A website to provide support for people who have or have had any type of cancer, for their caregivers and for their family members.
Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 155

Thread: (F) Treatment Decisions – Comparisons – Trends

  1. #1

    (F) Treatment Decisions – Comparisons – Trends

    Table of Contents
    A title in all caps does not reflect any emphasis; it is simply how it appeared on the page I copied from.
    Studies in red are new additions.


    [#1] Prostate cancer management choices in patients undergoing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy compared to systematic biopsy [2018]

    [#2] Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, or External Beam Radiotherapy With Brachytherapy Boost and Disease Progression and Mortality in Patients With Gleason Score 9-10 Prostate Cancer [2018]

    [#3] Prostate Cancer Treatment (PDQฎ): Patient Version [2018]

    Prostate Cancer Treatment (PDQฎ): Health Professional Version [Aug. 9, 2018]

    [#4] National trends in management of localized prostate cancer: A population based analysis 2004-2013 [2018]

    [#5] The Association of Long-term Treatment-related Side Effects With Cancer-specific and General Quality of Life Among Prostate Cancer Survivors [2018]

    [#6] Information Seeking and Satisfaction with Information Sources Among Spouses of Men with Newly Diagnosed Local-Stage Prostate Cancer [2018]

    [#7] Understanding Advanced Prostate Cancer Decision Making Utilizing an Interactive Decision Aid [2018]

    [#8] Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy reduce prostate cancer mortality in elderly patients: a population-based propensity score adjusted analysis

    [#9] The Diagnosis and Treatment of Prostate Cancer: A Review [2017]

    [#10] Physician Recommendations Trump Patient Preferences in Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions [2016]

    [#11] Genomic Markers in Prostate Cancer Decision Making [2018]

    [#12] Prostate cancer: updates on current strategies for screening, diagnosis and clinical implications of treatment modalities [2017]

    [#13] Cognitive and Affective Representations of Active Surveillance as a Treatment Option for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer [2017]

    [#14] Management and outcomes of Gleason six prostate cancer detected on needle biopsy: A single-surgeon experience over 6 years [2017]

    [#15] Risk of Death from Prostate Cancer with and without Definitive Local Therapy when Gleason Pattern 5 is Present: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Analysis [2017]

    [#16] Impact of Pathology Review for Decision Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer [2017]

    [#17] MISINFORMATION ON THE INTERNET REGARDING ABLATIVE THERAPIES FOR PROSTATE CANCER [2018]

    [#18] Perceptions about cancer clinical trials among prostate cancer survivors [2018]

    [#19] Occurrence of pathologic stage T3 disease at radical prostatectomy with isup grade group 1 (Gleason 3+3=6) prostate cancer [2018]

    [#20] Undertreatment of Elderly Men With High-Risk Prostate Cancer [2017]

    [#21] Meta-analysis of studies comparing oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy and brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer [2017]

    [#22] Review of the comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or expectant management of localized prostate cancer in registry data [2018]

    [#23] Brachytherapy-Based Radiotherapy and Radical Prostatectomy Are Associated With Similar Survival in High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer [2018]

    Meta-analysis of studies comparing oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy and brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer [2017]

    [#24] Association Between Primary Local Treatment and Non–prostate Cancer Mortality in Men With Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer [2018]

    [#25] Association Between Choice of Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, Brachytherapy, or Active Surveillance and Patient-Reported Quality of Life Among Men With Localized Prostate Cancer [2017]

    [#26] Definitive Radiation Therapy and Survival in Clinically Node-Positive Prostate Cancer [2018]

    [#27] Oncological impact of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy on permanent iodine‐125 seed brachytherapy in patients with low‐ and intermediate‐risk prostate cancer [2018]

    [#28] Improved Recovery of Erectile Function in Younger Men after Radical Prostatectomy: Does it Justify Immediate Surgery in Low-risk Patients? [2018]

    Erectile Function Recovery After Surgery in Young Men with Low-risk Prostate Cancer: Probably Not Just a Matter of Age, Certainly Not the Main Point of Discussion [2018]

