|Year : 2022 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 391-398
The survival outcomes of very young and elderly patients with high-risk prostate cancer after radical treatments: A population-matched study
Kai Ma1, Pan Song1, Yuxin Qing2, Yayin Li2, Mengxuan Shu2, Luchen Yang1, Qiang Dong1
1 Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China
2 The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province, China
|Date of Submission||17-Oct-2021|
|Date of Acceptance||06-Jan-2022|
|Date of Web Publication||20-May-2022|
Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Lane, Wuhou District, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Objective: This study evaluated the survival outcomes of young (<50 years) and elderly patients (>80 years) with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) postradical local treatments.
Materials and Methods: We identified <50 and >80-year-old patients with high-risk PCa between 2004 and 2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The patients aged 65 and 66 years were also identified as the control group. The propensity-score matching method was adopted to compare the young and elderly patients with the control group. Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox regression were conducted to evaluate the PCa-specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival.
Results: A total of 17726 patients were identified, and 3355 were under 50 years old, whereas 4798 of them were >80 years old. The young patient group (<50 years) had similar PCSS with the control group (65–66 years) in both the overall cohort (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.73–1.06], P = 0.132) and matched cohort (HR: 0.96, 95% CI [0.74–1.24], P = 0.527). Young patients with both high-risk and very high-risk PCa after radical prostatectomy (RP) treatment had apparent longer mean cancer-specific survival time than those after external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and/or brachytherapy (BT) treatment (high-risk group: 153.38 ± 0.82 months vs. 149.72 ± 3.03 months; very high-risk group: 148.3 ± 1.84 months vs. 139.33 ± 3.25 months). For the elderly patients (>80 years), the PCSS outcomes were significantly worse than the control group (65–66 years) in both overall cohort (HR: 2.69, 95% CI [2.31–3.13], P < 0.001) and matched cohort (HR: 1.61, 95% CI [1.34–1.94], P < 0.001). Patients receiving RP treatment had similar PCSS outcomes with those receiving EBRT and/or BT in the high-risk PCa group (139.45 ± 9.98 months vs. 139.41 ± 1.84 months), and better PCSS in very high-risk PCa group (132.73 ± 13.56 months vs. 128.82 ± 3.43 months).
Conclusion: The PCSS outcomes of young PCa patients (<0 years) were identical to those of the control group (65–66 years). RP had similar or better PCSS benefits than EBRT and/or BT in both young (<50 years) and elderly patients (>80 years).
Keywords: Prostate cancer, radical treatments, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, survival, young and elderly patients
|How to cite this article:|
Ma K, Song P, Qing Y, Li Y, Shu M, Yang L, Dong Q. The survival outcomes of very young and elderly patients with high-risk prostate cancer after radical treatments: A population-matched study. J Can Res Ther 2022;18:391-8
|How to cite this URL:|
Ma K, Song P, Qing Y, Li Y, Shu M, Yang L, Dong Q. The survival outcomes of very young and elderly patients with high-risk prostate cancer after radical treatments: A population-matched study. J Can Res Ther [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Jul 7];18:391-8. Available from: https://www.cancerjournal.net/text.asp?2022/18/2/391/345534
Kai Ma, Pan Song contributed to the paper equally.
| > Introduction|| |
Prostate cancer (PCa) ranks first among the diagnoses of male malignancies, accounting for about 15% of all malignant tumors globally., Although most PCa cases progress slowly, many patients still progress to localized high-risk, locally advanced, and even metastatic stages. The treatments for local/local diseases are essential because radical treatment can be conducted. For localized/locally PCa, the radical treatments include radical prostatectomy (RP), external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and brachytherapy (BT). These radical local treatments can significantly improve the survival effects for most PCa patients.
The incidence of PCa is closely correlated with age. It is rare among patients with PCa under the age of 50 years. Early-onset PCa is different from PCa in elderly men in some aspects determined to be a distinct clinicopathological phenotype. It has more aggressive tumor characteristics with a poor prognosis. Thus, men with high grade/stage and early-onset PCa are more likely to die of their cancer, with higher cause-specific mortality than other ages. Nevertheless, young people generally have better physical conditions, fewer underlying diseases, more treatment options, higher treatment tolerance, and faster treatment recovery than elderly patients.,, Whether the young patients possess a better or worse prognosis than the elderly patients is still inconclusive. For patients >80 years old, their choice options for treatments are limited. The survival outcomes of these patients are affected by many factors, including age, physical conditions, risk degree of the tumor, and detailed treatments. Since these patients are uncommon, their detailed survival time in different risk groups and treatments remain unclear. Therefore, the very young (<50 years) and elderly patients (>80 years) make up two special subgroups in the PCa population. We evaluated the survival outcomes of these two special groups after radical local treatments in this study (RP, EBRT, and/or BT).
| > Materials and Methods|| |
All data in this study were derived from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. In addition, patients with localized/regional PCa from January 01, 2004, to December 31, 2015, were retrospectively identified.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Patients were considered eligible if they met the following criteria: (1) patients were diagnosed with high-risk PCa following the NCCN guideline; (2) the main treatments were radical local treatments, such as RP, EBRT, and/or BT; and (3) the age of patients was under 50, 65–66 years, and over 80 years at the time of diagnosis.
The following criteria were used for data exclusion: (1) multiple tumors; (2) important information, such as age, PSA, GS, TNM stages, and follow-up time was incomplete or missing; and (3) the survival status at the end of the follow-up was unclear.
Variables and main outcomes
We collected patients' basic characteristics from the database. The variables included age at diagnosis, race (white, black, other races), marital status (married, unmarried, divorced, or separated), T stage (T1, T2a-b, T2c-3a, T3b-4), PSA level (<10.0 ng/ml, 10.0–20.0 ng/ml, >20.0 ng/ml), Gleason score (≤7, 8, 9–10), therapy (RP, EBRT, and/or BT), living status (alive or dead), cancer-specific living status (alive, dead for other reasons, dead for PCa), and survival time. In this study, the age group of 65–66 years functioned as the control group. The overall survival (OS) and PCa-specific survival (PCSS) were regarded as the main outcomes.
A Chi-square test was adopted to assess the differences among <50 years group, 65–66 group, and >80 years group. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance the covariates and generate new matched cohorts. The OS and PCSS curves were constructed using Kaplan–Meier (K-M) analysis. Five-year and 10-year OS and PCSS were calculated using survival tables. Multivariate Cox analysis was conducted on the variables with P < 0.1. The effects of age on survival and prognoses were evaluated using a hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). All statistical operations above were conducted using the software SPSS 25 and Graphpad prism 7.0. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
| > Results|| |
A total of 17,726 patients diagnosed with high-risk PCa were identified, and 3355 of them were in age <50 years group. In addition, 9573 patients were included in 65–66 group and 4798 in >80 group. The median follow-up time of the overall cohort was 66 (37–100) months. After PSM, there were 2889 patients in the <50 years group versus 65–66 years group and 3072 patients in the >80 years group versus 65–66 years group. The baseline characteristics of included patients in the overall cohort and the matched cohorts are presented in [Table 1] and [Table 2].
|Table 1: Baseline characteristics of included patients in overall cohort|
Click here to view
|Table 2: Baseline characteristics of patients in propensity-score matched cohorts|
Click here to view
Survival curves of the overall cohort and matched cohort
In the overall cohort, no significant difference of PCSS was detected between <50 years and the control group (65–66 years) both in the overall cohort [HR: 0.88 (0.73–1.06), [Figure 1]a1] and matched cohort [HR: 0.96, 95% CI (0.74–1.24), P = 0.527, [Figure 1]b1]. The mean PCSS time of age <50 years and the control group was 148.57 ± 1.0 and 147.68 ± 0.7 months, separately [Table 3]. The PCSS of age >80 years group was obviously worse than the control group both in the overall cohort [HR: 2.69, 95% CI (2.31–3.13), P < 0.001, [Figure 1]a1] and the matched cohort [HR: 1.61 (1.34–1.94), P < 0.001, [Figure 1]c1]. The mean PCSS time for >80 years and 65–66 years was 136.82 ± 1.66 months versus 147.68 ± 0.7 months [Table 3]. The OS curves and mean OS time of different age groups in the overall cohort are presented in [Figure 1]a2 and [Table 3] and the matched cohort are presented in [Figure 1]b2 and [Figure 1]c2.
