Search

Purpose: Contemporary treatment strategies for localized prostate cancer (PCa) have been evolved over time. However, there is little data regarding survival outcomes based on initial treatment by risk group in this new era. This study aims to evaluate survival outcomes among men who underwent observation, radiotherapy, or radical prostatectomy for localized PCa using a population-based cohort. Materials and Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) prostate with watchful waiting dataset (2010– 2016) was used. We included men diagnosed with localized PCa and clinical stage T1c-2cN0M0. Other inclusion criteria were age 50–79 years, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤50 ng/mL, and initial treatment with observation (active surveillance/ watchful waiting), radiotherapy, or radical prostatectomy. PCa risk was assessed using the D’Amico classification. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included PCa-specific survival. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression and competing risk analysis were performed to assess outcomes. Results: After IPTW-adjusting, pseudo-population comprised 521,656 men (observation: 170,428, radiotherapy: 175,628, radical prostatectomy: 175,600) at a median 36.5 month follow-up. Observation demonstrated the lowest 5-year overall survival rate (91.6%) after IPTW-adjusting in comparison to radiotherapy (92.4%) and radical prostatectomy (96.1%, p<0.001). Men who underwent radical prostatectomy had the lowest cumulative PCa-specific and all-cause mortality (p<0.001). Compared to observation, radiotherapy (sub-distribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81–0.97; p=0.012) and radical prostatectomy (sHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.41–0.52; p<.001) had a lower risk of PCa-specific mortality in competing risk analysis after adjustment for all other factors and other-cause death. Conclusions: Intermediate-term mortality risk in men with localized PCa were lower with active treatments compared to observation - especially for intermediate- and high-risk disease. However, observation represents a safe management strategy in men within the low-risk group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Deciding whether to treat or conservatively manage patients with prostate cancer is challenging. Recent changes in guidelines, advances in treatment technologies, and policy can influence decision making surrounding management, particularly for those for whom the decision to treat is discretionary. Contemporary trends in management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer are unclear., Methods: Using national Medicare data, men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were identified between 2014 and 2019. Patients were classified by 5- and 10-year noncancer mortality risk. Multinomial logistic regression models were fit to assess adjusted trends in management over time. The primary outcome was management of prostate cancer: local treatment (inclusive of surgery, radiation, brachytherapy, or cryotherapy), hormone therapy, or observation., Results: Local treatment was the most common form of management and stable across years (68%). Use of observation increased (21%-23%, P < .001) and use of hormone therapy decreased (11%-8%, P < 0.001). After stratifying by 10-year non-cancer mortality risk, observation increased among men with low (22.3%-26.1%, P < .001) and moderate (19.9%-23.5%, P < .001) mortality risk. Conversely, use of treatment increased among those with high (62.8%-68.0%, P = .004) and very high (45.5%-54.1%, P < .001) risk of noncancer mortality. These trends were similar across groups when stratified by 5-year noncancer mortality risk., Conclusion: Nationally, use of local treatment remains common and was stable throughout the study period. However, while local treatment declined among men with a lower risk of noncancer mortality, it increased among men with a higher risk of non-cancer mortality., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among men in the United States. The androgen receptor (AR) antagonist enzalutamide is a Food and Drug Administration- approved drug for treatment of patients with late-stage prostate cancer and is currently under clinical study for early-stage prostate cancer treatment. After a short positive response period, tumors will develop drug resistance. In this study using RNASeq and bioinformatics analyses, we observed that NOTCH signaling is a deregulated pathway in enzalutamide-resistant cells. NOTCH2 and c-MYCgene expression positively correlated with AR expression in samples from patient with hormone refractory disease in which AR expression levels correspond to those typically observed in enzalutamide resistance. Cleaved NOTCH1, HES1 (Hes family BHLH transcription factor 1), and c-MYC protein expression levels are elevated in two enzalutamide-resistant cell lines, MR49F and C4-2R, indicating NOTCH signaling activation. Moreover, inhibition of the overexpressed ADAM metallopeptidase domain 10 (ADAM10) in the resistant cells induces an exclusive reduction in cleaved NOTCH1 expression. Furthermore, exposure of enzalutamide-resistant cells to both PF-03084014 and enzalutamide increased cell death, decreased colony formation ability, and resensitized cells to enzalutamide. Knockdown of NOTCH1 in C4-2R increased enzalutamide sensitivity by decreasing cell proliferation and increasing cleaved PARP expression. In a 22RV1 xenograft model, PF-03084014 and enzalutamide decreased tumor growth through reducing cell proliferation and increasing apoptosis. These results indicate that NOTCH1 signaling may contribute to enzalutamide resistance in prostate cancer, and inhibition of NOTCH signaling can resensitize resistant cells to enzalutamide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Retrospective analyses of cancer registry and institutional data have consistently found better survival after radical prostatectomy versus radiation therapy, which contrasts with findings from a randomized trial. This is likely because of the inability of retrospective studies to fully account for comorbidity differences across treatment groups because of the lack of detailed data in the registries. We use a unique population-based data set with detailed data regarding comorbidities and functional limitations to assess whether this can provide valid comparisons of survival across prostate cancer treatment groups.Methods and Materials: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) data set results from a linkage between the SEER database and the MHOS database, which includes detailed information regarding patient-reported comorbidity and functional limitations. We analyzed 3102 patients with prostate cancer in SEER-MHOS and used latent class analysis to identify the healthiest group with minimal comorbidity burden and functional limitations. Among the healthiest group, we examined overall survival across treatments using the Kaplan-Meier method.Results: Three distinct health groups were identified using latent class analysis; the healthiest group comprised 57% of the cohort and had a 10-year overall survival of 67%. Other health groups had higher rates of comorbidities or functional limitations. Among the healthiest group, 10-year overall survival differed across treatment groups: no local treatment (55%), external beam radiation therapy (69%), brachytherapy (76%), and radical prostatectomy (85%). Survival curves for the 3 treated groups separated at 4 years of follow-up.Conclusions: Despite the detailed health status information available in SEER-MHOS, our retrospective analysis could not fully account for patient selection biases across prostate cancer treatment groups. These findings highlight an important limitation of retrospective studies using population-based data sets and serve as a reminder to interpret results with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The NRG/RTOG 9413 study showed that whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) plus neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) improved progression-free survival in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk localised prostate cancer compared with prostate only radiotherapy (PORT) plus NHT, WPRT plus adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT), and PORT plus AHT. We provide a long-term update after 10 years of follow-up of the primary endpoint (progression-free survival) and report on the late toxicities of treatment.Methods: The trial was designed as a 2 × 2 factorial study with hormonal sequencing as one stratification factor and radiation field as the other factor and tested whether NHT improved progression-free survival versus AHT, and NHT plus WPRT versus NHT plus PORT. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed, clinically localised adenocarcinoma of the prostate, an estimated risk of lymph node involvement of more than 15% and a Karnofsky performance status of more than 70, with no age limitations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by permuted block randomisation to receive either NHT 2 months before and during WPRT followed by a prostate boost to 70 Gy (NHT plus WPRT group), NHT 2 months before and during PORT to 70 Gy (NHT plus PORT group), WPRT followed by 4 months of AHT (WPRT plus AHT group), or PORT followed by 4 months of AHT (PORT plus AHT group). Hormonal therapy was combined androgen suppression, consisting of goserelin acetate 3·6 mg once a month subcutaneously or leuprolide acetate 7·5 mg once a month intramuscularly, and flutamide 250 mg twice a day orally for 4 months. Randomisation was stratified by T stage, Gleason Score, and prostate-specific antigen concentration. NHT was given 2 months before radiotherapy and was continued until radiotherapy completion; AHT was given at the completion of radiotherapy for 4 months. The primary endpoint progression-free survival was analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00769548. The trial has been terminated to additional follow-up collection and this is the final analysis for this trial.Findings: Between April 1, 1995, and June 1, 1999, 1322 patients were enrolled from 53 centres and randomly assigned to the four treatment groups. With a median follow-up of 8·8 years (IQR 5·07-13·84) for all patients and 14·8 years (7·18-17·4) for living patients (n=346), progression-free survival across all timepoints continued to differ significantly across the four treatment groups (p=0·002). The 10-year estimates of progression-free survival were 28·4% (95% CI 23·3-33·6) in the NHT plus WPRT group, 23·5% (18·7-28·3) in the NHT plus PORT group, 19·4% (14·9-24·0) in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 30·2% (25·0-35·4) in the PORT plus AHT group. Bladder toxicity was the most common grade 3 or worse late toxicity, affecting 18 (6%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, 17 (5%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, 22 (7%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 14 (4%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group. Late grade 3 or worse gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in 22 (7%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, five (2%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, ten (3%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and seven (2%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group.Interpretation: In this cohort of patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer, NHT plus WPRT improved progression-free survival compared with NHT plus PORT and WPRT plus AHT at long-term follow-up albeit increased risk of grade 3 or worse intestinal toxicity. Interactions between radiotherapy and hormonal therapy suggests that WPRT should be avoided without NHT.Funding: National Cancer Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of local vs systemic therapy among patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic clinical T4 prostate cancer.Methods: Using the National Cancer Database men with clinical T4N0-1M0 prostate cancer from 2004 to 2013 were identified. Local therapy was defined as radiation (RT with androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]), surgery (radical prostatectomy with ADT), or combined radiation plus surgery (radical prostatectomy plus RT with ADT). Systemic therapy was defined as ADT or chemotherapy alone. The primary outcome of overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Factors associated with overall survival were determined by Cox proportional hazards models.Results: A total of 1914 patients were included in our analysis, 1559 received local therapy and 355 received systemic therapy. Median 5-year survival for local vs systemic therapy was 41.5 and 28.2 months, respectively. On multivariable analysis, local therapy was associated with increased overall survival compared to systemic therapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.62, P < .001). Comparing local therapy treatment modalities, both radiation (HR = 0.44; 95% CI 0.36-0.53, P < .001) and surgery (HR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.55-0.82, P < .001) were associated with increased overall survival compared to systemic therapy. Among those receiving local therapy, more patients were treated with radiation (n = 709/1559 or 45.5%) compared to surgery (n = 560/1559 or 35.9%) or combined radiation plus surgery (n = 290/1559 or 18.6%) with 5-year overall survival by treatment type being 61%, 51.4%, and 62.2%, respectively.Conclusion: Local therapy for clinical T4 prostate cancer is associated with improved overall survival. Due to the retrospective, nonrandomized nature of the study design, a clinical trial is needed to better define the efficacy of local therapy in this high-risk patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Treatments for localized prostate cancer present challenging tradeoffs in the face of uncertain treatment benefits. These options are best weighed in a process of shared decision-making with the patient's healthcare team. Minority men experience disparities in prostate cancer outcomes, possibly due in part to a lack of optimal communication during treatment selection. Decision aids facilitate shared decision-making, improve knowledge of treatment options, may increase satisfaction with treatment choice, and likely facilitate long-term quality of life.Methods/design: This study will compare the effect of two evidence-based decision aids on patient knowledge and on quality of life measured one year after treatment, oversampling minority men. One decision aid will be administered prior to specialist consultation, preparing patients for a treatment discussion. The other decision aid will be administered within the consultation to facilitate transparent, preference-sensitive, and evidence-informed deliberations. The study will utilize a four-arm, block-randomized design to test whether each decision aid alone (Arms 1 and 2) or in combination (Arm 3) can improve patient knowledge and quality of life compared to usual care (Arm 4). The study, funded by the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), will be deployed within select institutions that have demonstrated capacity to recruit minority populations into urologic oncology trials.Discussion: Upon completion of the trial, we will have 1) tested the effectiveness of two evidence-based decision aids in enhancing patients' knowledge of options for prostate cancer therapy and 2) estimated whether decision aids may improve patient quality of life one year after initial treatment choice.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03103321 . The trial registration date (on ClinicalTrials.gov) was April 6, 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) can improve prostate cancer care by decreasing treatment variations (ie, avoidance of treatment in low-value settings). Herein, the authors performed a study to understand the effect of Medicare Shared Savings Program ACOs on prostate cancer care.Methods: Using a 20% Medicare sample, the authors identified men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer from 2010 through 2013. Rates of treatment, potential overtreatment (ie, treatment in men with a ≥75% chance of 10-year mortality from competing risks), and Medicare payments were measured using regression models. The impact of ACO participation was assessed using difference-in-differences analyses.Results: Before implementation of ACOs, the treatment rate was 71.8% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 70.2%-73.3%) for ACO-aligned beneficiaries and 72.3% (95% CI, 71.7%-73.0% [P = .51]) for non-ACO-aligned beneficiaries. After implementation, this rate declined to 68.4% (95% CI, 66.1%-70.7% [P = .017]) for ACO-aligned beneficiaries and 69.3% (95% CI, 68.5%-70.1% [P<.001]) for non-ACO-aligned beneficiaries. There was no differential effect noted for ACO participation. The rate of potential overtreatment decreased from 48.2% (95% CI, 43.1%-53.3%) to 40.2% (95% CI, 32.4%-48.0% [P = .087]) for ACO-aligned beneficiaries and increased from 44.3% (95% CI, 42.1%-46.5%) to 47.0% (95% CI, 44.5%-49.5% [P = .11]) for non-ACO-aligned beneficiaries. These changes resulted in a significant relative decrease in overtreatment of 17% for ACO-aligned beneficiaries (difference-in-differences, 10.8%; P = .031). Payments were not found to be differentially affected by ACO alignment.Conclusions: The treatment of prostate cancer and annual payments decreased significantly between 2010 and 2013, but ACO participation did not appear to impact these trends. Among men least likely to benefit, Medicare Shared Savings Program ACO alignment was associated with a significant decline in prostate cancer treatment. Cancer 2018;124:563-70. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine whether quality of physician-patient relationships influences uptake of physician treatment recommendations in men with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa).Study Setting: Data were collected July 2010 to August 2014 at two cancer centers and three community facilities.Study Design: Analyses were prospective and cross-sectional. We modeled associations between quality of the patient-physician relationship and influence of physician recommendations on treatment choice using generalized estimating equations (GEE).Data Collection: Data were collected via survey and medical record abstraction.Principal Findings: Participants (N = 1166) were 14.7 percent minority; 37.1 percent had low-, 47.5 percent had intermediate-, and 15.4 percent had high-risk PCa. Those reporting a better physician-patient relationship perceived that their physician's treatment recommendation was more influential (RR = 1.05, 95 percent CI = 1.04-1.05, p < .001) and were more likely to choose the recommended treatment (OR = 2.92, 95 percent CI = 2.39, 3.58, p < .001). A pattern of interactions emerged indicating that quality of the physician-patient relationship was more strongly associated with influence of recommendations for more, versus less aggressive treatment in those with low-risk, but not intermediate-risk disease.Conclusions: Prioritizing quality of the physician-patient relationship through training, practice change, and patient feedback may increase adherence. However, strategies need to align with efforts to reduce physician recommendations for inefficacious treatments to prevent overtreatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To characterize the changes in the use of radiation therapy (RT), specifically proton beam radiation therapy (PBRT), among adult and pediatric patients over a 11-year period in a very large population of insured patients.Methods and Materials: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the OptumLabs Data Warehouse claims database of more than 100 million insured US enrollees. Descriptive analyses were undertaken to evaluate the characteristics of patients receiving RT from 2002 to 2012.Results: There were 474,533 patients treated with RT from 2002 to 2012. The percentage of patients treated with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, 2-dimensional RT/brachytherapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and PBRT was 34.5%, 63.4%, 2.1%, 0.0%, and 0.1% and 40.4%, 36.0%, 21.9%, 1.1%, and 0.6% in 2002 and 2012, respectively. The greatest increase in utilization was of IMRT for prostate cancer, growing from 3.5% to 64.0%. For non-prostate cancer adults, IMRT use grew from 1.7% to 16.4%. For children, PBRT utilization increased from 0.3% to 9.7%. For prostate cancer patients, PBRT increased from 0.0% to 2.6%. For all patients, advanced technology (SBRT and PBRT) use was very low at <2%, versus 22% for IMRT.Conclusions: This is the largest and most geographically diverse description of RT utilization. Proton beam RT utilization remains very low and has had little impact on overall RT utilization compared with IMRT. The largest shift has occurred in IMRT for prostate cancer. Our findings indicate that overall utilization of proton therapy has been low and that its use has likely had little impact on national expenditures