    [#29] Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: The Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 [2018]

    [#30] The Effect of Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiation Therapy and Active Surveillance on Life Insurance Premiums in Patients with Prostate Cancer [2017]

    [#31] Safety and Efficacy of Prostatic Artery Chemoembolization for Prostate Cancer—Initial Experience [2018]

    [#32] Psychological and functional effect of different primary treatments for prostate cancer: A comparative prospective analysis [2018]

    [#33] Clinical Case Discussion: Primary Treatment for Prostate Cancer in an Elderly Man—Treatment of the Primary Tumor is Necessary [2018]

    [#34] A Pooled Analysis of Biochemical Failure in Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer Following Definitive Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) or High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy (HDR-B) Monotherapy [2018]

    [#35] The effect of selection and referral biases for the treatment of localised prostate cancer with surgery or radiation [2018]

    [#36] Is fatal family history in prostate cancer a predictor of radical prostatectomy outcomes? [2018]

    [#37] Lack of Apparent Survival Benefit With Use of Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Patients With High-risk Prostate Cancer Receiving Combined External Beam Radiation Therapy and Brachytherapy [2018]

    [#38] Survival after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for locally advanced (cT3) prostate cancer [2018]

    [#39] Reducing overtreatment of prostate cancer by radical prostatectomy in Eastern Ontario: a population-based cohort study [2018]

    [#40] The Role of Provider Characteristics in the Selection of Surgery or Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer and Association With Quality of Care Indicators [2018]

    [#41] Does Travel Time to a Radiation Facility Impact Patient Decision‐Making Regarding Treatment for Prostate Cancer? A Study of the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry [2018]

    [#42] PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS’ EXPERIENCE AND PREFERENCES FOR ACQUIRING INFORMATION EARLY IN THEIR CARE [2018]

    [#43] The accuracy of patients’ perceptions of the risks associated with localised prostate cancer treatments [2018]

    [#44] Recent Advances in Prostate Cancer Treatment and Drug Discovery [2018]

    [#45] Influence of an International Consensus Conference on Practice Patterns in Advanced Prostate Cancer [2018]

    [#46] Systemic treatments for high-risk localized prostate cancer [2018]

    [#47] Primary whole‐gland ablation for localized prostate cancer with high‐intensity focused ultrasound: The important predictors of biochemical recurrence [2018]

    [#48] MAKING THEIR DECISIONS FOR PROSTATE CANCER TREATMENT: PATIENTS’ EXPERIENCES AND PREFERENCES RELATED TO PROCESS [2018]

    [#49] ASCO 2018: Ten Year Treatment Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy Vs External Beam Radiation Therapy Vs Brachytherapy for 1,503 Patients With Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer [2018]

    [#50] Suitable sexual health care according to men with prostate cancer and their partners [2018]

    [#51] Understanding Medical Decision-making in Prostate Cancer Care [2018]

    [#52] Primary cryotherapy for localised or locally advanced prostate cancer [2018]

    [#53] Does Specialty Bias Trump Evidence in the Management of High-risk Prostate Cancer? [2018]

    Discord Among Radiation Oncologists and Urologists in the Postoperative Management of High-Risk Prostate Cancer [2017]

    [#54] Superior metastasis-free survival for patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with definitive radiation therapy compared to radical prostatectomy: A propensity score-matched analysis [2017]

    [#55] Factors influencing prostate cancer patterns of care: An analysis of treatment variation using the SEER database [2018]

    [#56] Web-Based Versus Usual Care and Other Formats of Decision Aids to Support Prostate Cancer Screening Decisions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [2018]

    [#57] Psychological and functional effect of different primary treatments for prostate cancer: A comparative prospective analysis [2018]

    [#58] Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: Risk Stratification, Shared Decision Making, and Care Options [2018]

    Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part II: Recommended Approaches and Details of Specific Care Options [2018]
    AUA, ASTRO, SUO release localized PCa guideline [2018]

    [#59] “Still a Cancer Patient”—Associations of Cancer Identity With Patient-Reported Outcomes and Health Care Use Among Cancer Survivors [2018]

    TOC Continues Below
    Last edited by DjinTonic; 07-01-2019 at 01:55 PM.

