Back to Search
Start Over
National Trends and Predictors of Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.
- Source :
-
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics [Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys] 2017 Jun 01; Vol. 98 (2), pp. 338-343. Date of Electronic Publication: 2017 Feb 21. - Publication Year :
- 2017
-
Abstract
- Purpose: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is not recommended for low-risk prostate cancer because of its lack of benefit and potential for harm. We evaluated the incidence and predictors of ADT use in low-risk disease.<br />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.<br />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.<br />Conclusions: ADT use in low-risk prostate cancer has declined nationally but may remain an issue of concern in certain populations and regions.<br /> (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Subjects :
- Academic Medical Centers statistics & numerical data
Academic Medical Centers trends
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Brachytherapy statistics & numerical data
Cancer Care Facilities statistics & numerical data
Cancer Care Facilities trends
Community Health Centers statistics & numerical data
Community Health Centers trends
Cryotherapy statistics & numerical data
Databases, Factual statistics & numerical data
Humans
Logistic Models
Male
Middle Aged
National Cancer Institute (U.S.) statistics & numerical data
Neoplasm Grading
Proportional Hazards Models
Prostatectomy statistics & numerical data
Prostatic Neoplasms epidemiology
Prostatic Neoplasms radiotherapy
Prostatic Neoplasms surgery
Radiotherapy statistics & numerical data
Risk
United States epidemiology
Androgen Antagonists therapeutic use
Prostatic Neoplasms drug therapy
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 1879-355X
- Volume :
- 98
- Issue :
- 2
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 28463152
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.02.020