Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

External beam radiation therapy improves survival in high- and intermediate-risk non-metastatic octogenarian prostate cancer patients

  • Urology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

There is no contemporary proof of cancer-control benefits in octogenarian clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients with life expectancy (LE) < 10 years. Therefore, cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) vs. no local treatment (NLT) were tested in octogenarian PCa patients with LE < 10 years.

Methods

Within the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database (2004–2015), we identified 22,361 octogenarian clinically localized PCa patients who either received EBRT or NLT. Temporal trends, cumulative incidence plots and multivariable competing-risks regression analyses (MCR) were used after propensity score matching. Sensitivity analyses were performed according to D’Amico risk groups and LE > 5 years.

Results

Of all, 7325 (32.8%) received EBRT vs. 15,036 (67.2%) received NLT. Rates of EBRT significantly increased over time (25.0–42.4%). Overall, 10-year CSM rates were 10.6% vs. 17.0% and 10-year other-cause mortality rates were 50.3% vs. 58.1%, in EBRT vs. NLT patients (both p < 0.001). In MCR focusing on the overall cohort, EBRT represented an independent predictor of lower CSM (hazard ratio: 0.5). In sensitivity analyses, hazard ratios of 0.5 (p < 0.001), 0.5 (p < 0.001) and 0.8 (p = 0.5) were, respectively, recorded in D’Amico high-, intermediate- and low-risk patients. In sensitivity analyses addressing patients with LE > 5 years virtually the same results were recorded.

Conclusions

In octogenarian patients with LE < 10 years, EBRT seems to be associated with lower CSM in D’Amico high-risk, as well as in D’Amico intermediate-risk patients relative to their NLT counterparts. Based on these observations, greater consideration for EBRT may be given in octogenarian patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sanda MG et al (2018) Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol 199:683–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Copenhagen 2018. ISBN 978-94-92671-01-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Carroll PH, Mohler JL (2018) NCCN guidelines updates: prostate cancer and prostate cancer early detection. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 16:620–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Abdollah F et al (2011) A competing-risks analysis of survival after alternative treatment modalities for prostate cancer patients: 1988–2006. Eur Urol 59:88–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dell’Oglio P et al (2016) Survival after conservative management versus external beam radiation therapy in elderly patients with localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 96:1037–1045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL, ISUP Grading Committee (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Noone A-M et al (2017) Cancer incidence and survival trends by subtype using data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results program, 1992–2013. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark 26:632–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Preisser F et al (2018) Validation of the social security administration life tables (2004–2014) in localized prostate cancer patients within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Eur Urol Focus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.05.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. D’Amico AV et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:969–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Actuarial Life Table. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html. Accessed 3 Feb 2019

  11. Epstein JI et al (2016) A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 69:428–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Anderson JR, Cain KC, Gelber RD (1983) Analysis of survival by tumor response. J Clin Oncol 1:710–719

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee HJ, Lee A, Huang HH, Lau WKO (2018) Primary androgen deprivation therapy as monotherapy in unfavourable intermediate- and high-risk localised prostate cancer: a Singaporean single-centre perspective. Int Urol Nephrol 50:665–673

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kanar BG et al (2019) Androgen-deprivation therapy impairs left ventricle functions in prostate cancer patients. Int Urol Nephrol 51:1107–1112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

There was no external financial support for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

    Sophie Knipper, Derya Tilki & Markus Graefen

  2. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Sophie Knipper, Cristina Dzyuba-Negrean, Carlotta Palumbo, Angela Pecoraro, Giuseppe Rosiello, Zhe Tian, Fred Saad & Pierre I. Karakiewicz

  3. Urology Unit, ASST Spedali Civili of Brescia, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Science and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy

    Carlotta Palumbo

  4. Department of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy

    Angela Pecoraro

  5. Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy

    Giuseppe Rosiello & Alberto Briganti

  6. Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

    Derya Tilki

Authors
  1. Sophie Knipper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristina Dzyuba-Negrean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlotta Palumbo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Angela Pecoraro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giuseppe Rosiello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zhe Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alberto Briganti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Fred Saad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Derya Tilki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Markus Graefen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Pierre I. Karakiewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sophie Knipper.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

11255_2019_2284_MOESM1_ESM.docx

Supplementary material 1. Supplementary Table 1: Descriptive characteristics of 13,498 octogenarian non-metastatic prostate cancer patients within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (2004–2015) database, 1:1 propensity score matched and stratified according to treatment type (external beam radiation therapy [EBRT] vs. no local treatment [NLT]). (DOCX 14 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Knipper, S., Dzyuba-Negrean, C., Palumbo, C. et al. External beam radiation therapy improves survival in high- and intermediate-risk non-metastatic octogenarian prostate cancer patients. Int Urol Nephrol 52, 59–66 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02284-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02284-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation