Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 492–499 | Cite as

Comorbidities, Treatment and Ensuing Survival in Men with Prostate Cancer

  • Karim ChamieEmail author
  • Timothy J. Daskivich
  • Lorna Kwan
  • Jessica Labo
  • Atreya Dash
  • Sheldon Greenfield
  • Mark S. Litwin
Original Research

Abstract

Background

Comorbidity is poorly integrated into prostate cancer decision making.

Objective

We sought to characterize treatment type and subsequent survival for men with no more than a single comorbid condition.

Design and Participants

We conducted a retrospective study of 1,031 veterans with non-metastatic prostate cancer diagnosed in 1997–2004 at the Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Veterans Affairs Medical Centers and followed until 2010. We used multivariate analyses to determine probabilities and relative risks of undergoing treatment for each health state and competing-risks regression analyses to model non-prostate cancer mortality.

Results

Compared with subjects without any comorbid conditions, only men with moderate–severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were less likely to receive definitive treatment for their prostate cancer (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.44–0.99). Men with all other individual comorbidities were equally likely as men without comorbidity to receive definitive treatment. Compared with men without any comorbidities, a higher hazard rate for non-prostate cancer mortality was identified among men with diabetes without end-organ damage (HR 2.32; 95% CI 1.32–4.08), peripheral vascular disease (HR 2.77; 95% CI 1.14–6.73), moderate-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 5.46; 95% CI 2.68–11.12), diabetes with end-organ damage (HR 4.27; 95% CI 1.64–11.10), those in need of a mobility device (HR 3.29; 95% CI 1.87–5.80), and men with history of alcoholism (HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.07–2.93).

Conclusion

Men with comorbid conditions and health states that portend poor prognoses are nonetheless aggressively treated for their prostate cancer. Advancing age modulates this effect.

KEY WORDS

prostatic neoplasms comorbidity outcome assessment survival treatment mismatch 

Notes

Author Contributions

Dr. Chamie and Lorna Kwan had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

None disclosed.

Funding Source

This work was supported by the American Cancer Society (117496-PF-09-147-01-CPHPS (Principal Investigator: KC)); Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award Extramural (1 F32 CA144461-01 (Principal Investigator: KC)); Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Seed Grant (Principal Investigator: MSL)); and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (N01-DK-1-2460 (Principal investigator: M.S.L.))

Financial Disclosures

No financial disclosures to report.

References

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60(5):277–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, Haggman M, Andersson SO, Bratell S, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(19):1977–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hu JC, Gold KF, Pashos CL, Mehta SS, Litwin MS. Temporal trends in radical prostatectomy complications from 1991 to 1998. J Urol. 2003;169(4):1443–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miller DC, Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Montie JE, Pimentel H, Sandler HM, et al. Long-term outcomes among localized prostate cancer survivors: health-related quality-of-life changes after radical prostatectomy, external radiation, and brachytherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(12):2772–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Potosky AL, Davis WW, Hoffman RM, Stanford JL, Stephenson RA, Penson DF, et al. Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(18):1358–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Jama. 1998;280(11):969–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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(4):1354–60. discussion 60–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94(446):496–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    May S, Hosmer DW. Hosmer and Lemeshow type goodness-of-fit statistics for the Cox proportional hazards model. In: Balakrishnana N, Rao CR, eds. Advances in Survival Analysis: Handbook of Statistics Vol 23. Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland; 2004:383–394.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alibhai SMH, Leach M, Tomlinson GA, Krahn MD, Fleshner NE, Naglie G. Is there an optimal comorbidity index for prostate cancer? Cancer. 2008;112(5):1043–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harlan LC, Potosky A, Gilliland FD, Hoffman R, Albertsen PC, Hamilton AS, et al. Factors associated with initial therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(24):1864–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klabunde CN, Potosky AL, Harlan LC, Kramer BS. Trends and black/white differences in treatment for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Med Care. 1998;36(9):1337–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Desch CE, Penberthy L, Newschaffer CJ, Hillner BE, Whittemore M, McClish D, et al. Factors that determine the treatment for local and regional prostate cancer. Med Care. 1996;34(2):152–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schymura MJ, Kahn AR, German RR, Hsieh M-C, Cress RD, Finch JL, et al. Factors associated with initial treatment and survival for clinically localized prostate cancer: results from the CDC-NPCR Patterns of Care Study (PoC1). BMC Cancer. 2010;10(1):152.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parsons JK, Kwan L, Connor SE, Miller DC, Litwin MS. Prostate cancer treatment for economically disadvantaged men. Cancer. 2010;116(5):1378–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hall HI, Satariano WA, Thompson T, Ragland KE, Van Den Eeden SK, Selvin S. Initial treatment for prostate carcinoma in relation to comorbidity and symptoms. Cancer. 2002;95(11):2308–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marr PL, Elkin EP, Arredondo SA, Broering JM, DuChane J, Carroll PR. Comorbidity and primary treatment for localized prostate cancer: data from CaPSURE™. J Urol. 2006;175(4):1326–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Walz J, Gallina A, Perrotte P, Jeldres C, Trinh Q-D, Hutterer GC, et al. Clinicians are poor raters of life-expectancy before radical prostatectomy or definitive radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. BJU International. 2007;100(6):1254–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karim Chamie
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Timothy J. Daskivich
    • 1
    • 3
  • Lorna Kwan
    • 2
  • Jessica Labo
    • 1
  • Atreya Dash
    • 4
    • 5
  • Sheldon Greenfield
    • 6
    • 7
  • Mark S. Litwin
    • 1
    • 2
    • 8
  1. 1.UCLA Department of Urology, Health Services Research GroupLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCLALos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare SystemLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Veterans Affairs Long Beach Healthcare SystemLong BeachUSA
  5. 5.Department of UrologyUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA
  6. 6.Department of MedicineUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA
  7. 7.Health Policy Research InstituteUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA
  8. 8.Department of Health ServicesSchool of Public Health, UCLALos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations