Cargando…

Characteristics and national trends of patients receiving treatment of the primary tumor for metastatic prostate cancer()

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine temporal trends in the receipt of prostatectomy or locoregional radiation to the prostate for patients with metastatic prostate cancer and to identify predictors of receipt of local treatment. METHODS: We identified 39,976 patients with metastatic prostate cancer d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sinha, Sumi, Muralidhar, Vinayak, Feng, Felix Y., Nguyen, Paul L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Asian Pacific Prostate Society 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5551914/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28828351
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2017.04.003
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: We sought to determine temporal trends in the receipt of prostatectomy or locoregional radiation to the prostate for patients with metastatic prostate cancer and to identify predictors of receipt of local treatment. METHODS: We identified 39,976 patients with metastatic prostate cancer diagnosed in 2004–2012 using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). We used logistic multivariable regression to determine trends in the receipt of prostate and/or pelvic radiation or radical prostatectomy after adjusting for demographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Patients with metastatic disease were less likely to receive locoregional treatment over time [7.88% in 2004 vs. 5.53% in 2012, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.97 per year, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.95–0.98; P < 0.001]. Cofactors associated with decreased likelihood for locoregional treatment included older age (AOR = 0.96 per year, 95% CI = 0.96–0.96, P < 0.001) and increased comorbidity level (1 comorbidity: AOR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.73–0.93, P = 0.001; two or more comorbidities: AOR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.39–0.61, P < 0.001). Decreasing utilization of both radiation and surgery of the primary site contributed to this trend. More specifically, patients with metastatic disease were less likely to receive radiation to the prostate and/or pelvis over time (5.9% in 2004 vs. 4.2% in 2012, AOR = 0.97 per year, 95% CI = 0.95–0.99, P < 0.001). Similarly, there was a trend toward decreased use of radical prostatectomy (2.17% in 2004 compared to 1.31% in 2012, AOR = 0.96 per year, 95% CI 0.93–0.99, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite recent evidence of the possible benefit for locoregional treatment of prostate cancer in the setting of metastatic disease, rates of prostate radiation and radical prostatectomy among this population have actually declined over the 8-year period between 2004 and 2012, suggesting slow adoption of this novel treatment paradigm.