|Figure 1: (a1) The prostate cancer-specific survival curve of the overall cohort. (a2) The overall survival curve of the overall cohort. (b1) The prostate cancer-specific survival curve of <50 years old vs 65-66 years old of the matched cohort. (b2) The overall survival curve of <50 years old vs 65-66 years old of the matched cohort. (c1) The prostate cancer-specific survival curve of >80 years old vs 65-66 years old of the match cohort. (c2) The overall survival curve of >80 years old vs 65-66 years old of the match cohort|
Click here to view
Survival outcomes of three age groups with different treatments
The survival outcomes of three age groups with high-risk/very high-risk PCa after the treatments of RP or EBRT and/or BT are presented in [Figure 2] and [Table 3]. In the age <50 years group, the RP had more survival benefits than EBRT ± BT in both high-risk PCa and very high-risk PCa patients. The mean PCSS time for patients with high-risk PCa after RP and EBRT and/or BT were 153.38 ± 0.82 months and 149.72 ± 3.03 months, respectively. The mean PCSS for very high-risk PCa patients after RP and EBRT ± BT was 148.3 ± 1.84 months and 139.33 ± 3.25 months, respectively.
|Figure 2: (a1) The prostate cancer-specific survival curve of <50 years after the treatments of RP or EBRT and/or BT.(a2) The overall survival curve of 65-66 years after the treatments of RP or EBRT and/or BT.(b1) The prostate cancer-specific survival curve of 65-66 years after the treatments of RP or EBRT and/or BT.(b2) The overall survival curve of 65-66 years after the treatments of RP or EBRT and/or BT.(c1) The prostate cancer-specific survival curve of >80 years after the treatments of RP or EBRT and/or BT.(c2) The overall survival curve of >80 years after the treatments of RP or EBRT and/or BT|
Click here to view
For elderly patients above 80 years, patients with high-risk PCa treated with RP had similar mean cancer-specific survival time with those treated with EBRT and/or BT (139.45 ± 9.98 months vs. 139.41 ± 1.84 months). However, very high-risk PCa patients after RP treatments had longer PCSS time than those after EBRT and/or BT treatment (132.73 ± 13.56 months vs. 128.82 ± 3.43 months). For the control group, the RP had more survival benefit than EBRT and/or BT in both high-risk PCa patients (152.43 ± 0.68 months vs. 145.74 ± 1.76 months) and very high-risk PCa patients (146.71 ± 1.41 months vs. 136.61 ± 3.02 months). The survival time of patients in different groups is shown in [Table 3].
Multivariate Cox analysis for prostate cancer-specific survival
Multivariate COX analysis results of PCSS are presented in [Table 4]. With 65–66 years group as the reference in the overall cohort, the HR and 95% CI of the <50 years group were 0.92 (0.76–1.12). The difference was not statistically significant, with P = 0.402. Compared with the 65–66 years group, the HR and 95% CI of >80 years group were 1.62 (1.39–1.89). Similar results could be found in the matched cohorts. With the 65–66 years group as the reference, the HR and 95% CI of <50 years and >80 years were 0.96 (0.74–-1.23) and 1.57 (1.30–1.89), respectively.
|Table 4: Multivariate Cox analysis of the prostate cancer-specific survival for patients in the overall cohort and matched cohorts|
Click here to view
| > Discussion|| |
At present, over 90% of organ-confined PCa cases opted for curative treatments, as is shown by a study of data from Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor. However, the benefits of radical treatments vary significantly among different patients, so do the prognoses. Age plays a vital role in PCa's onset, treatment, and prognosis. The PCa patients under 50 and above 80 years old can be listed as two special subgroups for the small proportion. They have particular treatment decisions and prognostic characteristics. The detailed survival outcomes of these patients after radical local treatments were not clearly known so far.
