Trends in non-metastatic prostate cancer management in the Northern and Yorkshire region of England, 2000-2006

Variation in Access to Palliative Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: A Population-Based Study in Canada

BACKGROUND

As a result of improvements in cancer therapies, patients with metastatic malignancies are living longer, and the role of palliative radiotherapy has become increasingly recognized. However, access to adequate palliative radiotherapy may continue to be a challenge, as is evident from the high proportion of patients dying of prostate cancer who never receive palliative radiotherapy. The main objective of this investigation is to identify and describe the factors associated with the receipt of palliative radiation treatment in a decedent cohort of prostate cancer patients in Ontario.

METHODOLOGY

 Population-based administrative databases from Ontario, Canada, were used to identify prostate cancer decedents, 65 years or older who received androgen deprivation therapy between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018. Baseline and treatment characteristics were analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models for association with receipt of radiotherapy in a two-year observation period before death.

RESULTS

We identified 3,788 prostate cancer decedents between 2013 and 2018; among these, 49.9% received radiotherapy in the two years preceding death. There were statistically significant positive associations between receipt of radiotherapy and younger age at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-2.3); higher stage at diagnosis (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.7); receipt of care at a regional cancer center (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.4); and involvement of radiation oncologists (OR 155.1, 95% CI 83.3-288.7) or medical oncologists (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.8). However, there were no associations between receipt of radiotherapy and income, distance to the nearest cancer center, involvement of urologists in cancer care, healthcare administrative region, home-care involvement, or number of hospitalizations in the observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

We found the utilization of palliative radiotherapy for prostate cancer patients in Ontario varies depending on age, stage at diagnosis, number of comorbidities, registration at regional cancer centers, and involvement of oncologists. There were no differences detected based on income or distance from a cancer center. The findings of this study represent an important opportunity to facilitate better access to palliative radiotherapy and referrals to multidisciplinary regional cancer centers, to improve the quality of life of this patient population.

Prostate cancer treatment in Portugal: a nationwide analysis

Different treatment options exist for localized prostate cancer. Treatments performed in high-volume hospitals are associated with better results. Our objective was to describe time trends in prostate cancer treatments in Portugal and case volume per hospital. We used the national database of diagnosis-related group of the Portuguese Central Administration of the Health System to describe the number of radical prostatectomy (RP), brachytherapy (BT) and external radiotherapy (eRT) treatments performed in all National Health System hospitals. There was a rapid increase in the annual number of RP until 2006 and then a deceleration; BT treatments augmented significantly until 2011. The utilization of eRT also increased, surpassing RP after 2010. From the 46 hospitals performing RP, only eight had a case-volume > 50 treatments/year, and from the nine hospitals performing BT, only four accomplished > 15 treatments/year. In the 11 hospitals with eRT, nine performed > 50/year. Regarding RP, there was negative correlation between the hospital volume and length of stay (r = - 0.303; p = 0.041). In the Portuguese National Health Service there was a steep increase in the number of prostate cancer treatments, and there is an ample margin for concentration of RP and BT treatments, for improvement of the hospitals case volume.

Emerging cancer incidence, mortality, hospitalisation and associated burden among Australian cancer patients, 1982 - 2014: an incidence-based approach in terms of trends, determinants and inequality

OBJECTIVE

Cancer is a leading killer worldwide, including Australia. Cancer diagnosis leads to a substantial burden on the individual, their family and society. The main aim of this study is to understand the trends, determinants and inequalities associated with cancer incidence, hospitalisation, mortality and its burden over the period 1982 to 2014 in Australia.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted in Australia.

STUDY DESIGN

An incidence-based study design was used.

METHODS

Data came from the publicly accessible Australian Institute of Health and Welfare database. This contained 2 784 148 registered cancer cases over the study period for all types of cancer. Erreygers' concentration index was used to examine the magnitude of socioeconomic inequality with regards to cancer outcomes. Furthermore, a generalised linear model was constructed to identify the influential factors on the overall burden of cancer.

