skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: National Trends and Predictors of Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

Abstract

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 includedmore » 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.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3];  [4]; ; ; ; ; ;  [5];  [3];  [3];  [6];  [3];  [3];  [7];  [3];  [5];  [3];  [5] more »;  [3];  [5];  [3]; « less
  1. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
  2. Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
  3. (United States)
  4. Harvard Radiation Oncology Program, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
  5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
  6. Department of Medical Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
  7. Division of Urological Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649930
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 98; Journal 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)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ANDROGENS; BRACHYTHERAPY; EXTERNAL BEAM RADIATION THERAPY; NEOPLASMS; PATIENTS; PROSTATE

Citation Formats

Yang, David D., Muralidhar, Vinayak, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, Mahal, Brandon A., Labe, Shelby A., Nezolosky, Michelle D., Vastola, Marie E., King, Martin T., Martin, Neil E., Orio, Peter F., Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, Choueiri, Toni K., Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, Trinh, Quoc-Dien, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, Spratt, Daniel E., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Hoffman, Karen E., The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, Feng, Felix Y., Departments of Urology & Medicine and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California, and and others. National Trends and Predictors of Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2017.02.020.
Yang, David D., Muralidhar, Vinayak, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, Mahal, Brandon A., Labe, Shelby A., Nezolosky, Michelle D., Vastola, Marie E., King, Martin T., Martin, Neil E., Orio, Peter F., Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, Choueiri, Toni K., Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, Trinh, Quoc-Dien, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, Spratt, Daniel E., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Hoffman, Karen E., The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, Feng, Felix Y., Departments of Urology & Medicine and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California, & and others. National Trends and Predictors of Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer. United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2017.02.020.
Yang, David D., Muralidhar, Vinayak, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, Mahal, Brandon A., Labe, Shelby A., Nezolosky, Michelle D., Vastola, Marie E., King, Martin T., Martin, Neil E., Orio, Peter F., Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, Choueiri, Toni K., Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, Trinh, Quoc-Dien, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, Spratt, Daniel E., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Hoffman, Karen E., The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, Feng, Felix Y., Departments of Urology & Medicine and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California, and and others. Thu . "National Trends and Predictors of Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer". United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2017.02.020.
@article{osti_22649930,
title = {National Trends and Predictors of Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer},
author = {Yang, David D. and Muralidhar, Vinayak and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts and Mahal, Brandon A. and Labe, Shelby A. and Nezolosky, Michelle D. and Vastola, Marie E. and King, Martin T. and Martin, Neil E. and Orio, Peter F. and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts and Choueiri, Toni K. and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts and Trinh, Quoc-Dien and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts and Spratt, Daniel E. and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan and Hoffman, Karen E. and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas and Feng, Felix Y. and Departments of Urology & Medicine and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California and and others},
abstractNote = {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.},
doi = {10.1016/J.IJROBP.2017.02.020},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 2,
volume = 98,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Jun 01 00:00:00 EDT 2017},
month = {Thu Jun 01 00:00:00 EDT 2017}
}
  • Purpose: We compare the efficacy and toxicity among the 3 major modalities available used to treat high-risk prostate cancer (HRCaP). Methods and Materials: From 1996 to 2012, 2557 HRCaP patients were treated: 734 received external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), 515 received low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR) with or without ADT, and 1308 received radical prostatectomy (RP) with or without EBRT. Biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), clinical relapse-free survival (cRFS), and prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM) were assessed. Toxicity was assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03. The log-rank test compared bRFS andmore » cRFS among the modalities, and Cox regression identified factors associated with bRFS and cRFS. Gray's test compared differences in late toxicity and PSCM among the modalities. Competing risk regression identified factors associated with PCSM. Results: The median follow-up time and age were 63.5 months and 65 years, respectively. The bRFS at 5 and 10 years, respectively, was 74% and 53% for EBRT, 74% and 52% for LDR, and 65% and 47% for RP (P=.0001). The cRFS at 5 and 10 years, respectively, was 85% and 73% for EBRT, 90% and 76% for LDR, and 89% and 75% for RP (P=.121). The PCSM at 5 and 10 years, respectively, was 5.3% and 11.2% for EBRT, 3.2% and 3.6% for LDR, and 2.8% and 6.8% for RP (P=.0004). The 10-year cumulative incidence of ≥grade 3 genitourinary toxicity was 8.1% for EBRT, 7.2% for LDR, and 16.4% for RP (P<.0001). The 10-year cumulative incidence of ≥grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity was 4.6% for EBRT, 1.1% for LDR, and 1.0% for RP (P<.0001). Conclusion: HRCaP treated with EBRT, LDR, or RP yields efficacy showing better bRFS for LDR and EBRT relative to RP, equivalence for cRFS, and a PCSM advantage of LDR and RP over EBRT. The toxicity is lowest for LDR.« less
  • Purpose: The addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiation therapy (RT) is the standard of care for men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PC). However, whether competing mortality (CM) affects the ability of ADT to improve, survival remains unanswered. Methods and Materials: We calculated a CM risk score using a Fine-Gray semiparametric model that included age and cardiometabolic comorbidities from a cohort of 17,669 men treated with high-dose RT with or without supplemental ADT for nonmetastatic PC. Fine and Gray competing risk regression analysis was used to assess whether ADT reduced the risk of PC-specific mortality for menmore » with a low versus a high risk of CM among the 4550 patients within the intermediate- and high-risk cohort after adjustment for established PC prognostic factors, year of treatment, site, and ADT propensity score. Results: After a median follow-up of 8.4 years, 1065 men had died, 89 (8.36%) of PC. Among the men with a low CM score, ADT use was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of PC-specific mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.87, P=.02) but was not for men with high CM (adjusted hazard ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 0.77-2.30, P=.30). Conclusions: Adding ADT to high-dose RT appears to be associated with decreased PC-specific mortality risk in men with a low but not a high CM score. These data should serve to heighten awareness about the importance of considering competing risks when determining whether to add ADT to RT for older men with intermediate- or high-risk PC.« less
  • Background: The use of adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiotherapy has become common in low-risk patients, although clinical trials have focused primarily on high-risk patients. This study examines the effectiveness of adjuvant ADT combined with radiotherapy for a wide range of patients treated in the 1990s. Methods and Materials: Prostate cancer survival was examined in a population based cohort of 31,643 patients aged 65 to 85 years who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer and treated with external beam radiotherapy and/or brachytherapy. Instrumental variable analysis methods were used to control for selection bias. Results: Patients with stage T3/T4more » disease who received adjuvant ADT experienced improved 5-year and 8-year survival. No survival advantage was observed for men with T1/T2 disease during this interval. Conclusion: High-risk patients who receive primary radiotherapy have benefited from adjuvant ADT, whereas low-risk patients with disease confined to the prostate have not yet benefited from adjuvant therapy within the first 8 years after treatment. These findings are consistent with practice guidelines, which recommend adjuvant ADT for patients with high-risk disease.« less
  • Purpose: We investigated the benefit of short-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC) receiving dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy. Methods and Materials: The present retrospective study comprised 710 intermediate-risk PC patients receiving external beam radiation therapy with doses of ≥81 Gy at a single institution from 1992 to 2005, including 357 patients receiving neoadjuvant and concurrent ADT. Prostate-specific antigen recurrence-free survival (PSA-RFS) and distant metastasis (DM) were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. PC-specific mortality (PCSM) was assessed using competing-risks analysis. Results: The median follow-up was 7.9 years. Despite being more likelymore » to have higher PSA levels, Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7, multiple National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate-risk factors, and older age (P≤.001 for all comparisons), patients receiving ADT had improved PSA-RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.598; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.435-0.841; P=.003), DM (HR, 0.424; 95% CI, 0.219-0.819; P=.011), and PCSM (HR, 0.380; 95% CI, 0.157-0.921; P=.032) on univariate analysis. Using multivariate analysis, ADT was an even stronger predictor of improved PSA-RFS (adjusted HR [AHR], 0.516; 95% CI, 0.360-0.739; P<.001), DM (AHR, 0.347; 95% CI, 0.176-0.685; P=.002), and PCSM (AHR, 0.297; 95% CI, 0.128-0.685; P=.004). Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7 and ≥50% positive biopsy cores were other independent predictors of PCSM. Conclusions: Short-term ADT improves PSA-RFS, DM, and PCSM in patients with intermediate-risk PC undergoing dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy.« less
  • Purpose: To analyze prognostic factors in patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and androgen deprivation (ADT). Methods and Materials: Between 1998 and 2008 at University of Michigan Medical Center, 718 men were consecutively treated with EBRT to at least 75 Gy. Seven definitions of high-risk prostate cancer, applying to 11-33% of patients, were evaluated. Biochemical failure (BF), salvage ADT use, metastatic progression, and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Each high-risk definition was associated with increased BF (hazard ratio [HR] 2.8-3.9, p < 0.0001),more » salvage ADT use (HR 3.9-6.3, p < 0.0001), metastasis (HR 3.7-6.6, p < 0.0001), and PCSM (HR 3.7-16.2, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, an increasing number of high-risk features predicted worse outcome. Adjuvant ADT yielded significant reductions in both metastases (HR 0.19-0.38, p < 0.001) and PCSM (HR 0.38-0.50, p < 0.05) for all high-risk definitions (with the exception of clinical Stage T3-4 disease) but improved BF only for those with elevated Gleason scores (p < 0.03, HR 0.25-0.48). When treated with ADT and dose-escalated EBRT, patients with Gleason scores 8 to 10, without other high-risk features, had 8-year freedom from BF of 74%, freedom from distant metastases of 93%, and cause-specific survival of 92%, with salvage ADT used in 16% of patients. Conclusion: Adjuvant ADT results in a significant improvement in clinical progression and PCSM across multiple definitions of high-risk disease even with dose-escalated EBRT. There is a subset of patients, characterized by multiple high-risk features or the presence of Gleason Pattern 5, who remain at significant risk for metastasis and PCSM despite current treatment.« less