  2. #2

    Table of Contents

    [#60] Trends in Prostate Cancer Incidence Rates and Prevalence of Prostate Specific Antigen Screening by Socioeconomic Status and Regions in the United States, 2004 to 2013 [2018]

    [#61] Primary cryotherapy for localised or locally advanced prostate cancer [2018]

    [#62] Examining trajectories of anxiety in men with prostate cancer faced with complex treatment decisions [2018]

    [#63] Evaluation of Cancer-Specific Mortality with Surgery Versus Radiation as Primary Therapy for Localized High-Grade Prostate Cancer in Men Younger than 60 Years Old [2018]

    [#64] Radical prostatectomy then and now: Surgical overtreatment of prostate cancer is declining from 2009 to 2016 at a tertiary referral center [2018]

    [#65] Multi-disciplinary and shared decision-making approach in the management of organ-confined prostate cancer [2018]

    [#66] Incidence of second tumours in high risk prostate cancer patients according to the primary treatment applied [2018]

    [#67] Recent Advances in Prostate Cancer Treatment and Drug Discovery [Review, 2018]

    [#68] Low Testosterone and Prostate Cancer: Is the Protection Real? [2018]

    [#69] Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer [2018]\

    [#70] Comparative Effectiveness of Radical Prostatectomy With Adjuvant Radiotherapy Versus Radiotherapy Plus Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Men With Advanced Prostate Cancer [2018]

    [#71] Overview of Tumor Control Outcomes with Prostate SBRT for Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer and Comparison to Other Treatment Interventions [2018]

    [#72] A comprehensive analysis of cost of an active surveillance cohort compared to radical prostatectomy as primary treatment for prostate cancer [2018]

    [#73] Systematic Review of Systemic Therapies and Therapeutic Combinations with Local Treatments for High-risk Localized Prostate Cancer [2018]

    [#74] External Beam Radiotherapy Increases the Risk of Bladder Cancer When Compared with Radical Prostatectomy in Patients Affected by Prostate Cancer: A Population-based Analysis [2018]

    [#75] Prostate Cancer in 432 men under the age of 50 years in the Prostate Specific Antigen era ‐ a new outlook [2018]

    [#76] The addition of chemotherapy in the definitive management of high risk prostate cancer [2018]

    [#77] Association between Radical Prostatectomy and Survival in Men with Clinically Node-positive Prostate Cancer [2018]

    [#78] Radical Prostatectomy With and Without Neoadjuvant Chemohormonal Pretreatment for High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Propensity Score Matched Analysis [2018]

    [#79] Surgery vs Radiotherapy in the Management of Biopsy Gleason Score 9-10 Prostate Cancer and the Risk of Mortality [2018]

    [#80] Dissemination of Misinformative and Biased Information about Prostate Cancer on YouTube [2018]

    [#81] Radical Prostatectomy or Watchful Waiting in Prostate Cancer — 29-Year Follow-up [2018]

    [#82] Current controversies on the role of lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer [2018]

    [#83] Evaluation of Cancer Specific Mortality with Surgery versus Radiation as Primary Therapy for Localized High Grade Prostate Cancer in Men Younger Than 60 Years [2019]

    Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, or External Beam Radiotherapy With Brachytherapy Boost and Disease Progression and Mortality in Patients With Gleason Score 9-10 Prostate Cancer [2018]

    [#84] New Prostate Cancer Targets for Diagnosis, Imaging, and Therapy: Focus on Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen [2018]

    [#85] Should we involve patients more actively? Perspectives of the multidisciplinary team on shared decision-making for older patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [2019]

    [#86] Surgery Versus Radiation for High-risk Prostate Cancer: The Fight Continues. But Is It Time To Call a Draw and Reach Consensus? [2019]

    [#87] Does time from diagnosis to treatment of high or very high risk prostate cancer affect outcome? [2019]

    [#88] Confirmatory MRI With or Without Biopsy Impacts Decision-Making in Newly Diagnosed Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer [2019]

    [#89] Underutilization of Androgen Deprivation Therapy with External Beam Radiotherapy in Men with High-grade Prostate Cancer [2019]

    [#90] Impact of patient choice and hospital competition on patient outcomes after prostate cancer surgery: A national population‐based study [2019]

    [#91] Robot or radiation? A qualitative study of the decision support needs of men with localised prostate cancer choosing between robotic prostatectomy and radiotherapy treatment [2019]

    [#92] The European Prostate Cancer Centres of Excellence: A Novel Proposal from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Centre Consensus Meeting [2019]

    [#93] What Patients and Partners Want in Interventions That Support Sexual Recovery After Prostate Cancer Treatment: An Exploratory Convergent Mixed Methods Study [2019]

    [#94] Oncological control in high-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy compared to radiotherapy plus primary hormone therapy [2019]

    [#95] Is external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer a risk factor for bladder or rectal cancer? [2019]

    High detection rate of colorectal cancer in scheduled serial total colonoscopy screening after radiation therapy for prostate cancer [2019]

    [#96]Multidisciplinary Care in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Is the New Standard of Care [2019]

    [#97] Proton versus photon-based radiation therapy for prostate cancer: emerging evidence and considerations in the era of value-based cancer care [2019]

    [#98] Triple treatment of high-risk prostate cancer. A matched cohort study with up to 19 years follow-up comparing survival outcomes after triple treatment and treatment with hormones and radiotherapy [2019]

    [#99] 'I'm not a chance taker': A mixed methods exploration of factors affecting prostate cancer treatment decision-making [2019]

    [#100] Effects of androgen deprivation therapy duration and Gleason grade on survival outcomes of high risk prostate cancer [2019]

    [#101] Regional Differences in the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of Surgery and Radiation Utilization in the United States [2019]

    [#102] Retrospective study on the benefit of adjuvant radiotherapy in men with intraductal carcinoma of prostate [2019]

    [#103] Do contemporary imaging and biopsy techniques reliably identify unilateral prostate cancer? Implications for hemiablation patient selection [2019]

    [#104] National trends in the utilization of androgen deprivation therapy for very low risk prostate cancer [2019]

    [#105] Multidisciplinary Team Meetings for Prostate Cancer Treatment: We Can Do Much Better in Daily Life [2019]

    [#106] Is Primary Androgen Deprivation Therapy a Suitable Option for Asian Patients With Prostate Cancer Compared With Radical Prostatectomy? [2019]

    [#107] Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology [2019]

    [#108] Survival after radiotherapy vs. radical prostatectomy for unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer [2019]

    [#109] Cost-Effectiveness of Active Surveillance, Radical Prostatectomy, and External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of the ProtecT Trial [2019]

    [#110] Heterogeneity in Definitions of High-risk Prostate Cancer and Varying Impact on Mortality Rates after Radical Prostatectomy [2018]

    [#111] Long-Term Incidence of Secondary Bladder, Rectal Cancer in Patients Treated with Brachytherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Large-Scale Population-Based Analysis [2019]

    [#112] Combined external beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy versus radical prostatectomy with adjuvant radiation therapy for Gleason 9-10 prostate cancer [2019]

    [#113] Ten-year outcomes of high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer with unfavorable risk: early initiation of salvage therapy may replace long-term adjuvant androgen deprivation [2019]

    [#114] Trends in the use of proton beam therapy among newly diagnosed cancer patients in the United States [2019]

    [#115] Physician benefit-risk preferences for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment (nmCRPC) [2019]

    [#116] Circadian Rhythm Research Supports Timed Cancer Treatment [2019]

    [#117] Three Discipline Collaborative Radiation Therapy (3DCRT) Special Debate: I would treat prostate cancer with proton therapy [2019]

    [#118] The increase of stage, grading, and metastases in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy during the last decade [2019]

