4.4 Article

Androgen Deprivation With or Without Radiation Therapy for Clinically Node-Positive Prostate Cancer

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv119

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. American Cancer Society Intramural Research Department
  2. Prostate Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Clinically lymph node-positive (cN+) prostate cancer (PCa) is an often-fatal disease. Its optimal management remains largely undefined given a lack of prospective, randomized data to inform practice. We sought to describe modern practice patterns in the management of cN+ PCa and assess the effect of adding radiation therapy (RT) to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on survival using the National Cancer Data Base. Methods: Patients with cN+ PCa and without distant metastases diagnosed between 2004 and 2011 were included. Five-year overall survival for patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2006 and treated with ADT alone or ADT+RT were compared. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to balance baseline characteristics, and Cox multivariate regression analysis was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality. Results: Of 3540 total patients, 32.2% were treated with ADT alone and 51.4% received ADT+RT. Compared with ADT alone, patients treated with ADT+RT were younger and more likely to have private insurance, lower comorbidity scores, higher Gleason scores, and lower PSA values. After PS matching, 318 patients remained in each group. Compared with ADT alone, ADT+RT was associated with a 50% decreased risk of five-year all-cause mortality (HR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.37 to 0.67, two-sided P < .001; crude OS rate: 71.5% vs 53.2%). Conclusions: Using a large national database, we have identified a statistically significant survival benefit for patients with cN+ PCa treated with ADT+RT. These data, if appropriately validated by randomized trials, suggest that a substantial proportion of such patients at high risk for prostate cancer death may be undertreated, warranting a reevaluation of current practice guidelines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据