Cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy vs external beam radiotherapy in high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients

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\u20132016), 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\u20130.73, 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\u20131.39, 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

Cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy vs external beam radiotherapy in high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients

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

Effect of chemotherapy in metastatic prostate cancer according to race/ethnicity groups

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

Cancer-specific survival after radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy in high-risk and very high-risk African American prostate cancer patients

none17Background: To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk African American patients, as well as Johns Hopkins University (JHU) high-risk and very high-risk patients. Materials and methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010–2016), we identified 4165 NCCN high-risk patients, of whom 1944 (46.7%) and 2221 (53.3%) patients qualified for JHU high-risk or very high-risk definitions. Of all 4165 patients, 1390 (33.5%) were treated with RP versus 2775 (66.6%) with EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models addressed CSM before and after 1:1 propensity score matching between RP and EBRT NCCN high-risk patients. Subsequently, analyses were repeated separately in JHU high-risk and very high-risk subgroups. Finally, all analyses were repeated after landmark analyses were applied. Results: In the NCCN high-risk cohort, 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 2.4 versus 5.2%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30–0.84, p = 0.009) favoring RP. In JHU very high-risk patients 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 3.7 versus 8.4%, respectively, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.28–0.95, p = 0.03) favoring RP. Conversely, in JHU high-risk patients, no significant CSM difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (5-year CSM rates: 1.3 vs 1.3%; multivariable hazard ratio: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.16–1.90, p = 0.3). Observations were confirmed in propensity score-matched and landmark analyses adjusted cohorts. Conclusions: In JHU very high-risk African American patients, RP may hold a CSM advantage over EBRT, but not in JHU high-risk African American patients.noneHoeh B.; Wurnschimmel C.; Flammia R.S.; Horlemann B.; Sorce G.; Chierigo F.; Tian Z.; Saad F.; Graefen M.; Gallucci M.; Briganti A.; Terrone C.; Shariat S.F.; Kluth L.A.; Mandel P.; Chun F.K.H.; Karakiewicz P.I.Hoeh, B.; Wurnschimmel, C.; Flammia, R. S.; Horlemann, B.; Sorce, G.; Chierigo, F.; Tian, Z.; Saad, F.; Graefen, M.; Gallucci, M.; Briganti, A.; Terrone, C.; Shariat, S. F.; Kluth, L. A.; Mandel, P.; Chun, F. K. H.; Karakiewicz, P. I

Improvement in overall and cancer-specific survival in contemporary, metastatic prostate cancer chemotherapy exposed patients

Introduction: Over the last decade, multiple clinical trials demonstrated improved survival after chemotherapy for metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). However, real-world data validating this effect within large-scale epidemiological data sets are scarce. We addressed this void. Materials and Methods: Men with de novo mPCa were identified and systemic chemotherapy status was ascertained within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004–2016). Patients were divided between historical (2004–2013) versus contemporary (2014–2016). Chemotherapy rates were plotted over time. Kaplan–Meier plots and Cox regression models with additional multivariable adjustments addressed overall and cancer-specific mortality. All tests were repeated in propensity-matched analyses. Results: Overall, 19,913 patients had de novo mPCa between 2004 and 2016. Of those, 1838 patients received chemotherapy. Of 1838 chemotherapy-exposed patients, 903 were historical, whereas 905 were contemporary. Chemotherapy rates increased from 5% to 25% over time. Median overall survival was not reached in contemporary patients versus was 24 months in historical patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.55, p < 0.001). After propensity score matching and additional multivariable adjustment (age, prostate-specific antigen, GGG, cT-stage, cN-stage, cM-stage, and local treatment) a HR of 0.55 (p < 0.001) was recorded. Analyses were repeated for cancer-specific mortality after adjustment for other cause mortality in competing risks regression models and recorded virtually the same findings before and after propensity score matching (HR: 0.55, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In mPCa patients, chemotherapy rates increased over time. A concomitant increase in survival was also recorded