Prostate Cancer: Population-Based Survival Rates in Central Italy

Comparability Issues within the Itacare Data Base

Aims and background

The aim of the study was to describe the extent of variability among Italian cancer registries in data managing practices that may affect differences in incidence and possibly in survival estimates.

Methods

a self-administered questionnaire was sent to each participating registry. The definitions of the disease, of the start point and of the end point of survival computation were investigated. Moreover, information on the proportion of histologic confirmation, of ill-defined sites and of DCO (death certificate only) was also considered.

Results

There were some differences in cancer registration techniques among Italian cancer registries. As regards disease definition, the most relevant problems arose for urinary bladder. Skin melanoma should also be considered with some caution, due to variability among registries in coding in situ cases. For the CNS and meninges, the proportion of cases that could be differently considered was so limited that no effect on survival is expected. For female breast, colorectum and cervix uteri, the effect of early diagnosis services (which are active only in some areas) may lead to better survival estimates. The variability in incidence date definition was high among registries and sites, but its effect on survival was very limited. There was a wide variability in the proportion of DCOs and of DCIs (initially known from death certificate), which should be considered in survival comparisons. All the registries stated that they carried out an active follow-up of their patients.

Conclusions

In general, quality standards of the registries are good and allow comparability of survival data. The variability of rules adopted by Italian registries may affect geographic survival differences only in a limited number of cancer sites, so that results should be interpreted with caution.

Epidemiology of prostate cancer in the Umbria region of Italy: evidence of opportunistic screening effects

OBJECTIVES

To examine the impact of prostate-specific antigen-based screening on prostate cancer incidence, mortality, and survival in the Umbria region of Italy for the period 1978 to 1999.

METHODS

Incidence rates were derived from an ad hoc survey and from cancer registry records for the period 1978 to 1982 and 1994 to 1999, respectively. The mortality trend was assessed by joinpoint analysis using data from the official publications. The observed, relative, and age-adjusted relative survival rates were also calculated.

RESULTS

The number of newly diagnosed cases in 1997 to 1999 was almost four times greater than in 1978 to 1982, the crude incidence rate was more than three times, and the age-adjusted incidence rate increased by about 125%. No trend was apparent for mortality. The survival rates also showed a large increase. The 5-year relative survival rate was 37% and 74% for 1978 to 1982 and 1994 to 1998 incident cases, respectively. People older than 75 years showed the same striking increase in incidence and survival rates as the younger age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

As in many other developed countries, prostate cancer screening activities are the likely cause of the increase in incidence and survival rates observed in the study area, but a decreasing mortality trend is not yet evident. Opportunistic screening is likely to be performed among all age groups, including the elderly, although the latter are unlikely to benefit from intervention. The evaluation of opportunistic screening is difficult and a lack of evaluation implies a high risk of ineffective interventions and inequality of care.

Background to and management of treatment-related bone loss in prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is a common disease among older men. Androgen suppression by either orchiectomy or administration of luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues is the mainstay of treatment. Since the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) serum testing has become widespread, however, the timing of endocrine therapy has expanded considerably to include patients with limited involvement of extraprostatic sites and patients presenting an isolated elevation of PSA after radical treatments. These patients are expected to be treated for a long time, since they have a rather low risk of disease progression and there is no recommended time limit for LHRH analogue therapy. The long-term adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy, therefore, deserve more attention than they have received in the past. Osteoporosis represents a special concern for men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy. The rate of bone loss in these men seems to markedly exceed that associated with menopause in women, and fractures occur more frequently than in the healthy elderly male population. Serial bone mineral density (BMD) evaluation could allow the detection of patients with prostate cancer who are at greater risk of osteoporosis and adverse skeletal events after androgen deprivation therapy, such as patients already osteopenic or osteoporotic at baseline and men with rapid bone loss during treatment. BMD evaluated during treatment could also be a potential surrogate parameter of antiosteoporotic therapeutic efficacy. Treatment of bone loss induced by androgen deprivation comprises general prevention measures, antiosteoporotic drugs and the use of alternative endocrine therapies. Optimising lifestyle and diet is important, although it cannot completely prevent bone loss. Patients with nonsevere bone disease may benefit from calcium and vitamin D supplements. Men who are osteoporotic before androgen deprivation or men becoming osteoporotic during treatment and/or experiencing adverse skeletal events may also require bisphosphonates. The effectiveness of these drugs in preventing fractures has been shown in a single randomised study involving patients with osteoporosis, but it has not yet been established in a prostatic cancer population without bone metastases given androgen deprivation therapy. Different forms of endocrine therapy such as low-dose estrogens, antiandrogens and intermittent androgen ablation are under investigation. They could offer the advantage of avoiding (or limiting) treatment-related bone loss. In our opinion, however, the data available so far are not robust enough to recommend these alternative endocrine therapies instead of standard androgen deprivation in routine clinical practice.