    [#119] Radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy in intermediate risk prostate cancer? [2019]

    [#120] Systemic Treatment of Prostate Cancer in Elderly Patients: Current Role and Safety Considerations of Androgen-Targeting Strategies [2019]

    [#121] Updated recommendations of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology on prostate cancer management in older patients [2019]

    [#122] Short-term benefit of neoadjuvant hormone therapy in patients with localized high-risk or limited progressive prostate cancer [2019]

    [#123] Active Surveillance Versus Radical Prostatectomy in Favorable-risk Localized Prostate Cancer [2019]

    [#124] Post-Treatment Survey on Prostate Cancer Patients: Comparing Brachytherapy and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy [2019]

    Quality of Life after Prostate Cancer Treatment Comparison between Robot Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Brachytherapy [2019]

    TOC Continues Below
    Last edited by DjinTonic; 07-01-2019 at 02:32 PM.

  3. #3

    Table of Contents

    [#125] NICE guidelines on prostate cancer 2019

    NICE Guidance – Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management [2019]

    [#126] Prevalence and predictors of probable depression in prostate cancer survivors [2019]

    [#127] Contemporary national trends in prostate cancer risk profile at diagnosis [2019]

    [#128] Prostate Biopsy Features: A Comparison Between the Pre- and Post-2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force Prostate Cancer Screening Guidelines With Emphasis on African American and Septuagenarian Men [2019]

    [#129] Patient-Centered Approach to Develop the Patient’s Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) Tool [2019]

    [#130] Epidemiological Determinants of Advanced Prostate Cancer in Elderly Men in the United States [2019]

    [#131] GAY & BISEXUAL MEN LIVING WITH PROSTATE CANCER [2018]

    [#132] Comparative effectiveness of treatments for high-risk prostate cancer patients [2019]

    [#133] Precision Medicine for Localized Prostate Cancer: Time to Move Beyond NCCN Risk Stratification? [2019]

    Genomic Classifier for Guiding Treatment of Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancers to Dose-Escalated Image Guided Radiation Therapy Without Hormone Therapy [2019]

    [#134] Treatment Facility Volume and Survival in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer [2019]

    [#135] Changing clinical trends in 10,000 robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy patients and impact of the 2012 USPSTF statement against PSA screening [2019]

    Changing clinical trends in 10,000 robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy patients and impact of the 2012 USPSTF statement against PSA screening [2019] (Article about the study)

    [#136] Practice Patterns and Outcomes Among Patients With N0M0 Prostate Cancer and a Very High Prostate-Specific Antigen Level [2019]

    [#137] Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management. NICE Guideline, No. 131 [2019]

    [#138] Shared decision making for men facing prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials [2019]

    Since September:

    [#139] A contemporary, nationwide analysis of surgery and radiotherapy treatment for prostate cancer [2019]

    [#140] Discrepancy between Expectations and Experiences after Prostate Cancer Treatment: A Dutch Multicenter Study [2019]

    [#141] Improved Outcomes with Radiation Therapy in African Americans with Prostate Cancer [2019]

    Last edited by DjinTonic; 09-25-2019 at 05:17 PM.

  4. #4
    [Table of Contents p.4]

  5. #5
    [Table of Contents p.5]

  6. #6
    [#1]
    Prostate cancer management choices in patients undergoing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy compared to systematic biopsy [2018]

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29526599

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVES:
    To assess management choices in patients who undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound (MRI/US) fusion-guided prostate biopsy compared to patients who undergo systematic biopsy.

    METHODS:
    We compared men who underwent MRI/US fusion-guided prostate biopsy to those who underwent systematic 12-core biopsy from 2014 to 2016. Patient demographics and pathologic findings were reviewed. The highest grade group per case was considered for analysis.

