Complications After Radical Prostatectomy or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Results of a Population-based, Propensity Score–matched Analysis - 01/03/15
Abstract |
Objective |
To assess rates of treatment-related complications after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy monotherapy, using propensity score matching to account for baseline differences between these patient populations.
Methods |
On the basis of a population-based study of men undergoing surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer in Ontario between 2002 and 2009, we undertook a propensity score–matched analysis including age, comorbidity, and year of treatment to assess treatment-related complication end points. These included hospital admission; urologic, rectal, or anal procedures; open surgeries; and secondary malignancies.
Results |
From the original cohort of 32,465 patients, 15,870 (48.9%) had surgery and 16,595 (51.1%) had radiation. Propensity score matching produced 8797 pairs (17,594 patients). Among these, when compared with patients treated with surgery, those treated with radiation experienced fewer admissions to hospital (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.92) and urologic procedures (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.46-0.53) at year 1 but higher rates at year 3 (HR, 5.65; 95% CI, 4.61-6.91 and HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.62-2.13, respectively) and year 5. Although there was no significant difference in open surgeries at year 1, patients undergoing radiotherapy were at higher risk by year 3 (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.23-3.47) and this rose by year 5. Over the study period, patients undergoing radiotherapy experienced more rectal-anal procedures (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.37-2.95) and were diagnosed with more secondary malignancies (HR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.16-5.14). Direct matching produced similar results.
Conclusion |
From a propensity score–matched analysis, we found that patients undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer had higher rates of long-term complications in all 5 categories studied than patients undergoing surgery.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Financial Disclosure: This study was solely funded by the Ajmera Family Chair in Urologic Oncology awarded to Robert K. Nam. The funding source had no role in any part of the study. |
|
Funding Support: This study was supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC). The opinions, results, and conclusions reported in this article are those of the authors and are independent from the funding sources. No endorsement by ICES or the Ontario MOHLTC is intended or should be inferred. Jiandong Su and Refik Saskin had access to the raw data. Robert K. Nam and Christopher J.D. Wallis had full access to all the data and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. |
Vol 85 - N° 3
P. 621-628 - mars 2015 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?