Search

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-mpp-10.1177_23814683221137752 for Patients’ Preferences for Androgen Deprivation Therapy in the Treatment of Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer by Brian De, Lisa M. Lowenstein, Kelsey L. Corrigan, Lauren M. Andring, Deborah A. Kuban, Scott B. Cantor, Robert J. Volk and Karen E. Hoffman in MDM Policy & Practice

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-mpp-10.1177_23814683221137752 for Patients’ Preferences for Androgen Deprivation Therapy in the Treatment of Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer by Brian De, Lisa M. Lowenstein, Kelsey L. Corrigan, Lauren M. Andring, Deborah A. Kuban, Scott B. Cantor, Robert J. Volk and Karen E. Hoffman in MDM Policy & Practice

BACKGROUND:Whether prostate cancer severity modifies patient-reported functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences in predicted function over time between RP and EBRT varied by risk group. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study is a prospective, population-based, observational study that enrolled men with localized prostate cancer in 2011-2012. Among 2117 CEASAR participants who underwent RP or EBRT, 817 had low-risk, 902 intermediate-risk, and 398 high-risk disease. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:Patient-reported, disease-specific function was measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (at baseline and 6, 12, and 36 mo). Predicted function was estimated using regression models and compared by disease risk. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS:Low-risk EBRT patients reported 3-yr sexual function scores 12 points higher than those of low-risk RP patients (RP, 39 points [95% confidence interval {CI}, 37-42] vs EBRT, 52 points [95% CI, 47-56]; p

BackgroundRelatively little is known about the relationship between race/ethnicity and patient-reported outcomes after contemporary treatments for localized prostate cancer.ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that treatment-related changes in urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal function vary by race/ethnicity.Design, setting, and participantsThe Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study is a prospective, population-based, observational study that enrolled 3708 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in 2011-2012.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisPatient-reported disease-specific function was measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC) at baseline and 6 and 12 mo after enrollment. Mean treatment differences in function were compared by race using risk-adjusted generalized estimating equations.Results and limitationsWhile all race/ethnic groups reported considerable declines in scores for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy (RP) when compared to active surveillance, African-American men reported a greater difference than white men did (adjusted difference-in-differences 8.4 points, 95% confidence interval 2.0-14.8; p=0.01). No difference in bother scores was noted and the overall proportion of explained variation attributable to race/ethnicity was relatively small in comparison to primary treatment and baseline function. No clinically significant racial variation was noted for the sexual, bowel, irritative voiding, or hormone domains. Limitations include the lack of well-established thresholds for clinical significance using the EPIC instrument.ConclusionWhile these data demonstrate that incontinence at 1 yr after RP may be worse for African-American compared to white men, the difference appears to be modest overall. Treatment selection and baseline function explain a much greater proportion of the variation in function after treatment.Patient summaryWe observed that the effect of treatment for prostate cancer on patient-reported function did not vary dramatically by race/ethnicity. Compared to white men, African-American men experienced a somewhat more pronounced decline in urinary continence after radical prostatectomy, but the corresponding changes in bother scores were not significantly different between the two groups.

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsOf 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

ImportanceUnderstanding the adverse effects of contemporary approaches to localized prostate cancer treatment could inform shared decision making.ObjectiveTo compare functional outcomes and adverse effects associated with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), and active surveillance.Design, setting, and participantsProspective, population-based, cohort study involving 2550 men (≤80 years) diagnosed in 2011-2012 with clinical stage cT1-2, localized prostate cancer, with prostate-specific antigen levels less than 50 ng/mL, and enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis.ExposuresTreatment with radical prostatectomy, EBRT, or active surveillance was ascertained within 1 year of diagnosis.Main outcomes and measuresPatient-reported function on the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) 36 months after enrollment. Higher domain scores (range, 0-100) indicate better function. Minimum clinically important difference was defined as 10 to 12 points for sexual function, 6 for urinary incontinence, 5 for urinary irritative symptoms, 5 for bowel function, and 4 for hormonal function.ResultsThe cohort included 2550 men (mean age, 63.8 years; 74% white, 55% had intermediate- or high-risk disease), of whom 1523 (59.7%) underwent radical prostatectomy, 598 (23.5%) EBRT, and 429 (16.8%) active surveillance. Men in the EBRT group were older (mean age, 68.1 years vs 61.5 years, P

Background and objectiveQuality measures used in pay-for-performance systems are intended to address specific quality goals, such as safety, efficiency, effectiveness, timeliness, equity, and patient-centeredness. Given the small number of narrowly focused measures in prostate cancer care, we sought to determine whether adherence to any of the available payer-driven quality measures influences patient-centered outcomes, including health-related quality of life (HRQOL), patient satisfaction, and treatment-related complications.MethodsThe Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study is a population-based, prospective cohort study that enrolled 3708 men with clinically localized prostate cancer during 2011 and 2012, of whom 2601 completed the 1-year survey and underwent complete chart abstraction. Compliance with 6 quality indicators endorsed by national consortia was assessed. Multivariable regression was used to determine the relationship between indicator compliance and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) instrument summary scores, satisfaction scale scores (service satisfaction scale for cancer care), and treatment-related complications.ResultsOverall rates of compliance with these quality measures ranged between 64% and 88%. Three of the 6 measures were weakly associated with 1-year sexual function and bowel function scores (β=-4.6, 1.69, and 2.93, respectively; P≤0.05), whereas the remaining measures had no significant relationship with patient-reported HRQOL outcomes. Satisfaction scores and treatment-related complications were not associated with quality measure compliance.ConclusionsCompliance with available nationally endorsed quality indicators, which were designed to incentivize effective and efficient care, was not associated with clinically important changes in patient-centered outcomes (HRQOL, satisfaction, or complications) within 1-year.