Cox-proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Total 337 men with cN1M0 prostate cancer were included, 47% having Gleason grade group 5 disease. Treatment modalities included androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in 98.9% men, either alone (19%) or in combinations including prostate radiotherapy (70%), pelvic nodal radiotherapy (38%), docetaxel (22%), or surgery (7%). At median follow up of 50 months, 5-year bPFS, rPFS, and OS were 62.7%, 71.0%, and 75.8% respectively. Prostate radiotherapy was associated with significantly higher bPFS (74.1% vs 34.2%), rPFS (80.7% vs 44.3%) and OS (86.7% vs 56.2%) at five years (log rank p < 0.001 each). On multivariable analysis including age, Gleason grade group, tumour stage, ADT duration, docetaxel, and nodal radiotherapy, benefit of prostate radiotherapy persisted for bPFS [HR 0.33 (95% CI 0.18-0.62)], rPFS [HR 0.25 (0.12-0.51)], and OS [HR 0.27 (0.13-0.58)] (p < 0.001 each). Impact of nodal radiotherapy or docetaxel was not established due to small subgroups. CONCLUSION: Addition of prostate radiotherapy to ADT in cN1M0 prostate cancer yielded improved disease control and overall survival independent of other tumour and treatment factors.

Cost to government health-care services of treating acute self-poisonings in a rural district in Sri Lanka.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the direct financial costs to the Sri Lanka Ministry of Health of treating patients after self-poisoning, particularly from pesticides, in a single district. METHODS: Data on staff, drug, laboratory and other inputs for each patient admitted for self-poisoning were prospectively collected over a one-month period from one general hospital (2005) and five peripheral hospitals (2006) in the Anuradhapura district. Data on transfers to secondary- and tertiary-level facilities were obtained for a 6-month period from 30 peripheral hospitals. The cost of the inputs in United States dollars (US$), using 2005 figures, was derived from hospital accounts. FINDINGS: The average total cost of treating a self-poisoned patient at the general hospital was US$ 31.83, with ward staff input and drugs being the highest expenditure category and only US$ 0.19 of this sum related to capital and maintenance costs. The average total cost of treatment was highest for self-poisoning with pesticides (US$ 49.12). The patients placed in the intensive care unit, who comprised 5% of the total, took up 75% of the overall treatment cost for all self-poisoned patients at the general hospital. The average total cost of treating self-poisoned patients at peripheral hospitals was US$ 3.33. The average patient cost per transfer was US$ 14.03. In 2006, the total cost of treating self-poisoned patients in the Anuradhapura district amounted to US$ 76,599, of which US$ 53,834 were comprised of pesticide self-poisonings. Based on the total treatment cost per self-poisoned patient estimated in this study, the cost of treating self-poisoned patients in all of Sri Lanka in 2004 was estimated at US$ 866,304. CONCLUSION: The cost of treating pesticide self-poisonings may be reduced by promoting the use of less toxic pesticides and possibly by improving case management in primary care hospitals. Additional research is needed to assess if increasing infrastructure and staff at peripheral hospitals could reduce the overall cost to the government, optimize case management and reduce pressure on secondary services.