With a total of 17,726 cases identified in the analysis, our results demonstrated that the young patients (<50 years) did not present a better or worse cancer-specific survival than the 65–66 years group. No matter in patients with high-risk or very high-risk PCa, young patients with RP treatment had a better prognosis than those patients with EBRT and/or BT treatments. Pompe et al. reported no significant difference in the survival outcomes between young and elderly patients after radical local treatments. Riopel et al. included 85 men under 50 years old who had undergone anatomic RP for clinically localized PCa. Their results indicated that young men aged <50 have a lower rate of positive surgical margins and similar pathologic variables compared with older patients. Khan et al. reported no statistical significance between <50 years old group and 60–69 group in 10- and 15-year biochemical disease-free progression rate after RP. Magheli et al. claimed the similarity of biochemical recurrence rate between patients >65 years and <45 years with an HR of 1.6 (0.8–3.0). Other series of research also revealed that no significance was detected between the young patients' survival outcomes and older men after brachytherapy,, or radiation therapy.,, As for the detailed treatment option recommended for young men, a series of studies confirmed the advantages of RP,,,,, over others. In their text, Smith et al. manifested that patients of 50 years old or younger with RP enjoyed a more favorable disease-free outcome. Khan et al. included 341 men younger than 50 in all. They concluded that anatomical RRP yielded excellent long-term results, and RRP was curative more often in men younger than 50. The theoretical benefits of RP as first-line treatment are tumor volume reduction and optimal local control. Moreover, the evaluation of prostatectomy and nodal specimens, as well as postoperative PSA levels, allows for more accurate staging and risk stratification that will help select men who may benefit from postoperative adjuvant treatments.
Elderly patients were associated with significantly worse survival outcomes than the control group. For elderly patients with high-risk PCa, compared with those treated with EBRT and/or BT, the patients receiving RP had similar PCSS. But in the very high-risk group, PCSS outcomes after RP were apparently better. Kirk et al. proposed in their article that four points constitute the impact of old age on cancer management: short life expectancy, increased risk of significant comorbidity, intolerance to some forms of treatment, and social problems. Old age at diagnosis has been associated with an increased risk of upstaging and upgrading at RP.,, Pettersson et al. also reported the correlation between old age and a higher risk of PCa death among men treated with RP, but not among men treated with radiotherapy. A SEER study included 149,967 men treated with radiotherapy. It was claimed that older age at diagnosis presented poorer prognosis among men with low-or intermediate-risk disease, but less so among high-risk disease. Loeb et al. also reported that older age had a better prognosis. Besides, older cases may also have a prolonged recovery period from surgery and may be at an increased risk for postoperative complications, including urinary, erectile, and bowel toxicity. In general, RT and/or BT should be considered more instead of RP for elderly patients.
There were a few limitations in our study. First one was the loss of comorbidity data. For prognostic analysis, comorbidity is significant since it affects patients' prognoses, quality of life, and the choice of treatments. Therefore, it is supposed to be included. However, limited by the available raw data from the SEER database, no relational data was reported. As a result, we could not take this index into our analysis. Moreover, this was a retrospective analysis. Some unavoidable confounders and risk biases might exist. Our results might be influenced by these factors. Therefore, more high-quality studies are needed for future verifications.
| > Conclusion|| |
For patients with high-risk PCa, age did not significantly influence the cancer-specific survival outcomes in the comparison between young patients (<50 years) and patients aged 65–66. The RP had better PCSS benefits than EBRT and/or BT in young and elderly patients with very high-risk PCa. Despite the above, with the limitations of our study, high-quality studies are needed for future evaluations.
Financial support and sponsorship
This work was supported by a Key Project of National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant ID: 8177060452 and Project of Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province, Grant ID:2021YFS0117. The funding bodies had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and writing the manuscript.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| > References|| |
Torre LA, Siegel RL, Ward EM, Jemal A. Global cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends – An update. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2016;25:16-27.
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al.
Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015;136:E359-86.
Teo MY, Rathkopf DE, Kantoff P. Treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Annu Rev Med 2019;70:479-99.
Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES, Armstrong AJ, D'Amico AV, Davis BJ, Dorff T, et al.
Prostate cancer, version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019;17:479-505.
Pernar CH, Ebot EM, Wilson KM, Mucci LA. The epidemiology of prostate cancer. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 2018;8:a030361.
Salinas CA, Tsodikov A, Ishak-Howard M, Cooney KA. Prostate cancer in young men: An important clinical entity. Nat Rev Urol 2014;11:317-23.
Droz JP, Balducci L, Bolla M, Emberton M, Fitzpatrick JM, Joniau S, et al.
Management of prostate cancer in older men: Recommendations of a working group of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology. BJU Int 2010;106:462-9.
Alibhai SM, Krahn MD, Cohen MM, Fleshner NE, Tomlinson GA, Naglie G. Is there age bias in the treatment of localized prostate carcinoma? Cancer 2004;100:72-81.
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;96:1358-67.
Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1117-23.
Pompe RS, Smith A, Bandini M, Marchioni M, Martel T, Preisser F, et al.
