Archives

  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2021-03
  • br surgery was low However tracking outcomes

    2021-03-02

    
    surgery was low. However, tracking outcomes longitudinally improved the strength of our inferences by accounting for changes in functional status that occur naturally over time. Even with this sample size, we observed differences in func-tional status, minimizing the concern that this study was underpowered.
    ARTICLE IN PRESS
    Figure 3. Changes* in ADL (A), PCS (B) and MCS (C) scores among patients undergoing Actinomycin D and their matched non-cancer peers.*Changes are based on 2 surveys. For the radiation patients, one survey is prior to radiation and one survey is after radiation. In the matched noncancer group, the time interval between the 2 surveys is matched with that of the radiation patients. Compared with matched noncancer patients, radiation patients experienced no differences in ADL, PCS, or MCS scores over time (all P > 0.05). The P value is testing if the change in the outcome (ADL, PCS, or MCS) from before to after differs by treatment. A positive slope represents a decline in functional status for ADL’s and an improvement in functional status for PCS and MCS scores. Some confidence intervals are too small to be seen in figure. Abbreviations: ADL, activities of daily living; MCS, mental component summary; PCS, physical component summary.
    ARTICLE IN PRESS
    Third, as with all observational studies, there was concern for confounding. To account for this limitation, we con-ducted rigorous propensity score analyses, matching patients based on several sociodemographic characteristics. Further, to obtain the best matching, we performed separate analyses for each of the three treatment groups, picking the most appropriately matched noncancer peers in each case.
    Fourth, among the conservative management group, SEER does not allow us to differentiate primary androgen deprivation therapy from active surveillance and watchful waiting. However, primary androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer is uncommon and not recom-mended by guidelines18 and there was no difference in quality of life between the conservative management and control groups, even though including primary androgen deprivation therapy among the conservative management patients would overestimate their decline in functional status, if anything.
    Despite these limitations, our study highlights 2 impor-tant findings. First, patients undergoing conservative man-agement or radiation treatment for prostate cancer do not show a decline in their general functional status beyond what would be expected with aging. Second, patients undergoing surgery experience a slight decline in their physical function and emotional well-being, although this difference is not likely to be clinically significant. More nuanced measures of functional status may better eluci-date changes in general functional status among this typi-cally healthy population.
    SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
    References
    1. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following con-servative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2005;293:2095–2101. 2. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation ther-apy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969–974.
    5. Institute of Medicine. Effectiveness and Outcomes in Health Care: Pro-
    ceedings of an Invitational Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 1990. 6. Ploussard G, Albrand G, Rozet F, Lang H, Paillaud E, Mongiat-Artus P. Challenging treatment decision-making in older urologic cancer patients. World J Urol. 2014;32:299–308. 7. Eton DT, Lepore SJ. Prostate cancer and health-related quality of life: a review of the literature. Psychooncology. 2002;11:307–326. 8. Kent EE, Ambs A, Mitchell SA, Clauser SB, Smith AW, Hays RD. Health-related quality of life in older adult survivors of selected can-cers: data from the SEER-MHOS linkage. Cancer. 2015;121:758–765. 
    9. Kent EE, Malinoff R, Rozjabek HM, et al. Revisiting the Surveil-lance Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Registry and Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (SEER-MHOS) linked data resource for patient-reported outcomes research in older adults with cancer. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64:186–192.
    10. Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, Ruhl J, Howlader N, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Eisner MP, Lewis DR, Cronin K, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Stinchcomb DG, Edwards BK, eds. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2007. National Cancer Institute; 2010. 11. Brief Description of the SEER-MHOS Database. Available from URL: http://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/seer-mhos/over view/. Accessed June 25, 2015.
    12. Response rates. Available from URL: http://appliedresearch.cancer. gov/surveys/seer-mhos/aboutdata/table.response.rates.html. Accessed January 25, 2018. 13. Reeve BB, Stover AM, Jensen RE, et al. Impact of diagnosis and treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer on health-related quality of life for older Americans: a population-based study. Cancer. 2012;118:5679–5687.