Cancer-specific survival after radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy in high-risk and very high-risk African American prostate cancer patients.
Black or African American
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Incidence
Male
Middle Aged
Mortality
Neoplasm Grading
Neoplasm Staging
Propensity Score
Prostatectomy
/ methods
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ ethnology
Radiotherapy
/ methods
Risk Assessment
/ methods
SEER Program
/ statistics & numerical data
United States
/ epidemiology
external beam radiotherapy
high-risk
prostate cancer
radical prostatectomy
very high-risk
Journal
The Prostate
ISSN: 1097-0045
Titre abrégé: Prostate
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8101368
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
revised:
14
09
2021
received:
26
07
2021
accepted:
27
09
2021
pubmed:
19
10
2021
medline:
23
2
2022
entrez:
18
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk African American patients, as well as Johns Hopkins University (JHU) high-risk and very high-risk patients. Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 4165 NCCN high-risk patients, of whom 1944 (46.7%) and 2221 (53.3%) patients qualified for JHU high-risk or very high-risk definitions. Of all 4165 patients, 1390 (33.5%) were treated with RP versus 2775 (66.6%) with EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models addressed CSM before and after 1:1 propensity score matching between RP and EBRT NCCN high-risk patients. Subsequently, analyses were repeated separately in JHU high-risk and very high-risk subgroups. Finally, all analyses were repeated after landmark analyses were applied. In the NCCN high-risk cohort, 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 2.4 versus 5.2%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.84, p = 0.009) favoring RP. In JHU very high-risk patients 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 3.7 versus 8.4%, respectively, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.28-0.95, p = 0.03) favoring RP. Conversely, in JHU high-risk patients, no significant CSM difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (5-year CSM rates: 1.3 vs 1.3%; multivariable hazard ratio: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.16-1.90, p = 0.3). Observations were confirmed in propensity score-matched and landmark analyses adjusted cohorts. In JHU very high-risk African American patients, RP may hold a CSM advantage over EBRT, but not in JHU high-risk African American patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk African American patients, as well as Johns Hopkins University (JHU) high-risk and very high-risk patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 4165 NCCN high-risk patients, of whom 1944 (46.7%) and 2221 (53.3%) patients qualified for JHU high-risk or very high-risk definitions. Of all 4165 patients, 1390 (33.5%) were treated with RP versus 2775 (66.6%) with EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models addressed CSM before and after 1:1 propensity score matching between RP and EBRT NCCN high-risk patients. Subsequently, analyses were repeated separately in JHU high-risk and very high-risk subgroups. Finally, all analyses were repeated after landmark analyses were applied.
RESULTS
In the NCCN high-risk cohort, 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 2.4 versus 5.2%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.84, p = 0.009) favoring RP. In JHU very high-risk patients 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 3.7 versus 8.4%, respectively, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.28-0.95, p = 0.03) favoring RP. Conversely, in JHU high-risk patients, no significant CSM difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (5-year CSM rates: 1.3 vs 1.3%; multivariable hazard ratio: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.16-1.90, p = 0.3). Observations were confirmed in propensity score-matched and landmark analyses adjusted cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS
In JHU very high-risk African American patients, RP may hold a CSM advantage over EBRT, but not in JHU high-risk African American patients.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
120-131Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. The Prostate published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Dess RT, Hartman HE, Mahal BA, et al. Association of black race with prostate cancer-specific and other-cause mortality. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(7):975-983.
Hoffman RM, Gilliland FD, Eley JW, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in advanced-stage prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(5):388-395.
Mahal BA, Aizer AA, Ziehr DR, et al. Trends in disparate treatment of African American men with localized prostate cancer across National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk groups. Urology. 2014;84(2):386-392.
Beebe-Dimmer JL, Ruterbusch JJ, Cooney KA, et al. Racial differences in patterns of treatment among men diagnosed with de novo advanced prostate cancer: a SEER-Medicare investigation. Cancer Med. 2019;8(6):3325-3335.
Schmid M, Meyer CP, Reznor G, et al. Racial differences in the surgical care of medicare beneficiaries with localized prostate cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(1):85-93.
Pompe RS, Karakiewicz PI, Tian Z, et al. Oncologic and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy for high or very high risk prostate cancer: European validation of the current NCCN® guideline. J Urol. 2017;198(2):354-361.
Sundi D, Tosoian JJ, Nyame YA, et al. Outcomes of very high-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: validation study from 3 centers. Cancer. 2019;125(3):391-397.
About the SEER Program [Internet]. SEER. Accessed April 20, 2021. https://seer.cancer.gov/about/overview.html
Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES, Armstrong AJ, et al. Prostate cancer, version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2019;17(5):479-505.
Sundi D, Wang VM, Pierorazio PM, et al. Very-high-risk localized prostate cancer: definition and outcomes. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014;17(1):57-63.
Wenzel M, Würnschimmel C, Ruvolo CC, et al. Increasing rates of NCCN high and very high-risk prostate cancer versus number of prostate biopsy cores. Prostate. 2021;81(12):874-881.
RCT. R: A language and environment for statistical computing; 2017. https://wwwr-projectorg
Knipper S, Palumbo C, Pecoraro A, et al. Survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy vs. external beam radiation therapy in prostate cancer patients with Gleason Score 9-10 at biopsy: a population-based analysis. Urol Oncol. 2020;38(3):79.e9-79.e14.
Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R, et al. A competing-risks analysis of survival after alternative treatment modalities for prostate cancer patients: 1988-2006. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):88-95.
Reichard CA, Nyame YA, Sundi D, et al. Does time from diagnosis to treatment of high- or very-high-risk prostate cancer affect outcome? BJU Int. 2019;124(2):282-289.
Emam A, Hermann G, Attwood K, et al. Oncologic outcome of radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy as primary treatment for high and very high risk localized prostate cancer. Prostate. 2021;81(4):223-230.
Tward JD, O'neil B, Boucher K, et al. Metastasis, mortality, and quality of life for men with NCCN high and very high risk localized prostate cancer after surgical and/or combined modality radiotherapy. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020;18(4):274-283.e5.
National Cancer Database. Accessed July 05, 2021. http://ncdbpuf.facs.org/
Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):203-213.
James ND, Sydes MR, Clarke NW, et al. Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2016;387(10024):1163-1177.
Bernard B, Muralidhar V, Chen Y-H, et al. Impact of ethnicity on the outcome of men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Cancer. 2017;123(9):1536-1544.
Balakrishnan AS, Palmer NR, Fergus KB, et al. Minority recruitment trends in phase III prostate cancer clinical trials (2003 to 2014): progress and critical areas for improvement. J Urol. 2019;201(2):259-267.
Bandini M, Preisser F, Nazzani S, et al. The effect of other-cause mortality adjustment on access to alternative treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer among African American patients. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;1(3):215-222.
Knipper S, Pecoraro A, Palumbo C, et al. A 25-year period analysis of other-cause mortality in localized prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17(5):395-401.
Abouot SEER-Medicare Linked Database. Accessed July 05, 2021. https://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/seermedicare/
Gleiss A, Oberbauer R, Heinze G. An unjustified benefit: immortal time bias in the analysis of time-dependent events. Transpl Int. 2018;31(2):125-130.