Tumor characteristics, treatments, and oncological outcomes of prostate cancer in men aged≤50 years: A population-based study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2018;21:71-7.
Riopel MA, Polascik TJ, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Radical prostatectomy in men less than 50 years old. Urol Oncol 1995;1:80-3.
Khan MA, Han M, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Long-term cancer control of radical prostatectomy in men younger than 50 years of age: Update 2003. Urology 2003;62:86-91.
Magheli A, Rais-Bahrami S, Humphreys EB, Peck HJ, Trock BJ, Gonzalgo ML. Impact of patient age on biochemical recurrence rates following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007;178:1933-7.
Merrick GS, Wallner KE, Butler WM, Galbreath RW, Allen ZA, Adamovich E, et al.
Brachytherapy in men aged<or=54 years with clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2006;98:324-8.
Shapiro EY, Rais-Bahrami S, Morgenstern C, Napolitano B, Richstone L, Potters L. Long-term outcomes in younger men following permanent prostate brachytherapy. J Urol 2009;181:1665-71.
Burri RJ, Ho AY, Forsythe K, Cesaretti JA, Stone NN, Stock RG. Young men have equivalent biochemical outcomes compared with older men after treatment with brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;77:1315-21.
Johnstone PA, Riffenburgh RH, Moul JW, Sun L, Wu H, McLeod DG, et al.
Effect of age on biochemical disease-free outcome in patients with T1-T3 prostate cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy in an equal-access health care system: A radiation oncology report of the Department of Defense Center for Prostate Disease Research. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;55:964-9.
Rossi CJ Jr., Slater JD, Yonemoto LT, Jabola BR, Bush DA, Levy RP, et al.
Influence of patient age on biochemical freedom from disease in patients undergoing conformal proton radiotherapy of organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology 2004;64:729-32.
Nguyen TD, Poortmans PM, van der Hulst M, Studer G, Pigois E, Collen TD, et al.
The curative role of radiotherapy in adenocarcinoma of the prostate in patients under 55 years of age: A rare cancer network retrospective study. Radiother Oncol 2005;77:286-9.
Smith CV, Bauer JJ, Connelly RR, Seay T, Kane C, Foley J, et al.
Prostate cancer in men age 50 years or younger: A review of the Department of Defense Center for Prostate Disease Research multicenter prostate cancer database. J Urol 2000;164:1964-7.
Freedland SJ, Presti JC Jr., Kane CJ, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Dorey F, et al.
Do younger men have better biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy? Urology 2004;63:518-22.
Tjaden HB, Culp DA, Flocks RH. Clinical adenocarcinoma of the prostate in patients under 50 years of age. J Urol 1965;93:618-21.
Siddiqui SA, Sengupta S, Slezak JM, Bergstralh EJ, Leibovich BC, Myers RP, et al.
Impact of patient age at treatment on outcome following radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2006;175:952-7.
Twiss C, Slova D, Lepor H. Outcomes for men younger than 50 years undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology 2005;66:141-6.
Joniau S, Tosco L, Briganti A, Vanden Broeck T, Gontero P, Karnes RJ, et al.
Results of surgery for high-risk prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2013;23:342-8.
Kirk D. Prostate cancer in the elderly. Eur J Surg Oncol 1998;24:379-83.
Brassell SA, Rice KR, Parker PM, Chen Y, Farrell JS, Cullen J, et al.
Prostate cancer in men 70 years old or older, indolent or aggressive: Clinicopathological analysis and outcomes. J Urol 2011;185:132-7.
Busch J, Magheli A, Leva N, Ferrari M, Kramer J, Klopf C, et al.
Higher rates of upgrading and upstaging in older patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and qualifying for active surveillance. BJU Int 2014;114:517-21.
Richstone L, Bianco FJ, Shah HH, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, et al.
Radical prostatectomy in men aged>or=70 years: Effect of age on upgrading, upstaging, and the accuracy of a preoperative nomogram. BJU Int 2008;101:541-6.
Pettersson A, Robinson D, Garmo H, Holmberg L, Stattin P. Age at diagnosis and prostate cancer treatment and prognosis: A population-based cohort study. Ann Oncol 2018;29:377-85.
Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R, Jeldres C, Tian Z, Briganti A, et al.
A competing-risks analysis of survival after alternative treatment modalities for prostate cancer patients: 1988-2006. