Search

Background: This study assessed the use of active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer and evaluated institutional factors associated with the receipt of active surveillance.Methods: A retrospective, hospital-based cohort of 115,208 men with low-risk prostate cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 was used. Multivariate and mixed effects models were used to examine variation and factors associated with active surveillance.Results: During the study period, the use of active surveillance increased from 6.8% in 2010 to 19.9% in 2014 (estimated annual percentage change, +28.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], + 19.6% to + 38.7%; P = .002). The adjusted probability of active-surveillance receipt by institution was highly variable. Compared with patients treated at comprehensive community cancer centers, patients treated at community cancer programs (odds ratio [OR], 2.00; 95% CI, 1.50-2.67; P < .001) and academic institutions (OR, 2.47; 95%, CI, 1.81-3.37; P < .001) had higher odds of receiving active surveillance. Compared with patients treated at very low-volume facilities, patients treated at very high-volume facilities had higher odds of receiving active surveillance (OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.94-6.55; P < .001). Patient and hospital characteristics accounted for 60.2% of the overall variation, whereas the treating institution accounted for 91.5% of the unexplained variability.Conclusions: Within this hospital-based cohort, the use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer increased significantly over time. Significant variation was found in the use of active surveillance. Most of the variation was attributable to facility-related factors such as the facility type, facility volume, and institution. Policies to achieve consistent and higher rates of active surveillance, when appropriate, should be a priority of professional societies and patient advocacy groups. Cancer 2018;124:55-64. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in pure urothelial bladder cancer provides a significant survival benefit. However, to the authors' knowledge, it is unknown whether this benefit persists in histological variants. The objective of the current study was to assess the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the probability of non-organ-confined disease and overall survival after radical cystectomy (RC) in patients with histological variants.Methods: Querying the National Cancer Data Base, the authors identified 2018 patients with histological variants who were undergoing RC for bladder cancer between 2003 and 2012. Variants were categorized as micropapillary or sarcomatoid differentiation, squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, neuroendocrine tumors, and other histology. Logistic regression models estimated the odds of non-organ-confined disease at the time of RC for each histological variant, stratified by the receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cox regression models were used to examine the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on overall mortality in each variant subgroup.Results: Patients with neuroendocrine tumors (odds ratio [OR], 0.16; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.08-0.32 [P<.001]), micropapillary differentiation (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.95 [P=.041]), sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17-0.94 [P=.035]), and adenocarcinoma (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.06-0.91 [P=.035]) were less likely to harbor non-organ-confined disease at the time of RC when treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. An overall survival benefit for neoadjuvant chemotherapy was only found in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33-0.74 [P=.001]).Conclusions: Patients with neuroendocrine tumors benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy, as evidenced by better overall survival and lower rates of non-organ-confined disease at the time of RC. For tumors with micropapillary differentiation, sarcomatoid differentiation, or adenocarcinoma, neoadjuvant chemotherapy decreased the frequency of non-organ-confined disease at the time of RC. However, this favorable effect did not translate into a statistically significant overall survival benefit for these patients, potentially due to the aggressive tumor biology. Cancer 2017;123:4346-55. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of travel distance to the treating facility on the risk of overall mortality (OM) among US patients with prostate cancer (PCa).Methods: In total, 775,999 patients who had PCa in all stages and received treatment with different strategies (radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, observation, androgen-deprivation therapy, multimodal treatment, and chemotherapy) were drawn from the National Cancer Data Base from 2004 through 2012. Independent predictors of travel distance (intermediate [12.5-49.9 miles] and long [49.9-249.9 miles] vs short[<12.5 miles]) and its effect on OM were calculated using multivariable regression analyses. Additional analyses evaluated the distance effect on OM in selected subgroups.Results: In total, 54.5%, 33.4%, and 12.1% of patients traveled short, intermediate, and long distances, respectively. Residency in rural areas and the receipt of treatment at academic/high-volume centers independently predicted long travel distance. Non-Hispanic black men and Medicaid-insured men were less likely to travel long distances (all P < .001). Overall, traveling a long distance (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.92; P < .001) was associated with lower OM risk compared with traveling a short distance. This held true among non-Hispanic white men; privately insured and Medicare-insured men; those who underwent radical prostatectomy, received radiation therapy, and received multimodal strategies; and those who received treatment at academic/high-volume centers (P < .01), but not among non-Hispanic black men (P = .3). Long travel distance was associated with an increased OM in Medicaid-insured patients (P < .001).Conclusions: An OM benefit was observed among men who traveled long distances for PCa treatment, which is likely to be a reflection of centralization of care and more favorable patient-level characteristics in those travelers. Furthermore, the survival benefit mediated by long travel distances appears to be influenced by baseline socioeconomic, treatment, and facility-level factors. Cancer 2017;123:3241-52. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]