Advertisement

Evolving Trends in the Management of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

      Abstract

      Introduction

      Deferred treatment is a growing management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer. However, it is unknown whether this growth is mediated by patient factors. In this study, we sought to evaluate factors associated with deferred treatment in patients with low-risk prostate cancer and shifts in these factors after recent incorporation of active surveillance into national guidelines.

      Materials and Methods

      We identified 137,915 men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/mL, Gleason score ≤6, stage cT1-cT2a) in the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2017. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with deferred treatment. Interaction variables were added to determine whether trends in use of deferred treatment over time depend on race, income, education, and insurance status.

      Results

      The use of deferred treatment among men with low-risk prostate cancer increased from 14.7% in 2010-2011 to 46.3% in 2016-2017 (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, deferred treatment was associated with older age, more contemporary year of diagnosis, black race, lower income, higher educational attainment, government insurance, being uninsured, treatment at an academic/research facility, and treatment at a facility in New England (each P < .05). Incorporation of interaction variables showed that black race, belonging to the two lowest income quartiles, government insurance, and being uninsured became less associated with deferred treatment in recent years.

      Conclusions

      The use of deferred treatment among men with low-risk prostate cancer increased significantly from 2010 to 2017. However, patients who were black, low-income, and not privately insured experienced smaller increases in deferred treatment. Interventions to increase uptake in these groups present opportunities to improve quality of care.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Prostate Cancer (Version 1.2022). Published online September 10, 2021. Accessed November 27, 2021. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf

        • Klotz L
        • Vesprini D
        • Sethukavalan P
        • et al.
        Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer.
        JCO. 2015; 33: 272-277https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192
        • Hamdy FC
        • Donovan JL
        • Lane JA
        • et al.
        10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 1415-1424https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220
        • Ilic D
        • Evans SM
        • Allan CA
        • Jung JH
        • Murphy D
        • Frydenberg M.
        Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Cochrane Urology Group, ed.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; (Published online September 12)https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009625.pub2
        • Mohler J
        • Bahnson RR
        • Boston B
        • et al.
        NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer.
        J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010; 8: 162-200https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2010.0012
        • Weiner AB
        • Patel SG
        • Etzioni R
        • Eggener SE.
        National trends in the management of low and intermediate risk prostate cancer in the United States.
        J Urol. 2015; 193: 95-102https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.111
        • Moschini M
        • Fossati N
        • Sood A
        • et al.
        Contemporary management of prostate cancer patients suitable for active surveillance: A North American population-based study.
        Eur Urol Focus. 2018; 4: 68-74https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.06.001
        • Bandini M
        • Nazzani S
        • Marchioni M
        • et al.
        Increasing rate of noninterventional treatment management in localized prostate cancer candidates for active surveillance: A North American population-based study.
        Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019; 17 (e4): 72-78https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2018.09.011
        • Womble PR
        • Montie JE
        • Ye Z
        • Linsell SM
        • Lane BR
        • Miller DC.
        Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in michigan with low-risk prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 44-50https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.024
        • Agrawal V
        • Ma X
        • Hu JC
        • Barbieri CE
        • Nagar H.
        Active surveillance for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2021; 205: 115-121https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001241
        • Ritch CR
        • Graves AJ
        • Keegan KA
        • et al.
        Increasing use of observation among men at low risk for prostate cancer mortality.
        J Urol. 2015; 193: 801-806https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.08.102
        • Loeb S
        • Folkvaljon Y
        • Makarov DV
        • Bratt O
        • Bill-Axelson A
        • Stattin P.
        Five-year nationwide follow-up study of active surveillance for prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 233-238https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.010
        • Butler S
        • Muralidhar V
        • Chavez J
        • et al.
        Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer in Black Patients.
        N Engl J Med. 2019; 380 (Published online): 2070-2072https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1900333
        • Loeb S
        • Berglund A
        • Stattin P.
        Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2013; 190: 1742-1749https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.054
        • Taku N
        • Narayan V
        • Wang X
        • Vapiwala N.
        Prevalence, predictors, and implications for appropriate use of active surveillance management among black men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer.
        Am J Clin Oncol. 2019; 42: 507-511https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000000547
        • Winchester DP
        • Stewart AK
        • Bura C
        • Jones RS.
        The National Cancer Data Base: a clinical surveillance and quality improvement tool.
        J Surg Oncol. 2004; 85: 1-3https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.10320
        • Mohler JL
        • Antonarakis ES
        • Armstrong AJ
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer, version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology.
        J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019; 17: 479-505https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.0023
        • Al Hussein Al Awamlh B
        • Ma X
        • Christos P
        • Hu JC
        • Shoag JE
        Active surveillance for Black Men with low-risk prostate cancer in the United States.
        N Engl J Med. 2019; 381: 2581-2582https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1912868
        • Jeong CW
        • Washington SL
        • Herlemann A
        • Gomez SL
        • Carroll PR
        • Cooperberg MR.
        The new surveillance, epidemiology, and end results prostate with watchful waiting database: opportunities and limitations.
        Eur Urol. 2020; 78: 335-344https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.01.009
        • Jairam V
        • Park HS.
        Strengths and limitations of large databases in lung cancer radiation oncology research.
        Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2019; 8: S172-S183https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr.2019.05.06
        • Butler SS
        • Loeb S
        • Cole AP
        • et al.
        United States trends in active surveillance or watchful waiting across patient socioeconomic status from 2010 to 2015.
        Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020; 23: 179-183https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-019-0175-9
        • Yost K
        • Perkins C
        • Cohen R
        • Morris C
        • Wright W.
        Socioeconomic status and breast cancer incidence in California for dierent race/ethnic groups.
        Cancer Causes Control. 2001; 12: 703-711
        • Weiner AB
        • Conti RM
        • Eggener SE.
        National economic conditions and patient insurance status predict prostate cancer diagnosis rates and management decisions.
        J Urol. 2016; 195: 1383-1389https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.071
        • Loeb S
        • Byrne N
        • Makarov DV
        • Lepor H
        • Walter D.
        Use of conservative management for low-risk prostate cancer in the veterans affairs integrated health care system from 2005-2015.
        JAMA. 2018; 319: 2231https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.5616
        • Lardas M
        • Liew M
        • van den Bergh RC
        • et al.
        Quality of life outcomes after primary treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer: a systematic review.
        Eur Urol. 2017; 72: 869-885https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.035
        • Bilimoria KY
        • Bentrem DJ
        • Stewart AK
        • Winchester DP
        • Ko CY.
        Comparison of commission on cancer-approved and -nonapproved hospitals in the United States: implications for studies that use the National Cancer Data Base.
        J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 4177-4181https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.21.7018
        • Boffa DJ
        • Rosen JE
        • Mallin K
        • et al.
        Using the National Cancer Database for outcomes research: a review.
        JAMA Oncol. 2017; 3: 1722https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6905
        • Lerro CC
        • Robbins AS
        • Phillips JL
        • Stewart AK.
        Comparison of cases captured in the National Cancer Data Base with those in population-based central cancer registries.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2013; 20: 1759-1765https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-2901-1
        • Sundi D
        • Ross AE
        • Humphreys EB
        • et al.
        African American Men with very low–risk prostate cancer exhibit adverse oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy: should active surveillance still be an option for them?.
        JCO. 2013; 31: 2991-2997https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.47.0302