RESULTS

The results showed that cancer incidence (annual average percentage change, AAPC=1.33%), hospitalisation (AAPC=1.27%), cancer-related mortality (AAPC=0.76%) and burden of cancer (AAPC=0.84%) all increased significantly over the period. The same-day (AAPC=1.35%) and overnight (AAPC=1.19%) hospitalisation rates also showed an increasing trend. Further, the ratio (least-most advantaged economic resources ratio, LMR of mortality (M) and LMR of incidence (I)) was especially high for cervix (M/I=1.802), prostate (M/I=1.514), melanoma (M/I=1.325), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (M/I=1.325) and breast (M/I=1.318), suggesting that survival inequality was most pronounced for these cancers. Socioeconomically disadvantaged people were more likely to bear an increasing cancer burden in terms of incidence, mortality and death.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences in the burden of cancer persist across socioeconomic strata in Australia. Policymakers should therefore introduce appropriate cancer policies to provide universal cancer care, which could reduce this burden by ensuring curable and preventive cancer care services are made available to all people.

Geographical Variations in Prostate Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review of International Evidence

Background: Previous reviews of geographical disparities in the prostate cancer continuum from diagnosis to mortality have identified a consistent pattern of poorer outcomes with increasing residential disadvantage and for rural residents. However, there are no contemporary, systematic reviews summarizing the latest available evidence. Our objective was to systematically review the published international evidence for geographical variations in prostate cancer indicators by residential rurality and disadvantage.

Methods: Systematic searches of peer-reviewed articles in English published from 1/1/1998 to 30/06/2018 using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Informit databases. Inclusion criteria were: population was adult prostate cancer patients; outcome measure was PSA testing, prostate cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, access to and use of services, survival, and prostate cancer mortality with quantitative results by residential rurality and/or disadvantage. Studies were critically appraised using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results: Overall 169 studies met the inclusion criteria. Around 50% were assessed as high quality and 50% moderate. Men from disadvantaged areas had consistently lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and prostate cancer incidence, poorer survival, more advanced disease and a trend toward higher mortality. Although less consistent, predominant patterns by rurality were lower PSA testing, prostate cancer incidence and survival, but higher stage disease and mortality among rural men. Both geographical measures were associated with variations in access and use of prostate cancer-related services for low to high risk disease.

Conclusions: This review found substantial evidence that prostate cancer indicators varied by residential location across diverse populations and geographies. While wide variations in study design limited comparisons across studies, our review indicated that internationally, men living in disadvantaged areas, and to a lesser extent more rural areas, face a greater prostate cancer burden. This review highlights the need for a better understanding of the complex social, environmental, and behavioral reasons for these variations, recognizing that, while important, geographical access is not the only issue. Implementing research strategies to help identify these processes and to better understand the central role of disadvantage to variations in health outcome are crucial to inform the development of evidence-based targeted interventions.

A comparison of operative and margin outcomes from surgeon learning curves in robot assisted radical prostatectomy in a changing referral practice

Introduction The aim of this study was to explore the impact of increasing proportions of high risk referrals on surgical margin outcomes of a surgeon's learning curve in robotic prostatectomy. Methods All patients in this study underwent robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed by three different consultant urological surgeons. Data collected included preoperative clinical stage, Gleason score and prostate specific antigen levels, which were used to risk stratify patients according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria. Oncological clearance was assessed by overall and stage specific positive margin status. Comparisons were made between each surgeon for the first and second 50 consecutive cases. Results For the three surgeons, there was a progressive increase in the proportion of high risk cases referred accompanied by a corresponding decline in low risk disease (p<0.001). Postoperative pathology also showed an upward trend in pT3 cases across the three eras. There was no statistical difference in overall positive margin rates between the surgeons. The overall rates were 12%, 20% and 23% for the first 50 cases, and 32%, 36% and 21% for the second 50 cases for the three surgeons respectively. Conclusions Our series demonstrates an upward trend in the risk profile of men referred for robotic prostatectomy over a nine-year period. Despite this, there was minimal impact on pathological and surgical outcomes among our surgeons, who were at the initial stages of their RARP learning curve. Our results suggest that there is no requirement for an active case selection bias against patients with high risk disease for surgeons newly embarking on their RARP learning experience.

Sociodemographic Disparities in Cure-Intended Treatment in Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Disparities in prostate cancer (PCa) morbidity and mortality occur across various populations. We investigated the sociodemographic correlates of treatment and disparities in the application of cure-intended (i.e., radical prostatectomy [RP], radiation therapy [RT]) treatment strategies in localized PCa among Texas residents diagnosed with PCa.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Texas Cancer Registry on men diagnosed with stage T1 or T2 PCa between 2004 and 2009. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to explore independent associations between cure-intended treatment modalities and sociodemographic characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status [SES], and geographic location (rural versus urban)) using patients who did not receive definitive treatment as comparison group.

RESULTS

Of 46,971 patients with available treatment data, age-adjusted treatment rates were 39.1% RP, 30.7% RT, and 30.2% for all other non-curative modalities. Compared to patients under 60 years, those ≥60 were less likely to receive RP, patients between 60 and 80 years were more likely to undergo RT, while those 80 years or older were less likely. Non-Hispanic blacks (OR =0.55, 95% CI, 0.50-0.59) and Hispanics (OR = 0.68, 95%CI, 0.62-0.74) were less likely to receive RP compared with whites. Hispanics were significantly less likely to receive RT (OR = 0.78, 95%CI, 0.72-0.85) than blacks and whites. People of low SES were 35% (OR = 0.65, 95%CI, 0.60-0.69) and 15% (OR = 0.85, 95%CI, 0.79-0.90) less likely to receive RP and RT, respectively, compared with those of high SES. Rural-urban status was not associated with cure-intended treatment.

CONCLUSION

Potential sociodemographic disparities exist in the application of cure-intended treatment in localized prostate cancer in Texas particularly in race/ethnicity and SES.

Geographical Factors Associated with Health Disparities in Prostate Cancer

Background

Treatment variation in prostate cancer is common, and it is driven by clinical and clinician factors, patient preferences, availability of resources, and access to physicians and treating facilities. Most research on treatment disparities in men with prostate cancer has focused on race and socioeconomic factors. However, the geography of disparities — capturing racial and socioeconomic differences based on where patients live — can provide insight into barriers to care and help identify outlier areas in which access to care, health resources, or both are more pronounced.

Methods

Research regarding treatment patterns and disparities in prostate cancer using the Geographical Information System (GIS) was searched. Studies were limited to English-language articles and research focused on US populations. A total of 43 articles were found; of those, 30 provided information about or used spatial or geographical analyses to assess and describe differences or disparities in prostate cancer and its treatment. Two additional GIS resources were included.

Results

The research on geographical and spatial determinants of prostate cancer disparities was reviewed. We also examined geographical analyses at the state level, focusing on Florida. Overall, we described a geographical framework to disparities that affect men with prostate cancer and reviewed existing published evidence supporting the interplay of geographical factors and disparities in prostate cancer.

Conclusions

Disparities in prostate cancer are common and persistent, and notable differences in treatment are observable across racial and socioeconomic strata. Geographical analysis provides additional information about where disparate groups live and also helps to map access to care. This information can be used by public health officials, health-systems administrators, clinicians, and policymakers to better understand and respond to geographical barriers that contribute to disparities in care.

Evolution and oncological outcomes of a contemporary radical prostatectomy practice in a UK regional tertiary referral centre

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical and pathological trends, over a 10-year period, in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in a UK regional tertiary referral centre.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 1 500 consecutive patients underwent RALP between October 2005 and January 2015. Prospective data were collected on clinicopathological details at presentation as well as surgical outcomes and compared over time.

RESULTS

The median (range) age of patients throughout the period was 62 (35-78) years. The proportion of preoperative high-grade cases (Gleason score 8-10) rose from 4.6% in 2005-2008 to 18.2% in 2013-2015 (P < 0.001). In the same periods the proportion of clinical stage T3 cases operated on rose from 2.4% to 11.4% (P < 0.001). The median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at diagnosis did not alter significantly. Overall, 11.6% of men in 2005-2008 were classified preoperatively as high-risk by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria, compared with 33.6% in 2013-2015 (P < 0.001). The corresponding proportions for low-risk cases were 48.6% and 17.3%, respectively. Final surgical pathology showed an increase in tumour stage, Gleason grade, and nodal status over time. The proportion of pT3 cases rose from 43.2% in 2005-2008 to 55.5% in 2013-2015 (P < 0.001), Gleason score 9-10 tumours increased from 1.8% to 9.1% (P < 0.001) and positive nodal status increased from 1.6% to 12.9% (P < 0.001) between the same periods. Despite this, positive surgical margin rates showed a downward trend in all pT groups across the different eras (P = 0.72).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the patient profile for RALP in our unit is changing, with increasing proportions of higher stage and more advanced disease being referred and operated on. However, surgical margin outcomes have remained good.