    RESULTS:
    Follow-up was available on 133 patients who underwent MRI/US targeted biopsy and 215 patients who underwent systematic biopsy. There was no difference in prebiopsy prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (10.1 ฑ 10.0 vs. 12.9 ฑ 20.5, P = 0.11) between the 2 cohorts. Patients in the MRI cohort were more likely to have had a previous prostate biopsy (P<0.0001). Overall, more patients in the MRI cohort choose active surveillance compared to the standard cohort (49.6% vs. 24.2%, P<0.0001), confirmed on multivariate logistic regression model adjusting for age, PSA density, prior biopsy history, race, grade group, and provider (P = 0.013). This finding held true independently for patients with grade groups 1 and 2 tumors (P = 0.02 and P = 0.005, respectively) and in a multivariate logistic regression model adjusting for grade group 1 and 2 tumors (P = 0.0051). In the standard cohort, more patients chose radiation over prostatectomy (47.2% vs. 24.4%, P<0.0001). On multivariate analysis, race was an independent predictor of active surveillance, with African Americans less likely to undergo active surveillance.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    Patients who undergo MRI/US targeted biopsy are more likely to choose active surveillance over early definitive treatment compared to men diagnosed on systematic biopsy when adjusting for tumor grade, PSA density, prior biopsy history, race, and provider.

  7. #7
    [#2]
    Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, or External Beam Radiotherapy With Brachytherapy Boost and Disease Progression and Mortality in Patients With Gleason Score 9-10 Prostate Cancer [JAMA 2018]

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29509865

    Abstract

    IMPORTANCE:
    The optimal treatment for Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer is unknown.

    OBJECTIVE:
    To compare clinical outcomes of patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer after definitive treatment.

    DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:
    Retrospective cohort study in 12 tertiary centers (11 in the United States, 1 in Norway), with 1809 patients treated between 2000 and 2013.

    EXPOSURES:
    Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy, or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT) with androgen deprivation therapy.

    MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:
    The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival were secondary outcomes.

    RESULTS:
    Of 1809 men, 639 underwent RP, 734 EBRT, and 436 EBRT+BT. Median ages were 61, 67.7, and 67.5 years; median follow-up was 4.2, 5.1, and 6.3 years, respectively. By 10 years, 91 RP, 186 EBRT, and 90 EBRT+BT patients had died. Adjusted 5-year prostate cancer-specific mortality rates were RP, 12% (95% CI, 8%-17%); EBRT, 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%); and EBRT+BT, 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%). EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower prostate cancer-specific mortality than either RP or EBRT (cause-specific HRs of 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.68] and 0.41 [95% CI, 0.24-0.71]). Adjusted 5-year incidence rates of distant metastasis were RP, 24% (95% CI, 19%-30%); EBRT, 24% (95% CI, 20%-28%); and EBRT+BT, 8% (95% CI, 5%-11%). EBRT+BT was associated with a significantly lower rate of distant metastasis (propensity-score-adjusted cause-specific HRs of 0.27 [95% CI, 0.17-0.43] for RP and 0.30 [95% CI, 0.19-0.47] for EBRT). Adjusted 7.5-year all-cause mortality rates were RP, 17% (95% CI, 11%-23%); EBRT, 18% (95% CI, 14%-24%); and EBRT+BT, 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%). Within the first 7.5 years of follow-up, EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (cause-specific HRs of 0.66 [95% CI, 0.46-0.96] for RP and 0.61 [95% CI, 0.45-0.84] for EBRT). After the first 7.5 years, the corresponding HRs were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.70-1.92) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.57-1.32). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality, distant metastasis, or all-cause mortality (≤7.5 and >7.5 years) were found between men treated with EBRT or RP (cause-specific HRs of 0.92 [95% CI, 0.67-1.26], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.14], 1.07 [95% CI, 0.80-1.44], and 1.34 [95% CI, 0.85-2.11]).

    CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:
    Among patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer, treatment with EBRT+BT with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with significantly better prostate cancer-specific mortality and longer time to distant metastasis compared with EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy or with RP.

    First Forum post: https://www.cancerforums.net/threads/54476-Gleason-9-10-Progression-amp-Mortality-RP-vs-EBRT-vs-EBRT-Brachy

  8. #8
    [#3]
    Prostate Cancer Treatment (PDQฎ): Patient Version [June 12, 2019, Full Text, perhaps a good intro for the newly diagnosed, Feb. 28, 2019]

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK65915/


    Prostate Cancer Treatment (PDQฎ): Health Professional Version [Feb. 5, 2019, Full Text]

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK66036/
    Last edited by DjinTonic; 06-20-2019 at 12:34 PM.

  9. #9
    [#4]
    National trends in management of localized prostate cancer: A population based analysis 2004-2013
    [2018]

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29542178

    Abstract

    PURPOSE:
    Recent years have brought many changes in the management of localized prostate cancer as national screening guidelines have been updated and diagnostic practice patterns evolved. We sought to better understand how the changing landscape influenced treatment utilization in the United States.

    METHODS:
    We used the SEER database in this retrospective analysis of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2013. We evaluated utilization of primary treatment modalities over time with descriptive and trend analyses, and examined treatment utilization by cancer risk group and age at diagnosis.

    RESULTS:
    Of 398 074 patients in the analytic data set, 38% elected radiation therapy, 38% underwent radical prostatectomy, and 24% opted for expectant management. While in 2004 radiation treatment was almost twice as common as expectant management (42% vs 23%), by 2013 approximately equal percentages of patients were treated with each of the three modalities. Expectant management use increased over time, while the proportion of patients opting for surgery decreased remarkably with increasing age at diagnosis in intermediate- and higher-risk disease. Among radiotherapy options, brachytherapy was most common among lower-risk patients in 2004 but substantially decreased over time (P < 0.001).

    CONCLUSIONS:
    Management of localized prostate cancer changed substantially over time in the United States. Utilization of expectant management has increased for men with low- and intermediate risk cancer. Among those who pursue curative therapy, younger men remain more likely to elect surgery whereas older men tend to choose radiotherapy. Further studies are needed to better characterize factors contributing to treatment selection.

  10. #10
    [#5]
    The Association of Long-term Treatment-related Side Effects With Cancer-specific and General Quality of Life Among Prostate Cancer Survivors
    [2018, Full Text]

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5862141/

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVE
    To examine the association between treatment-related side effects and cancer-specific and general quality of life (QOL) among long-term prostate cancer survivors.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS
    Within the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, we conducted telephone interviews with prostate cancer survivors (N = 518 ) who were 5-10 years after diagnosis. We assessed demographic and clinical information, sexual, urinary, and bowel treatment-related side effects (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite), cancer-specific QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—total score), and general QOL (the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 12’s physical and mental subscales).

    RESULTS
    Participants were aged 74.6 years on average, primarily White (88.4%), and married (81.7%). Pearson correlation coefficients between the 3 treatment-related side effect domains (urinary, sexual, and bowel) and QOL ranged between 0.14 and 0.42 (P <.0001). Multivariable linear regression analyses revealed that poorer urinary and sexual functioning and greater bowel side effects were independently associated with poorer cancer-specific QOL (P <.0001). Bowel and urinary functions were also associated with poorer general QOL on the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 12’s physical component summary and mental component summary (P <.05). Bowel side effects demonstrated the strongest association with all QOL outcomes.

    CONCLUSION
    Treatment-related side effects persisted for up to 10 years after diagnosis and continued to be associated with men’s QOL. These results suggest that each of the treatment-related side effects was independently associated with cancer-specific QOL. Compared with the other Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite domains, bowel side effects had the strongest association with cancer-specific and general QOL. These associations emphasize the tremendous impact that bowel side effects continue to have for men many years after their initial diagnosis.
    [Emphasis mine]

 

Similar Threads

  1. Decisions, decisions. Surgery or remain on AS with Gleason 3+4
    By NightHiker in forum Prostate Cancer Forum
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 12-22-2014, 02:31 PM
  2. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 10-20-2014, 06:54 PM
  3. Decisions, Decisions......
    By Walnut in forum Prostate Cancer Forum
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 03-12-2014, 04:49 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-23-2005, 04:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •