National Trends and Predictors of Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
- Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
- Harvard Radiation Oncology Program, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
- Department of Medical Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
- Division of Urological Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
Purpose: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is not recommended for low-risk prostate cancer because of its lack of benefit and potential for harm. We evaluated the incidence and predictors of ADT use in low-risk disease. Methods and Materials: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified 197,957 patients with low-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score of 3 + 3 = 6, prostate-specific antigen level <10 ng/mL, and cT1-T2a) diagnosed from 2004 to 2012 with complete demographic and treatment information. We used multiple logistic regression to evaluate predictors of ADT use and Cox regression to examine its association with all-cause mortality. Results: Overall ADT use decreased from 17.6% in 2004 to 3.5% in 2012. In 2012, 11.5% of low-risk brachytherapy patients and 7.6% of external beam radiation therapy patients received ADT. Among 82,352 irradiation-managed patients, predictors of ADT use included treatment in a community versus academic cancer program (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-1.71; P<.001; incidence, 14.0% vs 6.0% in 2012); treatment in the South (AOR, 1.51), Midwest (AOR, 1.81), or Northeast (AOR, 1.90) versus West (P<.001); and brachytherapy use versus external beam radiation therapy (AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.27-1.37; P<.001). Among 25,196 patients who did not receive local therapy, predictors of primary ADT use included a Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score of ≥2 versus 0 (AOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.06-1.91; P=.018); treatment in a community versus academic cancer program (AOR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.37-1.90; P<.001); and treatment in the South (AOR, 1.26), Midwest (AOR, 1.52), or Northeast (AOR, 1.28) versus West (P≤.008). Primary ADT use was associated with increased all-cause mortality in patients who did not receive local therapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.14-1.43; P<.001) after adjustment for age and comorbidity. Conclusions: ADT use in low-risk prostate cancer has declined nationally but may remain an issue of concern in certain populations and regions.
- OSTI ID:
- 22649930
- Journal Information:
- International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Vol. 98, Issue 2; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2017 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); ISSN 0360-3016
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Survival After Conservative Management Versus External Beam Radiation Therapy in Elderly Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer
Preoperative 3-Tesla Multiparametric Endorectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings and the Odds of Upgrading and Upstaging at Radical Prostatectomy in Men With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer