ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy (RP) versus radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer remains a largely debated topic. Utilizing a provincial population-based linked data set from an equal-access, universal health care system, we sought to compare outcomes among patients treated with either radiation or prostatectomy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study by linking several administrative data sets to identify patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2016 in Manitoba, Canada and who were subsequently treated with either RP or RT. Cox proportional hazard models with inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to compare rates of all-cause mortality, as well as prostate cancer specific mortality (PCSM) between patients who underwent RP vs RT. RESULTS: During the study period, 2,540 patients underwent RP and 1,895 underwent RT for prostate cancer. Unadjusted overall survival was higher for RP vs RT (5-year overall survival 95.52% for RP compared with 84.55% for RT, p <0.0001). In inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted Cox regression analysis, compared to patients in the RP groups, patients in the RT group had an increased rate of all-cause mortality (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.65-2.26, p <0.0001), and PCSM (HR 3.98, 95% CI 2.89-5.49; p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: RT was associated with higher all-cause mortality and PCSM rates compared with RP. These findings highlight the importance of comparative effectiveness research to identify treatment disparities and warrant further investigation.
Subject(s)
Prostatectomy , Prostatic Neoplasms , Humans , Male , Prostate/pathology , Prostate-Specific Antigen , Prostatic Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Radiotherapy , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Treatment selection for localized prostate cancer is guided by risk stratification and patient preferences. While socioeconomic status (SES) disparities exist for access to care, less is known about the effect of SES on treatment decision-making. We sought to evaluate whether income status was associated with the treatment selected (radical prostatectomy [RP] vs radiation therapy [RT]) for nonmetastatic prostate cancer in a universal health care system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All men from Manitoba, Canada who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer between 2005 and 2016 and subsequently treated with RP or RT were identified using a provincial cancer database. SES was defined as neighborhood income by postal code and divided into income quintiles (Q1-Q5, with Q1 the lowest quintile and Q5 the highest). Multivariable logistic regression nested models were used to compare whether SES was associated with treatment type received. RESULTS: We identified 3,966 individuals who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer and were treated with RP (2,354) or RT (1,612). After adjusting for demographic and clinicopathological characteristics, as income quintile increased, men were incrementally more likely to undergo RP than RT (range Q2 vs Q1: adjusted OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.01-1.93; Q5 vs Q1: adjusted OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.70-3.12). CONCLUSIONS: As income levels increased there was a stepwise incremental increase in the odds of receiving RP over RT for localized prostate cancer. These results may inform initiatives to better understand the values, priorities and barriers that patients experience when making treatment decisions in a universal health care system.
