Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The survival outcomes of localized low-risk prostate cancer, a population-based study using NCDB.
Mao, Shifeng; Samiei, Arash; Yin, Yue; Wegner, Rodney E; Sanguino, Angela; Lyne, John; Miller, Ralph; Cohen, Jeffrey.
Afiliação
  • Mao S; Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Samiei A; Division of Urology, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Yin Y; Allegheny-Singer Research Institute, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Wegner RE; Division of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Sanguino A; Department of Pathology, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Lyne J; Division of Urology, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Miller R; Division of Urology, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Cohen J; Division of Urology, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Cancer Med ; 13(15): e70060, 2024 Aug.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39119863
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The optimal treatment approach for low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) remains controversial. While active surveillance is an increasingly popular option, definitive local treatments, including radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and prostate seed implantation (PSI), are also commonly used. This study aimed to evaluate the survival outcomes of patients with LRPC using a large patient population from the National Cancer Database (NCDB).

METHODS:

We analyzed data from 195,452 patients diagnosed with LRPC between 2004 and 2015 using the NCDB. Patients were classified based on their treatment modalities, including RP, EBRT, PSI, or no local treatment (NLT). Only patients with Charlson-Deyo comorbidity scores of 0 or 1 were included to ensure comparability. Propensity score analysis was used to balance the treatment groups, and the accelerated failure time model was used to analyze the survival rates of the treatment groups.

RESULTS:

After a median follow-up of 70.8 months, 24,545 deaths occurred, resulting in an all-cause mortality rate of 13%. RP demonstrated a survival benefit compared with NLT, particularly in patients younger than 74 years of age. In contrast, radiation treatments (EBRT and PSI) did not improve survival in the younger age groups, except for patients older than 70 years for EBRT and older than 65 years for PSI. Notably, EBRT in patients younger than 65 years was associated with inferior outcomes.

CONCLUSION:

This study highlights the differences in survival outcomes among LRPC treatment modalities. RP was associated with improved survival compared to NLT, especially in younger patients. In contrast, EBRT and PSI showed survival benefits primarily in the older age groups. NLT is a reasonable choice, particularly in younger patients when RP is not chosen. These findings emphasize the importance of individualized treatment decisions for LRPC management.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Prostatectomia / Neoplasias da Próstata Limite: Aged / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Cancer Med Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos País de publicação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Prostatectomia / Neoplasias da Próstata Limite: Aged / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Cancer Med Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos País de publicação: Estados Unidos