Refine
Document Type
- Article (26)
Language
- English (26)
Has Fulltext
- yes (26)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (26)
Keywords
- radical prostatectomy (5)
- bladder cancer (4)
- chemotherapy (4)
- external beam radiotherapy (4)
- prostate cancer (4)
- Adenocarcinoma (3)
- Squamous cell carcinoma (3)
- Variant histology (3)
- metastatic prostate cancer (3)
- mortality (3)
Institute
- Medizin (26)
Purpose: To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates in Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients according to treatment type, radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).
Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010–2016), we identified 2290 NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) high-risk (HR) Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients. Of those, 893 (39.0%) were treated with RP vs 1397 (61.0%) with EBRT. First, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models tested for CSM differences after adjustment for other cause mortality (OCM). Second, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models were refitted after 1:1 propensity score matching (according to age, PSA, biopsy Gleason score, cT-stage, cN-stage).
Results: In NCCN HR patients, 5-year CSM rates for RP vs EBRT were 2.4 vs 4.7%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% CI 0.19–0.73, p = 0.004) favoring RP. However, after propensity score matching, the hazard ratio of 0.54 was no longer statistically significant (95% CI 0.21–1.39, p = 0.2).
Conclusion: Without the use of strictest adjustment for population differences, NCCN high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients appear to benefit more of RP than EBRT. However, after strictest adjustment for baseline patient and tumor characteristics between RP and EBRT cohorts, the apparent CSM benefit of RP is no longer statistically significant. In consequence, in Hispanic/Latino NCCN high-risk patients, either treatment modality results in similar CSM outcome.
Non-organ confined stage and upgrading rates in exclusive PSA high-risk prostate cancer patients
(2022)
Background: The pathological stage of prostate cancer with high-risk prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but otherwise favorable and/or intermediate risk characteristics (clinical T-stage, Gleason Grade group at biopsy [B-GGG]) is unknown. We hypothesized that a considerable proportion of such patients will exhibit clinically meaningful GGG upgrading or non-organ confined (NOC) stage at radical prostatectomy (RP).
Materials and methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010–2015) we identified RP-patients with cT1c-stage and B-GGG1, B-GGG2, or B-GGG3 and PSA 20–50 ng/ml. Rates of GGG4 or GGG5 and/or rates of NOC stage (≥ pT3 and/or pN1) were analyzed. Subsequently, separate univariable and multivariable logistic regression models tested for predictors of NOC stage and upgrading at RP.
Results: Of 486 assessable patients, 134 (28%) exhibited B-GGG1, 209 (43%) B-GGG2, and 143 (29%) B-GGG3, respectively. The overall upgrading and NOC rates were 11% and 51% for a combined rate of upgrading and/or NOC stage of 53%. In multivariable logistic regression models predicting upgrading, only B-GGG3 was an independent predictor (odds ratio [OR]: 5.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.21–14.19; p < 0.001). Conversely, 33%–66% (OR: 2.36; 95% CI: 1.42–3.95; p = 0.001) and >66% of positive biopsy cores (OR: 4.85; 95% CI: 2.84–8.42; p < 0.001), as well as B-GGG2 and B-GGG3 were independent predictors for NOC stage (all p ≤ 0.001).
Conclusions: In cT1c-stage patients with high-risk PSA baseline, but low- to intermediate risk B-GGG, the rate of upgrading to GGG4 or GGG5 is low (11%). However, NOC stage is found in the majority (51%) and can be independently predicted with percentage of positive cores at biopsy and B-GGG.
Background: To test the effect of variant histology relative to urothelial histology on stage at presentation, cancer specific mortality (CSM) and overall mortality (OM) after chemotherapy use, in urethral cancer.
Materials and Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (2004–2016) database, we identified 1,907 primary variant histology urethral cancer patients. Kaplan-Meier plots, Cox regression analyses, cumulative incidence-plots, multivariable competing-risks regression models and propensity score matching for patient and tumor characteristics were used.
Results:Of 1,907 eligible urethral cancer patients, urothelial histology affected 1,009 (52.9%) vs. squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) 455 (23.6%) vs. adenocarcinoma 278 (14.6%) vs. other histology 165 (8.7%) patients. Urothelial histological patients exhibited lower stages at presentation than SCC, adenocarcinoma or other histology patients. In urothelial histology patients, five-year CSM was 23.5% vs. 34.4% in SCC (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.57) vs. 40.7% in adenocarcinoma (HR 1.69) vs. 43.4% in other histology (HR 1.99, p<0.001). After matching in multivariate competing-risks regression models, variant histology exhibited 1.35-fold higher CSM than urothelial. Finally, in metastatic urethral cancer, lower OM was recorded after chemotherapy in general, including metastatic adenocarcinoma and other variant histology subtypes, except metastatic SCC.
Conclusion: Adenocarcinoma, SCC and other histology subtypes affect fewer patients than urothelial histology. Presence of variant histology results in higher CSM. Finally, chemotherapy for metastatic urethral cancer improves survival in adenocarcinoma and other variant histology subtypes, but not in SCC.
Background: This study aims to test the effect of the 10 most common nonurological primary cancers (skin, rectal, colon, lymphoma, leukemia, pancreas, stomach, esophagus, liver, lung) on overall mortality (OM) after secondary prostate cancer (PCa). Material and Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, patients with 10 most common primary cancers and concomitant secondary PCa (diagnosed 2004–2016) were identified and were matched in 1:4 fashion (age, year at diagnosis, race/ethnicity, treatment type, TNM stage) with primary PCa controls. OM was compared between secondary and primary PCa patients and was stratified according to primary cancer type, as well as according to time interval between primary cancer vs. secondary PCa diagnoses. Results: We identified 24,848 secondary PCa patients (skin, n = 3,871; rectal, n = 798; colon, n = 3,665; lymphoma, n = 2,583; leukemia, n = 1,102; pancreatic, n = 118; stomach, n = 361; esophagus, n = 219; liver, n = 160; lung, n = 1,328) vs. 531,732 primary PCa patients. Secondary PCa characteristics were less favorable than those of primary PCa patients (PSA and grade), and smaller proportions of secondary PCa patients received active treatment. After 1:4 matching, all secondary PCa exhibited worse OM than primary PCa patients. Finally, subgroup analyses showed that the survival disadvantage of secondary PCa patients decreased with longer time interval since primary cancer diagnosis and subsequent secondary PCa. Conclusion: Patients with secondary PCa are diagnosed with less favorable PSA and grade. Even after matching for PCa characteristics, secondary PCa patients still exhibit worse survival. However, the survival disadvantage is attenuated, when secondary PCa diagnosis is made after longer time interval, since primary cancer diagnosis.
Background: To test the effect of urological primary cancers (bladder, kidney, testis, upper tract, penile, urethral) on overall mortality (OM) after secondary prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database, patients with urological primary cancers and concomitant secondary PCa (diagnosed 2004-2016) were identified and were matched in 1:4 fashion with primary PCa controls. OM was compared between secondary and primary PCa patients and stratified according to primary urological cancer type, as well as to time interval between primary urological cancer versus secondary PCa diagnoses. Results: We identified 5,987 patients with primary urological and secondary PCa (bladder, n = 3,287; kidney, n = 2,127; testis, n = 391; upper tract, n = 125; penile, n = 47; urethral, n = 10) versus 531,732 primary PCa patients. Except for small proportions of Gleason grade group and age at diagnosis, PCa characteristics between secondary and primary PCa were comparable. Conversely, proportions of secondary PCa patients which received radical prostatectomy were smaller (29.0 vs. 33.5%), while no local treatment rates were higher (34.2 vs. 26.3%). After 1:4 matching, secondary PCa patients exhibited worse OM than primary PCa patients, except for primary testis cancer. Here, no OM differences were recorded. Finally, subgroup analyses showed that the survival disadvantage of secondary PCa patients decreased with longer time interval since primary cancer diagnosis. Conclusions: After detailed matching for PCa characteristics, secondary PCa patients exhibit worse survival, except for testis cancer patients. The survival disadvantage is attenuated, when secondary PCa diagnosis is made after longer time interval, since primary urological cancer diagnosis.
