Cargando…

Utilization of prostate brachytherapy for low risk prostate cancer: Is the decline overstated?

PURPOSE: Several prior studies have suggested that brachytherapy utilization has markedly decreased, coinciding with the recent increased utilization of intensity modulated radiation therapy, as well as an increase in urologist-owned centers. We sought to investigate the brachytherapy utilization in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Safdieh, Joseph, Wong, Andrew, Weiner, Joseph P., Schwartz, David, Schreiber, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5018529/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27648081
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2016.61942
_version_ 1782452924407873536
author Safdieh, Joseph
Wong, Andrew
Weiner, Joseph P.
Schwartz, David
Schreiber, David
author_facet Safdieh, Joseph
Wong, Andrew
Weiner, Joseph P.
Schwartz, David
Schreiber, David
author_sort Safdieh, Joseph
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Several prior studies have suggested that brachytherapy utilization has markedly decreased, coinciding with the recent increased utilization of intensity modulated radiation therapy, as well as an increase in urologist-owned centers. We sought to investigate the brachytherapy utilization in a large, hospital-based registry. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Men with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004-2012 and treated with either external beam radiation and/or prostate brachytherapy were abstracted from the National Cancer Database. In order to be included, men had to be clinically staged as T1c-T2aNx-0Mx-0, Gleason 6, PSA ≤ 10.0 ng/ml. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze brachytherapy utilization over time and were compared via χ(2). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess for covariables associated with increased brachytherapy usage. RESULTS: There were 89,413 men included in this study, of which 37,054 (41.6%) received only external beam radiation, and 52,089 (58.4%) received prostate brachytherapy. The use of brachytherapy declined over time from 62.9% in 2004 to 51.3% in 2012 (p < 0.001). This decline was noted in both academic facilities (60.8% in 2004 to 47.0% in 2012, p < 0.001) as well as in non-academic facilities (63.7% in 2004 to 53.0% in 2012, p < 0.001). The decline was more pronounced in patients who lived closer to treatment facilities than those who lived further. The use of intensity modulated radiation therapy increased during this same time period from 18.4% in 2004 to 38.2% in 2012 (p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, treatment at an academic center, increasing age, decreasing distance from the treatment center, and years of diagnosis from 2006-2012 were significantly associated with reduced brachytherapy usage. CONCLUSIONS: In this hospital-based registry, prostate brachytherapy usage has declined for low risk prostate cancer as intensity modulated radiation therapy usage has increased. However, it still remains the treatment of choice for 51.3% of patients as of 2012.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5018529
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Termedia Publishing House
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50185292016-09-19 Utilization of prostate brachytherapy for low risk prostate cancer: Is the decline overstated? Safdieh, Joseph Wong, Andrew Weiner, Joseph P. Schwartz, David Schreiber, David J Contemp Brachytherapy Original Paper PURPOSE: Several prior studies have suggested that brachytherapy utilization has markedly decreased, coinciding with the recent increased utilization of intensity modulated radiation therapy, as well as an increase in urologist-owned centers. We sought to investigate the brachytherapy utilization in a large, hospital-based registry. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Men with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004-2012 and treated with either external beam radiation and/or prostate brachytherapy were abstracted from the National Cancer Database. In order to be included, men had to be clinically staged as T1c-T2aNx-0Mx-0, Gleason 6, PSA ≤ 10.0 ng/ml. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze brachytherapy utilization over time and were compared via χ(2). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess for covariables associated with increased brachytherapy usage. RESULTS: There were 89,413 men included in this study, of which 37,054 (41.6%) received only external beam radiation, and 52,089 (58.4%) received prostate brachytherapy. The use of brachytherapy declined over time from 62.9% in 2004 to 51.3% in 2012 (p < 0.001). This decline was noted in both academic facilities (60.8% in 2004 to 47.0% in 2012, p < 0.001) as well as in non-academic facilities (63.7% in 2004 to 53.0% in 2012, p < 0.001). The decline was more pronounced in patients who lived closer to treatment facilities than those who lived further. The use of intensity modulated radiation therapy increased during this same time period from 18.4% in 2004 to 38.2% in 2012 (p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, treatment at an academic center, increasing age, decreasing distance from the treatment center, and years of diagnosis from 2006-2012 were significantly associated with reduced brachytherapy usage. CONCLUSIONS: In this hospital-based registry, prostate brachytherapy usage has declined for low risk prostate cancer as intensity modulated radiation therapy usage has increased. However, it still remains the treatment of choice for 51.3% of patients as of 2012. Termedia Publishing House 2016-08-23 2016-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5018529/ /pubmed/27648081 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2016.61942 Text en Copyright: © 2016 Termedia Sp. z o. o. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Safdieh, Joseph
Wong, Andrew
Weiner, Joseph P.
Schwartz, David
Schreiber, David
Utilization of prostate brachytherapy for low risk prostate cancer: Is the decline overstated?
title Utilization of prostate brachytherapy for low risk prostate cancer: Is the decline overstated?
title_full Utilization of prostate brachytherapy for low risk prostate cancer: Is the decline overstated?
title_fullStr Utilization of prostate brachytherapy for low risk prostate cancer: Is the decline overstated?
title_full_unstemmed Utilization of prostate brachytherapy for low risk prostate cancer: Is the decline overstated?
title_short Utilization of prostate brachytherapy for low risk prostate cancer: Is the decline overstated?
title_sort utilization of prostate brachytherapy for low risk prostate cancer: is the decline overstated?
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5018529/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27648081
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2016.61942
work_keys_str_mv AT safdiehjoseph utilizationofprostatebrachytherapyforlowriskprostatecanceristhedeclineoverstated
AT wongandrew utilizationofprostatebrachytherapyforlowriskprostatecanceristhedeclineoverstated
AT weinerjosephp utilizationofprostatebrachytherapyforlowriskprostatecanceristhedeclineoverstated
AT schwartzdavid utilizationofprostatebrachytherapyforlowriskprostatecanceristhedeclineoverstated
AT schreiberdavid utilizationofprostatebrachytherapyforlowriskprostatecanceristhedeclineoverstated