on cancer care in the current environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Recommendations for prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer are placing increasing emphasis on men aged 55-69 years. The goal of the current study is to describe patterns of population-based prostate-specific antigen testing with details about that age group.Methods: National Health Interview Surveys from 2005 to 2015 were analyzed in 2017 to estimate routine prostate-specific antigen testing in the past year from self-reported data by age group (40-54, 55-69, ≥70 years), and also by risk group, defined as African American men or men with a family history of prostate cancer versus other men. Differences between successive survey years by age and risk groups were assessed by predicted margins and rate ratios with 99% CIs, using logistic regressions.Results: Prostate-specific antigen testing among men aged 55-69 years decreased from a high of 43.1% (95% CI=40.3, 46.1) in 2008 to a low of 32.8% (95% CI=30.8, 34.7) in 2013, with no significant change in 2015 at 33.8% (95% CI=31.3, 36.4). Men aged ≥70 years had consistently high prevalence in all survey years, ranging from 51.1% in 2008 to 36.4% in 2015. African American men, men with a family history of prostate cancer, and other men showed a 5% absolute decrease over time, but this reduction was significant only in other men.Conclusions: Despite decreases, the absolute change in prostate-specific antigen testing for men aged 55-69 years was small (9.3%) over the study period. Men aged ≥70 years, for whom the benefits are unlikely to exceed the harms, continue to have consistently high testing prevalence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Racial disparities in prostate cancer treatment and outcomes are widespread and poorly understood. In the current study, the authors sought to determine whether access to care, measured across multiple dimensions, contributed to racial differences in prostate cancer.Methods: The Philadelphia Area Prostate Cancer Access Study (P2 Access) included 2374 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2012 and 2014. Men were surveyed to assess their experiences accessing care (response rate of 51.1%). The authors determined appointment availability at 151 urology practices using simulated patient telephone calls and calculated travel distances using geospatial techniques. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between 5 different domains of access (availability, accessibility, accommodation, affordability, and acceptability) and receipt of treatment, perceived quality of care, and physician-patient communication.Results: There were 1907 non-Hispanic white and 394 black men in the study cohort. Overall, approximately 85% of the men received definitive treatment with no differences noted by race. Black men were less likely to report a high quality of care (69% vs 81%; P<.001) and good physician-patient communication (60% vs 71%; P<.001) compared with white men. In adjusted models, none of the 5 domains of access were found to be associated with definitive treatment overall or with radical prostatectomy. All access domains were associated with perceived quality of care and communication, although these domains did not mediate racial disparities.Conclusions: To the authors' knowledge, the current study presents the first comprehensive assessment of prostate cancer care access, treatment, and patient experience, demonstrating that although access was related to overall perceived quality of care and better physician-patient communication, it did not appear to explain observed racial differences. Cancer 2017;123:4449-57. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. Courts regarding the medical ethics. The case discussed include Spears v. Rosen regarding the legal and bioethical implications on a misdiagnosed brain death and impact of religious exemption statues and faith in healing, Medivation Inc. v. Aragon Pharmaceuticals Inc. on potential treatments for prostate cancer and impact of drug market, and Gallardo v. Dudek on settlement represented payment for medical care.

The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 allowed private patenting of inventions discovered with federally-funded research. Congress balanced that significant benefit to private entities by empowering the government to "march in" and grant a license to another manufacturer when the license holder has not made the invention available to the public on reasonable terms. Bayh-Dole also allows march-in when necessary to alleviate health or safety needs. Remarkably, federal agencies have not once exercised these rights since Bayh-Dole's passage, even in the face of significant problems with access to medicines discovered with federal funding. This Article argues that the current medicines pricing and access crisis, highlighted by the inaccessibility of an effective prostate cancer drug discovered by government funding, calls for the U.S. agencies to finally fulfill the terms of the Act. [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]

Objective: To assess physicians' attitudes regarding multiple factors that may influence recommendations for active surveillance (AS) vs active treatment (AT) given the central role physicians play in the treatment decision-making process.Materials and Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews to assess factors that physicians consider important when recommending AS vs AT, as well as physicians' perceptions of what their patients consider important in the decision. Participants included urologists (N = 11), radiation oncologists (N = 12), and primary care physicians (N = 10) from both integrated and fee-for-service healthcare settings.Results: Across the specialties, quantitative data indicated that most physicians reported that their recommendations for AS were influenced by patients' older age, willingness and ability to follow a surveillance protocol, anxiety, comorbidities, life expectancy, and treatment preferences. Qualitative findings highlighted physicians' concerns about malpractice lawsuits, given the possibility of disease progression. Additionally, most physicians noted the role of the healthcare setting, suggesting that financial incentives may be associated with AT recommendations in fee-for-service settings. Finally, most physicians reported spouse or family opposition to AS due to their own anxiety or lack of understanding of AS.Conclusion: We found that patient and physician preferences, healthcare setting, and family or spouse factors influence physicians' treatment recommendations for men with low-risk PCa. These were consistent themes across physician subspecialties in both an Health Maintenance Organization and in fee-for-service settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several new prostate cancer treatments have emerged since 2000, including 2 radiotherapies with similar efficacy at the time of their introduction: intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The objectives of this study were to compare their early adoption patterns and identify factors associated with their use.Methods: By using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, patients who received radiation therapy during the 5 years after IMRT introduction (2001-2005) and the 5 years after SBRT introduction (2007-2011) were identified. The outcome of interest was the receipt of new radiation therapy (ie, IMRT or SBRT) compared with the existing standard radiation therapies at that time. The authors fit a series of multivariable, hierarchical logistic regression models accounting for patients nested within health service areas to examine the factors associated with the receipt of new radiation therapy.Results: During 2001 to 2005, 5680 men (21%) received IMRT compared with standard radiation (n = 21,555). Men who received IMRT were older, had higher grade tumors, and lived in more populated areas (P < .05). During 2007 through 2011, 595 men (2%) received SBRT compared with standard radiation (n = 28,255). Men who received ng SBRT were more likely to be white, had lower grade tumors, lived in more populated areas, and were more likely to live in the Northeast (P < .05). Adjusting for cohort demographic and clinical factors, the early adoption rate for IMRT was substantially higher than that for SBRT (44% vs 4%; P < .01).Conclusions: There is a stark contrast in the adoption rates of IMRT and SBRT at the time of their introduction. Further investigation of the nonclinical factors associated with this difference is warranted. Cancer 2017;123:2945-54. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To illustrate the 10-year risks of urinary adverse events (UAEs) among men diagnosed with prostate cancer and treated with different types of therapy, accounting for the competing risk of death.Methods: Prostate cancer is the second most common malignancy among adult males in the United States. Few studies have reported the long-term post-treatment risk of UAEs and those that have, have not appropriately accounted for competing deaths. This paper conducts an inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weighted competing risks analysis to estimate the effects of different prostate cancer treatments on the risk of UAE, using a matched-cohort of prostate cancer/non-cancer control patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Medicare database.Results: Study dataset included men age 66 years or older that are 83% white and had a median follow-up time of 4.14 years. Patients that underwent combination radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy experienced the highest risk of UAE (IPT-weighted competing risks: HR 3.65 with 95% CI (3.28, 4.07); 10-yr. cumulative incidence = 36.5%).Conclusions: Findings suggest that IPT-weighted competing risks analysis provides an accurate estimator of the cumulative incidence of UAE taking into account the competing deaths as well as measured confounding bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate prostate-cancer specific mortality (PCSM) in a cohort of high-risk patients treated with a permanent prostate brachytherapy approach, stratified by pre-treatment PSA. Material and methods: 448 high-risk patients (NCCN criteria) underwent permanent prostate brachytherapy. High risk patients were stratified by pre-treatment PSA (= 10.0, 10.1-20, and > 20 ng/ml). Biochemical failure (BF), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), distant failure (DM), and overall mortality (OM) were assessed as a function of prognostic group. Multiple clinical, treatment, and dosimetric parameters were evaluated for impact on outcome. Results: The 10-year OM, BF, and PCSM for the entire cohort were 28.5%, 13.3%, and 4.9%, respectively. At 10 years, PCSM was 2.5%, 10.7%, and 4.5% in the PSA = 10, 10.1-20, and > 20 ng/ml groups, respectively. No statistically significant differences in BF or overall survival (OS) were noted when stratified by pre-treatment PSA. DF was the most common in the 10.1-20 ng/ml cohort (8.6% at 10 years). In multivariate analysis, PCSM was most closely related to percent positive biopsies (p = 0.001) and tobacco (p = 0.042). Conclusions: High-risk prostate cancer treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy and supplemental external beam radiotherapy resulted in excellent long-term biochemical control and PCSM. Overall, PCSM was low in all cohorts but highest in the intermediate PSA group (10.1-20 ng/ml). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study examines whether socioeconomic status (SES), measured at both the individual and neighborhood levels, is associated with receipt of definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer and whether these associations mediate racial differences in treatment between non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black men.Design: The Philadelphia Area Prostate Cancer Access Study (P2 Access) is a mailed, cross-sectional survey of men sampled from the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry, combined with neighborhood Census data.Setting: Eight counties in southeastern Pennsylvania.Participants: 2,386 men with prostate adenocarcinoma.Main Measures: Receipt of definitive treatment, race, self-reported income, education, employment status, and neighborhood SES.Results: Overall, Black and White men were equally likely to receive definitive treatment. Men living in neighborhoods with higher SES were more likely to receive definitive treatment (OR 1.57, 95%CI 1.01, 2.42). Among men who received definitive treatment, Black men were significantly less likely to receive radical prostatectomy compared with White men (OR .71, 95% CI .52, .98), as were men with some college education compared with those with a high school education or less (OR .66, 95% CI .47, .94). SES does not mediate racial differences in receipt of definitive treatment or the type of definitive treatment received, and associations with income or employment status were not significant.Conclusions: These results stress the importance of examining racial disparities within geographic areas and highlight the unique associations that different measures of SES, particularly neighborhood SES and education, may have with prostate cancer treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the influences of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a rare but morbid disease with increasing incidence, on prostate cancer management decisions. We examined whether prostate cancer treatment differed for men with IBD, and whether treatment choice was associated with risk of IBD flare.Materials and Methods: Using Veterans Health Administration cancer registry and administrative data, we identified 52,311 men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2005 to 2008. We used International Classification of Diseases-9 codes and pharmacy and utilization data to identify IBD diagnoses, IBD-directed therapy, and flares (glucocorticoid escalation, hospitalization, and surgical intervention). We compared characteristics across men with and without IBD, and used multivariable regression to examine IBD flares after treatment according to treatment type.Results: Two hundred and forty men (0.5%) had IBD prior to prostate cancer diagnosis. Compared to non-IBD patients, IBD patients were more likely Caucasian (P < .001) with lower-risk cancer (P = .02). Surgery was more common in IBD patients (41% vs 28%, P < .001). In the year following prostate cancer treatment, 18% of IBD patients experienced flares. After adjustment, the only predictor of flare in the year after treatment was flare in the year prior to treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 12.5; 95% confidence interval, 5.4-29.2).Conclusion: IBD patients were more likely to have lower-risk disease and be treated with surgery. Choice of prostate cancer treatment did not predict flares in the subsequent year. Better understanding of the intersection of IBD and prostate cancer can help inform treatment decisions for the increasing number of men managing both diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate usage trends and identify factors associated with proton beam therapy (PBT) compared to alternative forms of external beam radiation therapy (RT) (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer.Patients and Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for men with localized (N0, M0) prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2013, treated with EBRT, with available data on EBRT modality (photon vs. PBT). Binary multiple logistic regression identified variables associated with EBRT modality.Results: In total, 143,702 patients were evaluated with relatively few men receiving PBT (5,709 [4.0%]). Significant differences in patient and clinical characteristics were identified between those men treated with PBT compared to those treated with photon (odds ratio [OR]; 95% CI). Patients treated with PBT were generally younger (OR = 0.73; CI: 0.67-0.82), National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk compared to intermediate (0.71; 0.65-0.78) or high (0.44; 0.38-0.5) risk, white vs. black race (0.66; 0.58-0.77), with less comorbidity (Charlson-Deyo 0 vs. 2+; 0.70; 0.50-0.98), live in higher income counties (1.55; 1.36-1.78), and live in metropolitan areas compared to urban (0.21; 0.18-0.23) or rural (0.14; 0.10-0.19) areas. Most patients treated with PBT travelled more than 100 miles to the treatment facility. Annual PBT utilization significantly increased in both total number and percentage of EBRT over time (2.7%-5.6%; P<0.001). PBT utilization increased mostly in men classified as National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk (4%-10.2%).Conclusion: PBT for men with localized prostate cancer significantly increased in the United States from 2004 to 2013. Significant demographic and prognostic differences between those men treated with photons and protons were identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To analyze the utilization and fractionation of extreme hypofractionation via stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the treatment of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Data was analyzed on men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2004-2012 and treated with definitive-intent radiation therapy, as captured in the National Cancer Database. This database is a hospital-based registry that collects an estimated 70% of all diagnosed malignancies in the United States. Results: There were 299,186 patients identified, of which 4,962 (1.7%) were identified as receiving SBRT as primary treatment. Of those men, 2,082 had low risk disease (42.0%), 2,201 had intermediate risk disease (44.4%), and 679 had high risk disease (13.7%). The relative utilization of SBRT increased from 0.1% in 2004 to 4.0% in 2012. Initially SBRT was more commonly used in academic programs, though as time progressed there was a shift to favor an increased absolute number of men treated in the community setting. Delivery of five separate treatments was the most commonly utilized fractionation pattern, with 4,635 patients (91.3%) receiving this number of treatments. The most common dosing pattern was 725 cGy x 5 fractions (49.6%) followed by 700 cGy x 5 fractions (21.3%). Conclusions: Extreme hypofractionation via SBRT is slowly increasing acceptance. Currently 700-725 cGy x 5 fractions appears to be the most commonly employed scheme. As further long-term data regarding the safety and efficacy emerges, the relative utilization of this modality is expected to continue to increase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The objective of this study was to compare the overall survival of patients who undergo radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy versus noncancer controls to discern whether there is a survival advantage according to prostate cancer treatment and the impact of selection bias on these results.Methods: A matched cohort study was performed using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked database. In total, 34,473 patients ages 66 to 75 years were identified who were without significant comorbidity, were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, and received treatment treated with surgery or radiotherapy between 2004 and 2011. These patients were matched to a noncancer control cohort. The rates of all-cause mortality that occurred within the study period were compared. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify determinants associated with overall survival.Results: Of 34,473 patients who were included in the analysis, 21,740 (63%) received radiation therapy, and 12,733 (37%) underwent surgery. There was improved survival in patients who underwent surgery (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.38) and in those who received radiotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.75) compared with noncancer controls. Overall survival improved significantly in both treatment groups, with the greatest benefit observed among patients who underwent surgery (log rank P < .001).Conclusions: Population-based data indicated that patients with prostate cancer who received treatment with either surgery or radiotherapy had improved overall survival compared with a cohort of matched noncancer controls. Surgery produce longer survival compared with radiation therapy. These results suggest an inherent selection-bias because of unmeasured confounding variables. Cancer 2017;123:1617-1624. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the influence of psychosocial factors such as prostate cancer (PCa) anxiety, social support, participation in medical decision-making (PDM), and educational level on patient decisions to discontinue PCa active surveillance (AS) in the absence of disease progression.Methods: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study is a prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized PCa diagnosed in 2011-2012. PCa anxiety, social support, PDM, educational level, and patient reasons for discontinuing AS were assessed through patient surveys. A Cox proportional hazards model examined the relationship between psychosocial variables and time to discontinuation of AS.Results: Of 531 patients on AS, 165 (30.9%) underwent treatment after median follow-up of 37 months. Whereas 69% of patients cited only medical reasons for discontinuing AS, 31% cited at least 1 personal reason, and 8% cited personal reasons only. Patients with some college education discontinued AS significantly earlier (hazard ratio: 2.0, 95% confidence interval: 1.2, 3.2) than patients with less education. PCa anxiety, social support, and PDM were not associated with seeking treatment.Conclusion: We found that 31% of men who choose AS for PCa discontinue AS within 3 years. Eight percent of men who sought treatment did so in the absence of disease progression. Education, but not psychosocial factors, seems to influence definitive treatment-seeking. Future research is needed to understand how factors unrelated to disease severity influence treatment decisions among patients on AS to identify opportunities to improve adherence to AS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We characterized factors related to nondefinitive management (NDM) of patients with high-risk prostate cancer and assessed impact from race, insurance status, and facility-level volume of technologically advanced prostate cancer treatments (i.e., intensity-modulated radiation therapy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy) on this outcome.Methods: We identified men with high-risk localized prostate cancer (based on D׳Amico criteria) in the National Cancer Database (2010-2012). Primary outcome was NDM (i.e., delayed/no treatment with prostatectomy/radiation therapy or androgen-deprivation monotherapy). Treating facilities were classified by quartiles of proportions of patients treated with advanced technology. Multivariable regression estimated odds of primary outcome based on race, insurance status, and facility-level technology use, and evaluated for interactions between these covariates.Results: Among 60,300 patients, 9,265 (15.4%) received NDM. This was more common among non-White men (P<0.001), Medicaid/uninsured patients (P<0.001), and those managed at facilities in the lowest quartile of technology use (25.1% vs. 11.0% highest, P<0.001). Though NDM was common among non-White men with Medicaid/no insurance treated at low-technology centers (43% vs. 10% White, private/Medicare, high-tech facility; adjusted odds ratios = 7.18, P<0.001), this was less likely if this group was managed at a high-tech hospital (22% vs. 43% low-tech, P<0.001).Conclusions: Technology use at a facility correlates with high-quality prostate cancer care and is associated with diminished disparities based on insurance status and patient race. More research is required to characterize other facility-level factors explaining these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: SpaceOAR, a Food and Drug Administration-approved hydrogel intended to create a rectal-prostate space, was evaluated in a single-blind phase III trial of image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy. A total of 222 men were randomized 2:1 to the spacer or control group and received 79.2 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions to the prostate with or without the seminal vesicles. The present study reports the final results with a median follow-up period of 3 years.Methods and Materials: Cumulative (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0) toxicity was evaluated using the log-rank test. Quality of life (QOL) was examined using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and the mean changes from baseline in the EPIC domains were tested using repeated measures models. The proportions of men with minimally important differences (MIDs) in each domain were tested using repeated measures logistic models with prespecified thresholds.Results: The 3-year incidence of grade ≥1 (9.2% vs 2.0%; P=.028) and grade ≥2 (5.7% vs 0%; P=.012) rectal toxicity favored the spacer arm. Grade ≥1 urinary incontinence was also lower in the spacer arm (15% vs 4%; P=.046), with no difference in grade ≥2 urinary toxicity (7% vs 7%; P=0.7). From 6 months onward, bowel QOL consistently favored the spacer group (P=.002), with the difference at 3 years (5.8 points; P<.05) meeting the threshold for a MID. The control group had a 3.9-point greater decline in urinary QOL compared with the spacer group at 3 years (P<.05), but the difference did not meet the MID threshold. At 3 years, more men in the control group than in the spacer group had experienced a MID decline in bowel QOL (41% vs 14%; P=.002) and urinary QOL (30% vs 17%; P=.04). Furthermore, the control group were also more likely to have experienced large declines (twice the MID) in bowel QOL (21% vs 5%; P=.02) and urinary QOL (23% vs 8%; P=.02).Conclusions: The benefit of a hydrogel spacer in reducing the rectal dose, toxicity, and QOL declines after image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer was maintained or increased with a longer follow-up period, providing stronger evidence for the benefit of hydrogel spacer use in prostate radiation therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Physical activity is recognized as a complementary therapy to improve physical and physiological functions among prostate cancer survivors. Little is known about communication between health providers and African-American prostate cancer patients, a high risk population, regarding the health benefits of regular physical activity on their prognosis and recovery. This study explores African-American prostate cancer survivors' experiences with physical activity prescription from their physicians.Methods: Three focus group interviews were conducted with 12 African-American prostate cancer survivors in May 2014 in St. Louis, MO. Participants' ages ranged from 49 to 79 years, had completed radical prostatectomy, and their time out of surgery varied from 7 to 31 months.Results: Emerged themes included physician role on prescribing physical activity, patients' perceived barriers to engaging in physical activity, perception of normalcy following surgery, and specific resources survivors' sought during treatment. Of the 12 men who participated, 8 men (67%) expressed that their physicians did not recommend physical activity for them. Although some participants revealed they were aware of the importance of sustained physical activity on their prognosis and recovery, some expressed concerns that urinary dysfunction, incontinence, and family commitments prevented them from engaging in active lifestyles.Conclusions: Transitioning from post radical prostatectomy treatment to normal life was an important concern to survivors. These findings highlight the importance of physical activity communication and prescription for prostate cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose We evaluated the short and long-term surgical outcomes of urinary diversion done for urinary adverse events arising from prostate radiation therapy. We hypothesized that patient characteristics are associated with complications after urinary diversion. Materials and Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of 100 men who underwent urinary diversion (urinary conduit or continent catheterizable pouch) due to urinary adverse events after prostate radiotherapy from 2007 to 2016 from 9 academic centers in the United States. Outcome measurements included predictors of short and long-term complications, and readmission after urinary diversion of patients who had prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy. The data were summarized using descriptive statistics and univariate associations with complications were identified with logistic regression controlling for center. Results Mean patient age was 71 years and median time from radiotherapy to urinary diversion was 8 years. Overall 81 (81%) patients had combined modality therapy (radical prostatectomy plus radiotherapy or various combinations of radiotherapy). Grade 3a or greater Clavien-Dindo complications occurred in 31 (35%) men, including 4 deaths (4.5%). Normal weight men had more short-term complications compared to overweight (OR 4.9, 95% CI 1.3–23.1, p=0.02) and obese men (OR 6.3, 95% CI 1.6–31.1, p=0.009). Hospital readmission within 6 weeks of surgery occurred for 35 (38%) men. Surgery was needed to treat long-term complications after urinary diversion in 19 (22%) patients with a median followup of 16.3 months. Conclusions Urinary diversion after prostate radiotherapy has a considerable short and long-term surgical complication rate. Urinary diversion most often cannot be avoided in these patients but appreciation of the risks allows for informed shared decision making between surgeons and patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyze the effects of a decision aid on improving patients' and family members' information giving and question asking during consultations for prostate cancer treatment decision-making.Methods: This study is a secondary analysis of archived audio-recorded real-time consultation visits with participants from a randomized clinical trial. Participants were randomly assigned into three groups: TD-intervention targeted patient-only; TS-intervention targeted patients and family members; and control-a handout on staying healthy during treatment. We conducted content analysis using a researcher-developed communication coding system. Using SAS 9.3, we conducted Chi-square/Fisher's exact test to examine whether information giving and question asking among patients and family members varied by groups when discussing different content/topics.Results: Compared with those in the TS and control groups, significantly higher percentages of participants in the TD group demonstrated information giving in discussing topics about diagnosis, treatment options, risks and benefits, and preferences; and engaged in question asking when discussing diagnosis, watchful waiting/active surveillance, risks and benefits, and preferences for treatment impacts.Conclusion: Information support and communication skills training for patients were effective in improving communication during treatment decision-making consultations.Practice Implications: Providing information about prostate cancer and communication skills training empower patients and their family members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Prostate cancer is a common diagnosis with several treatment options for the newly diagnosed patient, including radiation, surgery, active surveillance, and watchful waiting. Although tailoring of treatment to individual patient needs is an important goal, the recent passage of the Affordable Care Act has placed renewed interest in cost containment and cost-effectiveness. We sought to conduct a literature review of recent US-based studies to analyze the cost-effectiveness of initial local treatments for localized prostate cancer.Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search through PubMed, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, and manual cross-referencing of articles. We identified US-based studies with cost analyses starting in 2005 that studied the cost-effectiveness of initial local treatments for localized prostate cancer (surgery, radiation, or observation).Results: There were eight studies that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Most studies took the cost perspective of Medicare, and two studies also considered the societal cost in terms of lost patient time. Most studies also used a Markov model with inputs based on the available literature for the effectiveness and toxicity of the different treatment options. The radiation-focused studies tended to find brachytherapy (BT) or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to be more cost-effective than intensity-modulated radiation therapy or proton beam therapy. These findings were primarily based on the lower cost of SBRT or BT with roughly equal efficacy and toxicity. The two studies focused on surgery found surgery to be more cost effective than intensity-modulated radiation therapy, at least for low-risk disease, and one study found BT to be more cost-effective than surgery, and watchful waiting to be the most cost-effective option overall.Conclusion: Cost-effectiveness analysis is important because it helps patients, physicians, and policymakers make quantitatively-based decisions, which balance treatment efficacy, toxicity, and costs. Significant methodological heterogeneity in the studies we found limit the ability to compare their results directly, but most found that for favorable-risk prostate cancer, shorter or simpler treatments tended to be more cost-effective, including no treatment (watchful waiting) in one study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in men in the United States. Mounting evidences suggest that in the pathophysiology of prostate cancer epigenetic modifications play a considerable role. Histone deacetylases (HDACs) have strong crosstalk with prostate cancer progression as they regulate various genes meant for tumour suppression. HDACs are emerging as striking molecular targets for anticancer drugs and therapy as their aberrant expression has been implicated in several cancers. Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi), the small molecules interfering HDACs are the propitious chemotherapeutic agents as they tune the altered acetylation homeostasis for attenuating disease signalling. More than 20 HDACi have entered into the clinical trials and 4 have crossed the journey by gaining FDA approval for treating distinct haematological malignancies including multiple myeloma. Despite the therapeutic benefits, the synthetic HDACi cause detrimental side effects like atrial fibrillation, raising concerns regarding their applicability. Taking these facts into consideration the current article focused on plant-derived HDAC inhibitor Apigenin and its marvelous role in prostate cancer therapy. Moreover, the article sheds light on Apigenin induced apoptosis in various prostate cancer models. The defined inhibitor provokes apoptotic signaling in these models by multiple mechanisms like restraining HDACs, declining the levels of antiapoptotic proteins. Importantly, Apigenin hampers NF-κB signalling and down-modulates its regulated gene products for bringing therapeutic effect. Furthermore, Apigenin shows synergistic effect in combinatorial therapy and induces apoptosis even in prostate cancer models resistant to conventional therapeutic regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess patients' perceived causes of prostate cancer (PCa) and relation to treatment satisfaction, an Internet-based survey study was designed. PCa is a profoundly personal disease, considering the location and common sequelae of treatment. Deeply held patient self-perceptions regarding the etiology of a patient's PCa may generate lasting beliefs that impact satisfaction with treatment selection.Materials and Methods: Third-party web-based surveys were sent to patients receiving radical prostatectomy for clinically localized PCa. Patients were queried regarding demographic characteristics, family history, socioeconomic status, sexual function, urinary control, and factors believed to cause their PCa.Results: Among respondents (293 of 524, 55.9%), 237 (81.5%) provided primary causes for PCa. Evidence-based answers were provided by 128 (53.5%) patients, whereas a wide range of non-evidence-based responses were provided by 49 (20.5%) patients. Forty patients (16.7%) were undecided, and 20 (8.3%) offered belief-based responses. Evidence-based responses were more common in patients with a family history of PCa (P <.01); however, no significant differences were seen among race, educational level, or income. Patients providing an evidence-based cause of PCa were more likely to be potent (P <.01). Providing a non-evidence-based cause for PCa was associated with considering surgery as a wrong decision in treatment selection.Conclusion: Among men with localized PCa, there is a wide spectrum of patient beliefs regarding the etiology of their disease that may reflect background and information sources. Further research is warranted to determine whether patient counseling should incorporate these considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine if there are variations in the receipt of treatment based on race and disease severity. Treatment variations in men with prostate cancer (PCa) among the various racial groups in the United States exist, which may be a source of potential disparity in outcome.Methods: Utilizing Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results 17, we identified 327,636 men diagnosed with PCa from 2004 to 2011. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the association of receiving definitive treatment and race in the context of disease severity.Results: African American (AA) and Hispanic men were less likely to receive treatment compared to White men (odds ratio [OR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71, 0.75, and OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92, 0.98, respectively). AA men had significantly lower OR of receiving definitive treatment within each D'Amico risk classification compared to White men, with decreasing odds of treatment for each increase in risk category (low-risk OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.78, 0.85; intermediate-risk OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.71, 0.77; and high-risk OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.58, 0.66). Hispanic men with intermediate-risk (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84, 0.94) or high-risk (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72, 0.85) disease had lower odds of receiving treatment compared to White men. Asian men had similar or greater odds of receiving treatment compared to White men within any Gleason or D'Amico classification.Conclusion: There is a significant disparity in the receipt of treatment for PCa among AA and Hispanic men compared to White men. The variations in receipt of treatment reveal an area of opportunity to develop risk-stratified approaches to treatment regardless of ethnic identity, which may address the poorer PCa-related outcomes in these populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for salvage radiation therapy (RT) of biochemical failure after prostatectomy for prostate cancer.Methods and Materials: Individual data from 1108 patients who underwent salvage RT at 10 academic centers were pooled. The cohort was enriched for selection criteria more likely associated with tumor recurrence in the prostate bed (margin positive and pre-RT prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level of ≤2.0 ng/mL) and without the confounding of planned androgen suppression. The cumulative incidence of biochemical failure and distant metastasis over time was computed, and competing risks hazard regression models were used to investigate the association between potential predictors and these outcomes. The association of radiation dose with outcomes was the primary focus.Results: With a 65.2-month follow-up duration, the 5- and 10-year estimates of freedom from post-RT biochemical failure (PSA level >0.2 ng/mL and rising) was 63.5% and 49.8%, respectively, and the cumulative incidence of distant metastasis was 12.4% by 10 years. A Gleason score of ≥7, higher pre-RT PSA level, extraprostatic tumor extension, and seminal vesicle invasion were associated with worse biochemical failure and distant metastasis outcomes. A salvage radiation dose of ≥66.0 Gy was associated with a reduced cumulative incidence of biochemical failure, but not of distant metastasis.Conclusions: The use of salvage radiation doses of ≥66.0 Gy are supported by evidence presented in the present multicenter pooled analysis of individual patient data. The observational reporting method, limited sample size, few distant metastasis events, modest follow-up duration, and elective use of salvage therapy might have diminished the opportunity to identify an association between the radiation dose and this endpoint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Significant differences, including epidemiologic, clinical, pathologic and genetic, exist between Asian and Caucasian prostate cancer. Detailed pathologic data are, however, scarce. We studied in detail and compared the pathological features of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens in 228 patients (117 Japan, 111 US). Japanese prostate cancer had a higher Gleason grade group (mean 2.67 vs. 2.42 US, P < 0.05), but lower pathological stage (72 % pT2 and 28 % pT3 vs 55 % pT2 and 45 % pT3 US, P < 0.05). Japanese cancer showed significantly more tumor foci (3.8 vs 2.9 US, P < 0.05), and higher incidence of bilateral significant disease (81.3 % vs. 66.7 % US, P < 0.05). The dominant tumor nodules in Japanese cases had higher Gleason grade group (mean 2.73 vs. 2.40 US, P < 0.05). The incidence of intraductal carcinoma was significantly higher in Japanese patients (35.3 % vs. 12.6 % US, P < 0.01), which was independent