PD40-10 MORTALITY FOLLOWING RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY (RP) OR INTENSITY MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY (IMRT) FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER (PCA) – AN ANALYSIS OF THE CDC PROSTATE CANCER DATA QUALITY AND PATTERNS OF CARE STUDY (CDC POC-BP)

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized: Surgical Therapy I (PD40)1 Apr 2019PD40-10 MORTALITY FOLLOWING RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY (RP) OR INTENSITY MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY (IMRT) FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER (PCA) – AN ANALYSIS OF THE CDC PROSTATE CANCER DATA QUALITY AND PATTERNS OF CARE STUDY (CDC POC-BP) Kenan Celtik*, Christopher Wallis, Mary Lo, Ann Hamilton, Steven Fleming, Xiao-Cheng Wu, Roger Anderson, Brian Miles, and Raj Satkunasivam Kenan Celtik*Kenan Celtik* More articles by this author , Christopher WallisChristopher Wallis More articles by this author , Mary LoMary Lo More articles by this author , Ann HamiltonAnn Hamilton More articles by this author , Steven FlemingSteven Fleming More articles by this author , Xiao-Cheng WuXiao-Cheng Wu More articles by this author , Roger AndersonRoger Anderson More articles by this author , Brian MilesBrian Miles More articles by this author , and Raj SatkunasivamRaj Satkunasivam More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000556542.78481.2bAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Comparative effectiveness of RP and IMRT for PCa have been poorly studied, and limited by poor measurement of patient comorbidities. We sought to examine survival differences using a population-based cohort with robust data on comorbidities. METHODS: The CDC POC-BP study was conducted between 2007-2009 and involved medical record abstraction of 8,229 cases of localized PCa diagnosed in 2004 across the CDC National Program of Cancer Registries. We identified 3019 RP and 667 IMRT patients. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, including comorbidities assessed by the Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 (ACE-27) score, between patients receiving RP and IMRT. We compared overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer specific survival (CSS) between RP and IMRT using Kaplan Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard analyses. We performed a pre-specified subgroup analysis in patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high risk, localized PCa treated with RP (n=89) and IMRT (n=95). RESULTS: PSM was used to identify 502 RP and 502 IMRT patients that were well balanced with respect to standardized differences. Median follow-up was 10.1 years (IQR 6.9-10.8). Nine-year OS was 77.3% (95% CI 73.5%-81.1%) and 72.4% (95% CI 68.3%-76.4%) for RP and IMRT, respectively (Figure 1). IMRT as compared to RP was associated with a 29% increase in the risk of overall mortality [HR 1.29 (95% CI 1.02-1.65]. There was no significant difference in CSS between IMRT and RP [HR 1.70 (95% CI 0.77-3.78)]. In the subset of patients with NCCN high risk PCa, IMRT as compared to RP was not associated with a statistically significant difference in OS [HR 1.40 (95% CI 0.86-2.29) or CSS [HR 1.71 (95% CI 0.56-5.25)]. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based cohort study examining contemporary localized prostate cancer treatments, we found an increased risk of all-cause, but not prostate cancer specific mortality associated with IMRT as compared to RP. Limitations inherent in observational studies including residual confounding should be considered in the interpretation of this data. Source of Funding: The Hamill Foundation. The Breast and Prostate Cancer Data Quality and Patterns of Care Study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through cooperative agreements with the California Cancer Registry (Public Health Institute) (1-U01-DP000260), Emory University (1-U01-DP000258), Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center (1-U01-DP000253), Minnesota Cancer Surveillance System (Minnesota Department of Health) (1-U01-DP000259), Medical College of Wisconsin (1- U01-DP000261), University of Kentucky (1-U01-DP000251), and Wake Forest University (1-U01-DP000264). The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Houston, TX; Toronto, Canada; Los Angeles, CA; Lexington, KY; New Orleans, LA; Charlottesville, VA; Houston, TX© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e741-e742 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Kenan Celtik* More articles by this author Christopher Wallis More articles by this author Mary Lo More articles by this author Ann Hamilton More articles by this author Steven Fleming More articles by this author Xiao-Cheng Wu More articles by this author Roger Anderson More articles by this author Brian Miles More articles by this author Raj Satkunasivam More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.