Estimation of the optimal utilisation rates of radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer by a review of clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We aimed to construct an evidence-based model of optimal treatment utilisation for prostate cancer, incorporating all local treatment modalities: radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and brachytherapy (BT); and then to compare this optimal model with actual practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Evidence-based guidelines were used to construct a prostate cancer treatment decision-tree. The proportion of patients who fulfilled treatment criteria was drawn from the epidemiological literature. These data were combined to calculate the overall proportion of patients that should optimally have RP, EBRT and/or BT at least once during the course of their disease. The model was peer reviewed and tested by sensitivity analyses and compared with actual practice.

RESULTS

Optimal utilisation rates, at some point during the disease course, were: RP, 24% (range 15-30%); EBRT, 58% (range 54-64%); BT, 9.6% (range 6.0-17.9%); and any RT, 60% (range 56-66%). Many patients had indications for more than one of these treatments, and at least one of these treatments was indicated in 76% of patients. The model was sensitive to patient preference estimates. Optimal rates were achievable in some health care jurisdictions.

CONCLUSIONS

Modelling optimal utilisation of all local treatment options for a particular cancer is possible. These optimal prostate cancer treatment rates can be used as a planning and quality assurance tool, providing an evidence-based benchmark against which can be measured patterns of practice.

The impact of socio-economic deprivation on incidence, treatment and mortality from prostate cancer in England, 1990–2010

Objective:

To explore any association between socio-economic deprivation and prostate cancer diagnosis and/or treatment.

Patients and methods:

Data was extracted as follows: We gained the incident cases and staging from the National Cancer Data Repository, survival from the Cancer Information System, mortality from the Office for National Statistics, treatment data from Hospital Episode Statistics and National Clinical Analysis and Specialised Applications Team. Our analysis regarding socio-economic deprivation was controlled for age distribution.

Results:

We recorded 518,453 diagnoses of prostate cancer; 174,579 prostate cancer deaths; 33,889 prostatectomies and 21,351 radiotherapy treatments. Incidence is increasing in all groups, but the highest is amongst the least deprived. Mortality is decreasing, with survival consistently better in the least deprived. Prostatectomies are more frequent in the least deprived; however, this gap is narrowing.

Conclusions:

Prostate cancer incidence, survival and treatment are associated with socio-economic deprivation. Prostatectomy rates show a decrease in the gap of inequality. Multiple potential confounding factors, such as rates of prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing and access to health care are associated with socio-economic deprivation. The unifying influences of Improving Outcomes Guidance and the National Treatment Guidelines are intended to counteract the above inequalities. Particularly in prostate cancer, where long-term gain depends on multiple factors, individualised treatment decisions are paramount.

Socioeconomic inequalities in prostate cancer survival: A review of the evidence and explanatory factors

Although survival rates after prostate cancer diagnosis have improved in the past two decades, survival analyses regarding the socioeconomic status (SES) suggest inequalities indicating worse prognosis for lower SES groups. An overview of the current literature is lacking and moreover, there is an ongoing discussion about the underlying causes but evidence is comparatively sparse. Several patient, disease and health care related factors are discussed to have an important impact on disparities in survival. Therefore, a systematic review was conducted to sum up the current evidence of survival inequalities and the contribution of different potential explanatory factors among prostate cancer patients. The PubMed database was screened for relevant articles published between January 2005 and September 2014 revealing 330 potentially eligible publications. After systematic review process, 46 papers met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. About 75% of the studies indicate a significant association between low SES and worse survival among prostate cancer patients in the fully adjusted model. Overall, hazard ratios (low versus high SES) range from 1.02 to 3.57. A decrease of inequalities over the years was not identified. 8 studies examined the impact of explanatory factors on the association between SES and survival by progressive adjustment indicating mediating effects of comorbidity, stage at diagnosis and treatment modalities. Eventually, an apparent majority of the obtained studies indicates lower survival among patients with lower SES. The few studies that intend to explain inequalities found out instructive results regarding different contributing factors but evidence is still insufficient.

