Advertisement

National Trends in the Utilization of Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Very Low Risk Prostate Cancer

      Abstract

      Objective

      To analyze national trends using the National Cancer Database (NCDB) in use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), outside of standard of care, in patients with very low risk prostate cancer.

      Methods

      We identified 52,797 men in the NCDB from 2010 to 2015 diagnosed with very low risk prostate cancer as defined (cT1cM0, PSA <10, Gleason ≤6, <3 biopsy cores positive). We evaluated the treatment trends and the proportion of men treated with ADT based on race, income, insurance status, treatment facility volume, and Charlson comorbidity.

      Results

      From 2010 to 2015, prevalence of primary ADT use in patients with very low risk prostate cancer remained 0.7%. Patients treated at low-volume facilities were more likely to receive primary ADT (hazard ratio [HR] 1.29, P <.001) as were black patients (HR 1.47, P <.001). When evaluated over time, the proportion of men treated with primary ADT who were white decreased while the proportion of men who were black increased.

      Conclusion

      The use of primary ADT in men with very low risk prostate cancer has not changed over time, and may be over utilized, particularly among black men and those treated at low-volume facilities.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Siegel R
        • Naishadham D
        • Jemal A
        Cancer statistics, 2013.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2013; 63: 11-30
      1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCNN).Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. V.2.2018, 2018 (www.nccn.org).

        • Boorjian SA
        • Karnes RJ
        • Rangel LJ
        • Bergstralh EJ
        • Blute ML
        Mayo clinic validation of the D'Amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy.
        J Urol. 2008; 179: 1354-1361
        • Ross HM
        • Kryvenko ON
        • Cowan JE
        • et al.
        Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS)<=6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes?.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 2012; 36: 1346-1352
        • Eggener S
        • Scardino P
        • Walsh P
        • et al.
        20 year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy.
        J Urol. 2011; 185: 869-875
        • Klotz L
        • Vesprini D
        • Sethukavalan P
        • et al.
        Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33: 272-277
        • Bilimoria KY
        • Stewart AK
        • Winchester DP
        • et al.
        The National Cancer Data Base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2008; 15: 683-690
        • Lu-Yao GL
        • Albertsen PC
        • Moore DF
        • et al.
        Survival following primary androgen deprivation therapy among men with localized prostate cancer.
        JAMA. 2008; 300: 173-181
        • Chodak GW
        • Keane T
        • Klotz L
        • The Hormone Therapy Study Group
        Critical evaluation of hormonal therapy for carcinoma of the prostate.
        Urology. 2002; 60: 201-208
        • Bolla M
        • Colletee L
        • Blank L
        • et al.
        Long-term results with immediate androgen suppression and external irradiation in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (an EORTC study): a phase III randomized trail.
        Lancet. 2002; 360: 103-106
        • D'Amico AV
        • Manola J
        • Loffredo M
        • et al.
        6-month androgen suppression plus radiation therapy vs radiation therapy alone for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trail.
        JAMA. 2004; 292: 821-827
        • Meng MV
        • Grossfeld GD
        • Sadetsky N
        • et al.
        Contemporary patterns of androgen deprivation therapy use for newly diagnosed prostate cancer.
        Urology. 2002; 60: 7-12
        • Cooperberg MR
        • Grossfeld GD
        • Lubeck DP
        • et al.
        National practice patterns and time trends in androgen ablation for localized prostate cancer.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95: 981-989
        • Shahinian VB
        • Kuo Y-f
        • Freeman JL
        • et al.
        Increasing use of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists for the treatment of localized prostate carcinoma.
        Cancer. 2005; 103: 1615-1624
        • Sammon JD
        • Abdollah F
        • Reznor G
        • et al.
        Patterns of declining use and the adverse effect of primary androgen deprivation on all-cause mortality in elderly men with prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 68: 32-39
        • Smith MR
        • Boyce SP
        • Moyneur E
        • et al.
        Risk of clinical fractures after gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist therapy for prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2006; 175: 136-139
        • Abrahamsen B
        • van Staa T
        • Ariely R
        • et al.
        Excess mortality following hip fracture: a systematic epidemiological review.
        Osteoporos Int. 2009; 20: 1633-1650https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009-0920-3
        • Kaipia A
        • Riikonen J
        • Norja H
        • et al.
        Androgen ablation for low-risk prostate cancer is common among male hip fracture patients.
        Scan J Urol. 2014; 48: 189-194
        • Latini DM
        • Elkin EP
        • Cooperberg MR
        • et al.
        Differences in clinical characteristics and disease free survival for Latino, African American, and non-Latino white men with localized prostate cancer: data from CaPSURE.
        Cancer. 2006; 106: 789-795
        • Hoffman RM
        • Gilliland FD
        • Eley JW
        • et al.
        Racial and ethnic differences in advanced-stage prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001; 93: 388-395
        • Cohen JH
        • Schoenbach VJ
        • Kaufman JS
        • et al.
        Racial differences in clinical progression among Medicare recipients after treatment for localized prostate cancer (United States).
        Cancer Causes Control. 2006; 17: 803-811
        • Godley PA
        • Schenck AP
        • Amamoo MA
        • et al.
        Racial differences in mortality among Medicare recipients after treatment for localized prostate cancer.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95: 1702-1710
        • Harlan L
        • Brawley O
        • Pommerenke F
        • et al.
        Geographic, age, and racial variation in the treatment of local/regional carcinoma of the prostate.
        J Clin Oncol. 1995; 13: 93-100
        • Krupski TL
        • Kwan L
        • Afifi AA
        • et al.
        Geographic and socioeconomic variation in the treatment of prostate cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 1995; 13: 93-100
        • Imperato PJ
        • Nenner RP
        • Will TO
        Radical prostatectomy: lower rates among African-American men.
        J Natl Med Assoc. 1996; 88: 589-594
        • Klabunde CN
        • Potosky AL
        • Harlan LC
        • et al.
        Trends and black/white differences in treatment for nonmetastatic prostate cancer.
        Med Care. 1998; 36: 1337-1348
        • Harlan LC
        • Potosky A
        • Gilliand FD
        • et al.
        Factors associated with initial therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: prostate cancer outcomes study.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001; 93: 1864-1871