TY - JOUR
T1 - National Trends and Predictors of Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer
AU - Yang, David D.
AU - Muralidhar, Vinayak
AU - Mahal, Brandon A.
AU - Labe, Shelby A.
AU - Nezolosky, Michelle D.
AU - Vastola, Marie E.
AU - King, Martin T.
AU - Martin, Neil E.
AU - Orio, Peter F.
AU - Choueiri, Toni K.
AU - Trinh, Quoc Dien
AU - Spratt, Daniel E.
AU - Hoffman, Karen E.
AU - Feng, Felix Y.
AU - Nguyen, Paul L.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by grants from Fitz's Cancer Warriors, David and Cynthia Chapin, Hugh Simons in honor of Frank and Anne Simons, the Campbell Family in honor of Joan Campbell, the Scott Forbes and Gina Ventre Fund, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and an anonymous family foundation.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2017/6/1
Y1 - 2017/6/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018329650&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85018329650&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.02.020
DO - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.02.020
M3 - Article
C2 - 28463152
AN - SCOPUS:85018329650
SN - 0360-3016
VL - 98
SP - 338
EP - 343
JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
IS - 2
ER -