Trends and outcome from radical therapy for primary non-metastatic prostate cancer in a UK population

Background

Increasing proportions of men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the UK are presenting with non-metastatic disease. We investigated how treatment trends in this demographic have changed.

Patient and Methods

Non-metastatic cancers diagnosed from 2000–2010 in the UK Anglian Cancer network stratified by age and risk group were analysed [n = 10,365]. Radiotherapy [RT] and prostatectomy [RP] cancer specific survival [CSS] were further compared [n = 4755].

Results

Over the decade we observed a fall in uptake of primary androgen deprivation therapy but a rise in conservative management [CM] and radical therapy [p<0.0001]. CM in particular has become the primary management for low-risk disease by the decade end [p<0.0001]. In high-risk disease however both RP and RT uptake increased significantly but in an age dependent manner [p<0.0001]. Principally, increased RP in younger men and increased RT in men ≥ 70y. In multivariate analysis of radically treated men both high-risk disease [HR 8.0 [2.9–22.2], p<0.0001] and use of RT [HR 1.9 [1.0–3.3], p = 0.024] were significant predictors of a poorer CSM. In age-stratified analysis however, the trend to benefit of RP over RT was seen only in younger men [≤ 60 years] with high-risk disease [p = 0.07]. The numbers needed to treat by RP instead of RT to save one cancer death was 19 for this group but 67 for the overall cohort.

Conclusion

This study has identified significant shifts in non-metastatic prostate cancer management over the last decade. Low-risk disease is now primarily managed by CM while high-risk disease is increasingly treated radically. Treatment of high-risk younger men by RP is supported by evidence of better CSM but this benefit is not evident in older men.

Evaluating variation in use of definitive therapy and risk-adjusted prostate cancer mortality in England and the USA

OBJECTIVES

Prostate cancer mortality (PCM) in the USA is among the lowest in the world, whereas PCM in England is among the highest in Europe. This paper aims to assess the association of variation in use of definitive therapy on risk-adjusted PCM in England as compared with the USA.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Cancer registry data from England and the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) in England and the USA between 2004 and 2008.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Competing-risks survival analyses to estimate subhazard ratios (SHR) of PCM adjusted for age, ethnicity, year of diagnosis, Gleason score (GS) and clinical tumour (cT) stage.

RESULTS

222,163 men were eligible for inclusion. Compared with American patients, English patients were more likely to present at an older age (70-79 years: England 44.2%, USA 29.3%, p<0.001), with higher tumour stage (cT3-T4: England 25.1%, USA 8.6%, p<0.001) and higher GS (GS 8-10: England 20.7%, USA 11.2%, p<0.001). They were also less likely to receive definitive therapy (England 38%, USA 77%, p<0.001). English patients were more likely to die of PCa (SHR=1.9, 95% CI 1.7 to 2.0, p<0.001). However, this difference was no longer statistically significant when also adjusted for use of definitive therapy (SHR=1.0, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.1, p=0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Risk-adjusted PCM is significantly higher in England compared with the USA. This difference may be explained by less frequent use of definitive therapy in England.

An examination of prostate cancer trends in Australia, England, Canada and USA: Is the Australian death rate too high?

PURPOSE

To compare prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates in Australia, USA, Canada and England and quantify the gap between observed prostate cancer deaths in Australia and expected deaths, using US mortality rates.

METHODS

Analysis of age-standardised prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates, using routinely available data, in four similarly developed countries and joinpoint regression to quantify the changing rates (annual percentage change: APC) and test statistical significance. Expected prostate cancer deaths, using US mortality rates, were calculated and compared with observed deaths in Australia (1994-2010).

RESULTS

In all four countries, incidence rates initially peaked between 1992 and 1994, but a second, higher peak occurred in Australia in 2009 (188.9/100,000), rising at a rate of 5.8 % (1998-2008). Mortality rates in the USA (APC: -2.9 %; 2004-2010), Canada (APC: -2.9 %; 2006-2011) and England (APC: -2.6 %; 2003-2008) decreased at a faster rate compared with Australia (APC: -1.7 %; 1997-2011). In 2010, mortality rates were highest in England and Australia (23.8/100,000 in both countries). The mortality gap between Australia and USA grew from 1994 to 2010, with a total of 10,895 excess prostate cancer deaths in Australia compared with US rates over 17 preceding years.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer incidence rates are likely heavily influenced by prostate-specific antigen testing, but the fall in mortality occurred too soon to be solely a result of testing. Greater emphasis should be placed on addressing system-wide differences in the management of prostate cancer to reduce the number of men dying from this disease.