Objectives: To test the effect of race/ethnicity on cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer patients. Methods: In the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database 2004–2016, we identified intermediate-risk and high-risk white (n = 151 632), Asian (n = 11 189), Hispanic/Latino (n = 20 077) and African American (n = 32 550) localized prostate cancer patients, treated with external beam radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy. Race/ethnicity-stratified cancer-specific mortality analyses relied on competing risks regression, after propensity score matching for patient and cancer characteristics. Results: Compared with white patients, Asian intermediate- and high-risk external beam radiotherapy patients showed lower cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio 0.58 and 0.70, respectively, both P ≤ 0.02). Additionally, Asian high-risk radical prostatectomy patients also showed lower cancer-specific mortality than white patients (hazard ratio 0.72, P = 0.04), but not Asian intermediate-risk radical prostatectomy patients (P = 0.08). Conversely, compared with white patients, African American intermediate-risk radical prostatectomy patients showed higher cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio 1.36, P = 0.01), but not African American high-risk radical prostatectomy or intermediate- and high-risk external beam radiotherapy patients (all P ≥ 0.2). Finally, compared with white people, no cancer-specific mortality differences were recorded for Hispanic/Latino patients after external beam radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy, in both risk levels (P ≥ 0.2). Conclusions: Relative to white patients, an important cancer-specific mortality advantage applies to intermediate-risk and high-risk Asian prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy, and to high-risk Asian patients treated with radical prostatectomy. These observations should be considered in pretreatment risk stratification and decision-making.
Background: No North-American study tested the survival benefit of chemotherapy in de novo metastatic prostate cancer according to race/ethnicity. We addressed this void.
Methods: We identified de novo metastatic prostate cancer patients within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2014–2015). Separate and specific Kaplan–Meier plots and Cox regression models tested for overall survival differences between chemotherapy-exposed versus chemotherapy-naïve patients in four race/ethnicity groups: Caucasian versus African-American versus Hispanic/Latino vs Asian. Race/ethnicity specific propensity score matching was applied. Here, additional landmark analysis was performed.
Results: Of 4232 de novo metastatic prostate cancer patients, 2690 (63.3%) were Caucasian versus 783 (18.5%) African-American versus 504 (11.8%) Hispanic/Latino versus 257 (6.1%) Asian. Chemotherapy rates were: 21.3% versus 20.8% versus 21.0% versus 20.2% for Caucasians versus African-Americans versus Hispanic/Latinos versus Asians, respectively. At 30 months of follow-up, overall survival rates between chemotherapy-exposed versus chemotherapy-naïve patients were 61.5 versus 53.2% (multivariable hazard ratio [mHR]: 0.76, 95 confidence interval [CI]: 0.63–0.92, p = 0.004) in Caucasians, 55.2 versus 51.6% (mHR: 0.76, 95 CI: 0.54–1.07, p = 0.11) in African-Americans, 62.8 versus 57.0% (mHR: 1.11, 95 CI: 0.73–1.71, p = 0.61) in Hispanic/Latinos and 77.7 versus 65.0% (mHR: 0.31, 95 CI: 0.11–0.89, p = 0.03) in Asians. Virtually the same findings were recorded after propensity score matching within each race/ethnicity group.
Conclusions: Caucasian and Asian de novo metastatic prostate cancer patients exhibit the greatest overall survival benefit from chemotherapy exposure. Conversely, no overall survival benefit from chemotherapy exposure could be identified in either African-Americans or Hispanic/Latinos. Further studies are clearly needed to address these race/ethnicity specific disparities.
Objectives: To test the effect of race/ethnicity on cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer patients. Methods: In the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database 2004–2016, we identified intermediate-risk and high-risk white (n = 151 632), Asian (n = 11 189), Hispanic/Latino (n = 20 077) and African American (n = 32 550) localized prostate cancer patients, treated with external beam radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy. Race/ethnicity-stratified cancer-specific mortality analyses relied on competing risks regression, after propensity score matching for patient and cancer characteristics. Results: Compared with white patients, Asian intermediate- and high-risk external beam radiotherapy patients showed lower cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio 0.58 and 0.70, respectively, both P ≤ 0.02). Additionally, Asian high-risk radical prostatectomy patients also showed lower cancer-specific mortality than white patients (hazard ratio 0.72, P = 0.04), but not Asian intermediate-risk radical prostatectomy patients (P = 0.08). Conversely, compared with white patients, African American intermediate-risk radical prostatectomy patients showed higher cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio 1.36, P = 0.01), but not African American high-risk radical prostatectomy or intermediate- and high-risk external beam radiotherapy patients (all P ≥ 0.2). Finally, compared with white people, no cancer-specific mortality differences were recorded for Hispanic/Latino patients after external beam radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy, in both risk levels (P ≥ 0.2). Conclusions: Relative to white patients, an important cancer-specific mortality advantage applies to intermediate-risk and high-risk Asian prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy, and to high-risk Asian patients treated with radical prostatectomy. These observations should be considered in pretreatment risk stratification and decision-making.
Background: To test the effect of urological primary cancers (bladder, kidney, testis, upper tract, penile, urethral) on overall mortality (OM) after secondary prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database, patients with urological primary cancers and concomitant secondary PCa (diagnosed 2004-2016) were identified and were matched in 1:4 fashion with primary PCa controls. OM was compared between secondary and primary PCa patients and stratified according to primary urological cancer type, as well as to time interval between primary urological cancer versus secondary PCa diagnoses. Results: We identified 5,987 patients with primary urological and secondary PCa (bladder, n = 3,287; kidney, n = 2,127; testis, n = 391; upper tract, n = 125; penile, n = 47; urethral, n = 10) versus 531,732 primary PCa patients. Except for small proportions of Gleason grade group and age at diagnosis, PCa characteristics between secondary and primary PCa were comparable. Conversely, proportions of secondary PCa patients which received radical prostatectomy were smaller (29.0 vs. 33.5%), while no local treatment rates were higher (34.2 vs. 26.3%). After 1:4 matching, secondary PCa patients exhibited worse OM than primary PCa patients, except for primary testis cancer. Here, no OM differences were recorded. Finally, subgroup analyses showed that the survival disadvantage of secondary PCa patients decreased with longer time interval since primary cancer diagnosis. Conclusions: After detailed matching for PCa characteristics, secondary PCa patients exhibit worse survival, except for testis cancer patients. The survival disadvantage is attenuated, when secondary PCa diagnosis is made after longer time interval, since primary urological cancer diagnosis.
Purpose: To compare Cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in patients with Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) vs. non-SCC penile cancer, since survival outcomes may differ between histological subtypes. Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2004–2016), penile cancer patients of all stages were identified. Temporal trend analyses, cumulative incidence and Kaplan–Meier plots, multivariable Cox regression and Fine and Gray competing-risks regression analyses tested for CSM differences between non-SCC vs. SCC penile cancer patients. Results: Of 4,120 eligible penile cancer patients, 123 (3%) harbored non-SCC vs. 4,027 (97%) SCC. Of all non-SCC patients, 51 (41%) harbored melanomas, 42 (34%) basal cell carcinomas, 10 (8%) adenocarcinomas, eight (6.5%) skin appendage malignancies, six (5%) epithelial cell neoplasms, two (1.5%) neuroendocrine tumors, two (1.5%) lymphomas, two (1.5%) sarcomas. Stage at presentation differed between non-SCC vs. SCC. In temporal trend analyses, non-SCC diagnoses neither decreased nor increased over time (p > 0.05). After stratification according to localized, locally advanced, and metastatic stage, no CSM differences were observed between non-SCC vs. SCC, with 5-year survival rates of 11 vs 11% (p = 0.9) for localized, 33 vs. 37% (p = 0.4) for locally advanced, and 1-year survival rates of 37 vs. 53% (p = 0.9) for metastatic penile cancer, respectively. After propensity score matching for patient and tumor characteristics and additional multivariable adjustment, no CSM differences between non-SCC vs. SCC were observed. Conclusion: Non-SCC penile cancer is rare. Although exceptions exist, on average, non-SCC penile cancer has comparable CSM as SCC penile cancer patients, after stratification for localized, locally invasive, and metastatic disease.
