Screening, Treatment, and Prostate Cancer Mortality in the Seattle Area and Connecticut: Fifteen-year Follow-up
- First Online:
- 168 Downloads
Prior to introduction of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, the Seattle–Puget Sound and Connecticut Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) areas had similar prostate cancer mortality rates. Early in the PSA era (1987–1990), men in the Seattle area were screened and treated more intensively for prostate cancer than men in Connecticut.
We previously reported more intensive screening and treatment early in the PSA era did not lower prostate cancer mortality through 11 years and now extend follow-up to 15 years.
Natural experiment comparing two fixed population-based cohorts.
Male Medicare beneficiaries ages 65–79 from the Seattle (N = 94,900) and Connecticut (N = 120,621) SEER areas, followed from 1987–2001.
Rates of prostate cancer screening; treatment with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, and androgen deprivation therapy; and prostate cancer-specific mortality.
The 15-year cumulative incidences of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy through 2001 were 2.84% and 6.02%, respectively, for Seattle cohort members, compared to 0.56% and 5.07% for Connecticut cohort members (odds ratio 5.20, 95% confidence interval 3.22 to 8.42 for surgery and odds ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.58 for radiation). The cumulative incidence of androgen deprivation therapy from 1991–2001 was 4.78% for Seattle compared to 6.13% for Connecticut (odds ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.87). The adjusted rate ratio of prostate cancer mortality through 2001 was 1.02 (95% C.I. 0.96 to 1.09) in Seattle versus Connecticut.
Among men aged 65 or older, more intensive prostate cancer screening early in the PSA era and more intensive treatment particularly with radical prostatectomy over 15 years of follow-up were not associated with lower prostate cancer-specific mortality.
Key Wordsprostate cancer cancer screening men’s health outcomes practice variation
- 1.Ries L, Harkins D, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2003. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; ; 2006.Google Scholar
- 11.Oleynick JU, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ, Walker-Corkery ES, Yao SL, Lu-Yao GL. Utility of the SEER-Medicare data to identify medical androgen deprivation therapy. J Clin Onc. 2006;24:6113.Google Scholar
- 12.Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Medical Care. 2002;40:IV–3–18.Google Scholar
- 13.McCullagh P, Nelder J. Generalized Linear Models. London: Chapman and Hall; 1989.Google Scholar
- 14.Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Methodological. 1972;34:187–220.Google Scholar