Controversies on individualized prostate cancer care: gaps in current practice

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a heterogeneous disease with a wide spectrum of aggressiveness. Evidence-based guidelines are invaluable but cannot be expected to be extensive enough to provide detailed guidance on the management of all patients. As such, the use of individualized, risk-adapted approaches to the management of PCa is indispensable. However, wide variation in treatment approaches observed for patients in practice suggests that there is an unmet need to improve the individualized approach towards patient care. A holistic approach that encompasses guidelines and evidence-based medicine could be used to guide individualized care for patients with PCa, from first contact through to final outcomes. As a result of an international expert meeting, this paper proposes this approach and highlights some of the factors that can be considered when aiming to identify patients' profiles; individualize treatment; and improve communication between patients and the healthcare teams.

Patterns of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Victoria from 2008 to 2011

OBJECTIVE

To describe patterns of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Victoria, Australia, between 2008 and 2011.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS

Men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer at 11 public and six private hospitals in Victoria from August 2008 to February 2011, and for whom prostate cancer notifications were received by the Prostate Cancer Registry.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Characteristics of men diagnosed with prostate cancer; details of treatment provided within 12 months of diagnosis, according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk categories; and characteristics of men who did not receive active treatment within 12 months of diagnosis.

RESULTS

Treatment details were collected for 98.1% of men who were assessed as eligible to participate in the study (2724/2776) and were confirmed by telephone 12 months after diagnosis for 74.4% of them (2027/2724). Most patients (2531/2724 [92.9%]) were diagnosed with clinically localised disease, of whom 1201 (47.5%) were at intermediate risk of disease progression. Within 12 months of diagnosis, 299 of the 736 patients (40.6%) who had been diagnosed as having disease that was at low risk of progression had received no active treatment, and 72 of 594 patients (12.1%) who had been diagnosed as having disease that was at high risk of progression had received no active treatment. Of those diagnosed as having intermediate risk of disease progression, 54.5% (655/1201) had undergone radical prostatectomy. Those who received no active treatment were more likely than those who received active treatment to be older (odds ratio [95% CI], 2.96 [2.01-4.38], 10.94 [6.96-17.21] and 32.76 [15.84-67.89], respectively, for age 65-74 2013s, 75-84 2013s and ≥ 85 2013s, compared with < 55 2013s), to have less advanced disease (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.20 [0.16-0.26], 0.09 [0.06-0.12] and 0.05 [0.02-0.90], respectively, for intermediate, high and very high-risk [locally advanced] or metastatic disease, compared with low-risk disease) and to have had their prostate cancer notified by a private hospital (odds ratio [95% CI], 1.35 [1.10-1.66], compared with public hospital).

CONCLUSION

Our data reveal a considerable "stage migration" towards earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in Victoria and a large increase in the use of radical prostatectomy among men with clinically localised disease.

Age remains the major predictor of curative treatment non-receipt for localised prostate cancer: a population-based study

Background:

Geriatric oncology guidelines state that fit older men with prostate cancer should receive curative treatment. In a population-based study, we investigated associations between age and non-receipt of curative treatment in men with localised prostate cancer, and the effect of clinical variables on this in different age groups.

Methods:

Clinically localised prostate cancers (T1–T2N0M0) diagnosed from 2002 to 2008 among men aged ⩾40 years, with hospital in-patient episode(s) within 1 year post-diagnosis, were included (n=5456). Clinical and socio-demographic variables were obtained from cancer registrations. Comorbidity was determined from hospital episode data. Logistic regression was used to investigate associations between age and non-receipt of treatment, adjusting for confounders; the outcome was non-receipt of curative treatment (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy).

Results:

The percentage who did not receive curative treatment was 9.2%, 14.3%, 48.2% and 91.7% for men aged 40–59, 60–69, 70–79 and 80+ years, respectively. After adjusting for clinical and socio-demographic factors, age remained the main determinant of treatment non-receipt. Men aged 70–79 had a significant five-fold increased risk of not having curative treatment compared with men aged 60–69 (odds ratio (OR)=5.5; 95% confidence interval 4.7, 6.5). In age-stratified analyses, clinical factors had a higher weight for men aged 60–69 than in other age strata. Over time, non-receipt of curative treatment increased among men aged 40–59 and decreased among men aged 70–79.

Conclusion:

Age remains the dominant factor in determining non-receipt of curative treatment. There have been some changes in clinical practice over time, but whether these will impact on prostate cancer mortality remains to be established.

Socio-economic inequalities in survival of patients with prostate cancer: role of age and Gleason grade at diagnosis

In the United Kingdom, survival of prostate cancer patients has improved since the 1990s. A deprivation gap in survival (better survival for the least deprived compared with the most deprived) has been reported but it is not known if differential distribution of earlier age or lower grade disease at diagnosis might explain such patterns. We therefore investigated the impact of age and Gleason grade at diagnosis on the deprivation gap in survival of prostate cancer patients over time. Incident cases of prostate cancer (ICD-10 C61) from the West of Scotland were extracted from the Scottish Cancer Registry from 1991 to 2007. Socio-economic circumstances were measured using the Scottish Index for Multiple Deprivation 2004 (SIMD). Age and deprivation specific mortality rates were obtained from the General Registrar Office for Scotland (GRO(S)). The survival gradient across the five deprivation categories was estimated with linear regression, weighted by the variance of the relative survival estimate. We examined the data for 15,292 adults diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1991 and 2007. Despite substantial improvements in survival of prostate cancer patients, a deprivation gap persists throughout the three periods of diagnoses. The deprivation gap in five year relative survival widened from −4.76 in 1991–1996 to −10.08 in 2003–2007. On age and grade-specific analyses, a significant deprivation gap in five year survival existed between all age groups except among patients' age ≥75 and both low and high grade disease. On multivariate analyses, deprivation was significantly associated with increased excess risk of death (RER 1.48, 95% CI 1.31–1.68, p-value<0.001) independent of age, Gleason grade and period of diagnosis. The deprivation gap in survival from prostate cancer cannot be wholly explained by socio-economic differentials in early detection of disease. Further research is needed to understand whether differences in comorbidities or treatment explain inequalities in prostate cancer outcomes.

The association of diagnosis in the private or NHS sector on prostate cancer stage and treatment

BACKGROUND

To examine associations of private healthcare with stage and management of prostate cancer.

METHODS

Regional population-based cancer registry information on 15 916 prostate cancer patients.

RESULTS

Compared with patients diagnosed in the National Health Service (NHS) (94%), those diagnosed in private hospitals (5%) were significantly more affluent (69 versus 52% in deprivation quintiles 1-2), younger (mean 69 versus 73 years) and diagnosed at earlier stage (72 versus 79% in Stages <III) (P < 0.001 for all). Private hospital of diagnosis was independently associated with lower probability of advanced disease stage [odds ratio (OR) 0.75, P = 0.002], higher probability of surgery use (OR 1.28, P = 0.037) and lower probability of radiotherapy use (OR 0.75, P = 0.001). Private hospital of diagnosis independently predicted higher surgery and lower radiotherapy use, particularly in more deprived patients aged ≤ 70.

CONCLUSIONS

In prostate cancer patients, private hospital diagnosis predicts earlier disease stage, higher use of surgery and lower use of radiotherapy, independently of case-mix differences between the two sectors. Substantial socioeconomic differences in stage and treatment patterns remain across centres in the NHS, even after adjusting for private sector diagnosis. Cancer registration data could be used to identify private care use on a population basis and the potential associated treatment disparities.

Prostate cancer radiotherapy in Austria: overview on number of patients, intention to treat, and treatment techniques based on data from 2007

PURPOSE

Aim of this analysis was to assess the current status of prostate cancer radiotherapy in Austria and compare these numbers to patients treated with surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to all 14 Austrian departments asking about numbers of prostate cancer patients treated and indication of treatment (primary, postoperative), as well as the treatment technique used (3D-CRT, IMRT, brachytherapy), treatment volumes (with/without pelvic irradiation), dose applied, and differences in treatment concepts. Data investigated were based on the year 2007.