of Gleason score (7: 30.9 % Japan vs 11.8 % US, P < 0.01; ≥ 8: 87.5 % Japan vs 28.6 % US, P < 0.01) and tumor stage (pT2: 24.1 % Japan vs 6.6 % US, P < 0.01; pT3: 62.9 % Japan vs 20 % US, P < 0.01). These findings demonstrate distinct pathological features in prostate cancer between Japanese and Caucasian patients, and may have important diagnostic and therapeutic implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most major cancer organizations seek to reduce sociodemographic disparities in high-risk cancers partly by increasing access to theoretically high-quality, academic-oriented cancer care. The objective of this study was to determine whether academic centers have less sociodemographic treatment disparities than community centers using high-risk prostate cancer as a test case.Methods: The National Cancer Data Base was used to identify 138,019 patients who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic, high-risk prostate cancer from 2004 to 2012. Multivariable logistic analysis was used to identify independent determinants of definitive therapy. The Gray test and multivariable Cox regression were used to analyze the timing of therapy. All analyses were stratified by academic versus community cancer center.Results: Compared with white or privately insured patients, black, Hispanic, and uninsured patients with prostate cancer were less likely to receive definitive therapy at both community centers (adjusted odds ratio: 0.60 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56-0.64], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.61-0.78], and 0.25 [95% CI, 0.22-0.30], respectively) and academic cancer centers (adjusted odds ratio: 0.50 [95% CI, 0.46-0.54], 0.56 [95% CI, 0.50-0.64], and 0.31 [95% CI, 0.28-0.36], respectively). Among patients who received definitive therapy, black, Hispanic, and uninsured patients were more likely to experience treatment delays at both community centers (≥15, ≥ 10, and ≥19 days, respectively; all Gray P < .001) and academic centers (≥19, ≥ 11, and ≥18 days, respectively); treatment delays were observed among the aforementioned groups even after multivariable Cox regression analysis (P < .001 for all adjusted hazard ratios).Conclusions: Nationally, academic cancer centers demonstrate similarly high rates of sociodemographic disparities in cancer treatment patterns as community cancer centers. Making community centers conform to academic center standards may not necessarily reduce treatment disparities. Cancer 2016;122:3371-3377. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The use of prostate brachytherapy has continued to decline in the United States. We examined the national practice patterns of both academic and nonacademic practices performing prostate brachytherapy by case volume per year to further characterize the decline and postulate the effect this trend might have on training the next generation of residents.Methods and Materials: Men diagnosed with prostate cancer who had undergone radiation therapy in 2004 to 2012 were identified. The annual brachytherapy case volume at each facility was determined and further categorized into ≤12 cases per year (ie, an average of ≤1 cases per month), 13 to 52 cases per year, and ≥53 cases per year (ie, an average of ≥1 cases per week) in academic practices versus nonacademic practices.Results: In 2004 to 2012, academic practices performing an average of ≤1 brachytherapy cases per month increased from 56.4% to 73.7%. In nonacademic practices, this percentage increased from 60.2% to 77.4% (P<.0001 for both). Practices performing an average of ≥1 cases per week decreased among both academic practices (from 6.7% to 1.5%) and nonacademic practices (from 4.5% to 2.7%).Conclusions: Both academic and nonacademic radiation oncology practices have demonstrated a significant reduction in the use of prostate brachytherapy from 2004 to 2012. With the case volume continuing to decline, it is unclear whether we are prepared to train the next generation of residents in this critical modality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine whether the distance between a prostate cancer patient's home and treatment facility was related to the choice of treatment received among those opting for surgery or radiation.Methods and Materials: We identified 222,804 patients diagnosed with National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-, intermediate-, or high-risk N0M0 prostate cancer and treated with local therapy (surgery or radiation alone, with or without hormone therapy) using the National Cancer Database. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine whether the choice of radiation therapy vs radical prostatectomy varied by distance among patients living in rural and urban areas. Analyses were adjusted for geographic location within the United States, age, race, Charlson/Deyo comorbidity score, year of diagnosis, income quartile, education quartile, Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen level, and T stage.Results: Patients living in urban or rural areas were less likely to receive radiation compared with surgery if they lived farther from the treatment facility. Among urban patients living ≤5 miles from the treatment facility, 53.3% received radiation, compared with 47.0%, 43.6%, and 33.8% of those living 5 to 10, 10 to 15, or >15 miles away, respectively (P<.001 in all cases). Similarly, rural patients were less likely to receive radiation the farther they lived from the treatment facility (≤25 miles: 62.3%; 25-50 miles: 55.5%; 50-75 miles: 38.4%; >75 miles: 23.8%; P<.05 in all cases). These trends were also present when each risk group was analyzed separately.Conclusion: Patients with prostate cancer in both urban and rural settings were less likely to receive radiation therapy rather than surgery the farther away they lived from a treatment center. These findings raise the possibility that the geographic availability of radiation treatment centers may be an important determinant of whether patients are able to choose radiation rather than surgery for localized prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Vascular targeted photodynamic therapy with WST11 (TOOKAD® Soluble) is a form of tissue ablation that may be used therapeutically for localized prostate cancer. To study dosing parameters and associated treatment effects we performed a prospective, multicenter, phase I/II trial of WST11 vascular targeted photodynamic therapy of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods A total of 30 men with unilateral, low volume, Gleason 3 + 3 prostate cancer were enrolled at 5 centers after local institutional review board approval. Light energy, fiber number and WST11 dose were escalated to identify optimal dosing parameters for vascular targeted photodynamic therapy hemi-ablation. Men were treated with photodynamic therapy and evaluated by posttreatment magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy. Prostate specific antigen, light dose index (defined as fiber length/desired treatment volume), toxicity and quality of life parameters were recorded. Results After dose escalation 21 men received optimized dosing of 4 mg/kg WST11 at 200 J energy. On posttreatment biopsy residual prostate cancer was found in the treated lobe in 10 men, the untreated lobe in 4 and both lobes in 1. At a light dose index of 1 or greater with optimal dosing in 15 men 73.3% had a negative biopsy in the treated lobe. Six men undergoing retreatment with the optimal dose and a light dose index of 1 or greater had a negative posttreatment biopsy. Minimal effects were observed on urinary and sexual function, and overall quality of life. Conclusions Hemi-ablation of the prostate with WST11 vascular targeted photodynamic therapy was well tolerated and resulted in a negative biopsy in the treated lobe in the majority of men. Dosing parameters and the light dose index appear related to tissue response as determined by magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy. These parameters may serve as the basis for further prospective studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disparities between African American and Caucasian men in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis and treatment in the United States have been well established, with significant racial disparities documented at all stages of PCa management, from differences in the type of treatment offered to progression-free survival or death. These disparities appear to be complex in nature, involving biological determinants as well as socioeconomic and cultural aspects. We present a review of the literature on racial disparities in the diagnosis of PCa, treatment, survival, and genetic susceptibility. Significant differences were found among African Americans and whites in the incidence and mortality rates; namely, African Americans are diagnosed with PCa at younger ages than whites and usually with more advanced stages of the disease, and also undergo prostate-specific antigen testing less frequently. However, the determinants of the high rate of incidence and aggressiveness of PCa in African Americans remain unresolved. This pattern can be attributed to socioeconomic status, detection occurring at advanced stages of the disease, biological aggressiveness, family history, and differences in genetic susceptibility. Another risk factor for PCa is obesity. We found many discrepancies regarding treatment, including a tendency for more African American patients to be in watchful waiting than whites. Many factors are responsible for the higher incidence and mortality rates in African Americans. Better screening, improved access to health insurance and clinics, and more homogeneous forms of treatment will contribute to the reduction of disparities between African Americans and white men in PCa incidence and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competing risks arise in medical research when subjects are exposed to various types or causes of death. Data from large cohort studies usually exhibit subsets of regressors that are missing for some study subjects. Furthermore, such studies often give rise to censored data. In this article, a carefully formulated likelihood-based technique for the regression analysis of right-censored competing risks data when two of the covariates are discrete and partially missing is developed. The approach envisaged here comprises two models: one describes the covariate effects on both long-term incidence and conditional latencies for each cause of death, whilst the other deals with the observation process by which the covariates are missing. The former is formulated with a well-established mixture model and the latter is characterised by copula-based bivariate probability functions for both the missing covariates and the missing data mechanism. The resulting formulation lends itself to the empirical assessment of non-ignorability by performing sensitivity analyses using models with and without a non-ignorable component. The methods are illustrated on a 20-year follow-up involving a prostate cancer cohort from the National Cancer Institutes Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the current study, the authors sought to both characterize the national trends in proton therapy use for prostate cancer and determine the factors associated with receipt of this limited resource, using what to the best of their knowledge is the largest nationwide cancer registry.Methods: The National Cancer Data Base was used to identify 187,730 patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer from 2004 through 2012 who received external beam radiotherapy as their initial form of definitive therapy. Multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical factors was used to identify independent determinants of proton therapy use.Results: The rate of proton therapy use increased significantly from 2.3% in 2004 to 5.2% in 2011 and 4.8% in 2012 (P value for trend <.0001). Proton therapy for prostate cancer was much more likely to be delivered at an academic compared with nonacademic center and to patients who were white, younger, healthier, from metropolitan areas, from zip codes with higher median household incomes, and who did not have an advanced stage of or high-grade disease (all P<.0001). Compared with white patients, those who were black and Hispanic were found to be significantly less likely to receive proton therapy even after robust multivariable adjustments (adjusted odds ratio, 0.20 [95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.22; P<.0001] and adjusted odds ratio, 0.57 [95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.66; P<.0001], respectively).Conclusions: The use of proton therapy to treat patients with prostate cancer more than doubled from 2004 to 2012, with striking racial disparities in its use noted despite robust multivariable adjustments. Long-term follow-up is needed to determine whether the increased use of proton therapy for prostate cancer is justified, and ongoing efforts should be made to ensure equal access to resource-limited oncologic therapies. Cancer 2016;122:1505-12. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For certain men with low-risk prostate cancer, aggressive treatment results in marginal survival benefits while exposing them to urinary and sexual side effects. Nevertheless, expectant management has been underused. In the current study, the authors evaluated the association between various factors and expectant management use among veterans diagnosed with prostate cancer.Methods: The authors identified men diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2008. The outcome of interest was use of expectant management, based on documentation captured through an in-depth chart review. Multivariable regression models were fit to examine associations between use of expectant management and patient demographics, cancer severity, and facility characteristics. The authors assessed variation across 21 tertiary care regions and 52 facilities by generating predicted probabilities for receipt of expectant management.Results: Expectant management was more common among patients aged ≥75 years (40% vs 27% for those aged < 55 years; odds ratio, 2.57) and those with low-risk tumors (49% vs 20% for patients with high-risk tumors; odds ratio, 5.35). There was no association noted between patient comorbidity and receipt of expectant management (P = .90). There were also no associations found between facility factors and use of expectant management (all P>.05). Among ideal candidates for expectant management, receipt of expectant management varied considerably across individual facilities (0%-85%; P<.001).Conclusions: Patient age and tumor risk were found to be more strongly associated with use of expectant management than patient comorbidity. Although use of expectant management appears broadly appropriate, there was variation in expectant management noted between hospitals that was apparently not attributable to facility factors. Research determining the basis of this variation, with a focus on providers, will be critical to help optimize prostate cancer treatment for veterans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Given the costs of delivering care for men with prostate cancer remain poorly described, this article reports the results of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) for competing treatments of low-risk prostate cancer.Methods: Process maps were developed for each phase of care from the initial urologic visit through 12 years of follow-up for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), cryotherapy, high-dose rate (HDR) and low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and active surveillance (AS). The last modality incorporated both traditional transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy and multiparametric-MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy. The costs of materials, equipment, personnel, and space were calculated per unit of time and based on the relative proportion of capacity used. TDABC for each treatment was defined as the sum of its resources.Results: Substantial cost variation was observed at 5 years, with costs ranging from $7,298 for AS to $23,565 for IMRT, and they remained consistent through 12 years of follow-up. LDR brachytherapy ($8,978) was notably cheaper than HDR brachytherapy ($11,448), and SBRT ($11,665) was notably cheaper than IMRT, with the cost savings attributable to shorter procedure times and fewer visits required for treatment. Both equipment costs and an inpatient stay ($2,306) contributed to the high cost of RALP ($16,946). Cryotherapy ($11,215) was more costly than LDR brachytherapy, largely because of increased single-use equipment costs ($6,292 vs $1,921). AS reached cost equivalence with LDR brachytherapy after 7 years of follow-up.Conclusions: The use of TDABC is feasible for analyzing cancer services and provides insights into cost-reduction tactics in an era focused on emphasizing value. By detailing all steps from diagnosis and treatment through 12 years of follow-up for low-risk prostate cancer, this study has demonstrated significant cost variation between competing treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prognostic classification approaches are commonly used in clinical practice to predict health outcomes. However, there has been limited focus on use of the general approach for predicting costs. We applied a grouping algorithm designed for large-scale data sets and multiple prognostic factors to investigate whether it improves cost prediction among older Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with prostate cancer.Methods: We analysed the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, which included data from 2000 through 2009 for men diagnosed with incident prostate cancer between 2000 and 2007. We split the survival data into two data sets (D0 and D1) of equal size. We trained the classifier of the Grouping Algorithm for Cancer Data (GACD) on D0 and tested it on D1. The prognostic factors included cancer stage, age, race and performance status proxies. We calculated the average difference between observed D1 costs and predicted D1 costs at 5 years post-diagnosis with and without the GACD.Results: The sample included 110,843 men with prostate cancer. The median age of the sample was 74 years, and 10% were African American. The average difference (mean absolute error [MAE]) per person between the real and predicted total 5-year cost was US$41,525 (MAE US$41,790; 95% confidence interval [CI] US$41,421-42,158) with the GACD and US$43,113 (MAE US$43,639; 95% CI US$43,062-44,217) without the GACD. The 5-year cost prediction without grouping resulted in a sample overestimate of US$79,544,508.Conclusion: The grouping algorithm developed for complex, large-scale data improves the prediction of 5-year costs. The prediction accuracy could be improved by utilization of a richer set of prognostic factors and refinement of categorical specifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Men with prostate cancer face difficult choices when selecting a therapy for localized prostate cancer. Comparative data from controlled studies are lacking and clinical opinions diverge about the benefits and harms of treatment options. Consequently, there is limited guidance for patients regarding the impact of treatment decisions on quality of life. There are opportunities for public health to intervene at several decision-making points. Information on typical quality of life outcomes associated with specific prostate cancer treatments could help patients select treatment options. From 2003 to present, the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control at CDC has supported projects to explore patient information-seeking behavior post-diagnosis, caregiver and provider involvement in treatment decision making, and patient quality of life following prostate cancer treatment. CDC's work also includes research that explores barriers and facilitators to the presentation of active surveillance as a viable treatment option and promotes equal access to information for men and their caregivers. This article provides an overview of the literature and considerations that initiated establishing a prospective public health research agenda around treatment decision making. Insights gathered from CDC-supported studies are poised to enhance understanding of the process of shared decision making and the influence of patient, caregiver, and provider preferences on the selection of treatment choices. These findings provide guidance about attributes that maximize patient experiences in survivorship, including optimal quality of life and patient and caregiver satisfaction with information, treatment decisions, and subsequent care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study uses US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) data to characterize trends in the use of watchful waiting and active surveillance as strategies for managing low-risk prostate cancer in US veterans from 2005 through 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]