RESULTS

Of the 14 departments (65%), 9 departments decided to participate. A total of 1,191 prostate cancer patients were treated (847 primary, 344 postoperative). Primary patients were treated by external beam technique (91%) and permanent interstitial brachytherapy (9%). All postoperative patients were treated by 3D-CRT. Dose ranged from 70-78 Gy for primary patients and from 60-72 Gy for postoperative patients. A risk-adapted dose prescription was performed in 5 centers. Additional pelvic lymph node irradiation was based on signs of positive nodes in 4 departments and based on Roach formula/Partin table in 5 departments.

CONCLUSION

About 25% of prostate cancer patients receive primary radiotherapy. This number reflects a high potential to conduct national studies. Treatment technique and dose applied was in all centers investigated in accordance with the German S3 guidelines.

Diagnostic and treatment pathways for men with prostate cancer in Queensland: investigating spatial and demographic inequalities

Background

Patterns of diagnosis and management for men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Queensland, Australia, have not yet been systematically documented and so assumptions of equity are untested. This longitudinal study investigates the association between prostate cancer diagnostic and treatment outcomes and key area-level characteristics and individual-level demographic, clinical and psychosocial factors.

Methods/Design

A total of 1064 men diagnosed with prostate cancer between February 2005 and July 2007 were recruited through hospital-based urology outpatient clinics and private practices in the centres of Brisbane, Townsville and Mackay (82% of those referred). Additional clinical and diagnostic information for all 6609 men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Queensland during the study period was obtained via the population-based Queensland Cancer Registry.

Respondent data are collected using telephone and self-administered questionnaires at pre-treatment and at 2 months, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, 36 months, 48 months and 60 months post-treatment. Assessments include demographics, medical history, patterns of care, disease and treatment characteristics together with outcomes associated with prostate cancer, as well as information about quality of life and psychological adjustment. Complementary detailed treatment information is abstracted from participants' medical records held in hospitals and private treatment facilities and collated with health service utilisation data obtained from Medicare Australia. Information about the characteristics of geographical areas is being obtained from data custodians such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Geo-coding and spatial technology will be used to calculate road travel distances from patients' residences to treatment centres. Analyses will be conducted using standard statistical methods along with multilevel regression models including individual and area-level components.

Conclusions

Information about the diagnostic and treatment patterns of men diagnosed with prostate cancer is crucial for rational planning and development of health delivery and supportive care services to ensure equitable access to health services, regardless of geographical location and individual characteristics.

This study is a secondary outcome of the randomised controlled trial registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12607000233426)

Population based time trends and socioeconomic variation in use of radiotherapy and radical surgery for prostate cancer in a UK region: continuous survey

OBJECTIVE

To examine variation in the management of prostate cancer in patients with different socioeconomic status.

DESIGN

Survey using UK regional cancer registry data.

SETTING

Regional population based cancer registry.

PARTICIPANTS

35 171 patients aged >or=51 with a diagnosis of prostate cancer, 1995-2006.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Use of radiotherapy and radical surgery. Socioeconomic status according to fifths of small area deprivation index.

RESULTS

Over the nine years of the study, information on stage at diagnosis was available for 15 916 of 27 970 patients (57%). During the study period, the proportion of patients treated with radiotherapy remained at about 25%, while use of radical surgery increased significantly (from 2.9% (212/7201) during 1995-7 to 8.4% (854/10 211) during 2004-6, P<0.001). Both treatments were more commonly used in least deprived compared with most deprived patients (28.5% v 21.0% for radiotherapy and 8.4% v 4.0% for surgery). In multivariable analysis, increasing deprivation remained strongly associated with lower odds of radiotherapy or surgery (odds ratio 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.94), P<0.001, and 0.91 (0.87 to 0.94), P<0.001, respectively, per incremental deprivation group). There were consistently concordant findings with multilevel models for clustering of observations by hospital of diagnosis, with restriction of the analysis to patients with information on stage, and with sequential restriction of the analysis to different age, stage, diagnosis period, and morphology groups.

CONCLUSIONS

After a diagnosis of prostate cancer, men from lower socioeconomic groups were substantially less likely to be treated with radical surgery or radiotherapy. The causes and impact on survival of such differences remain uncertain.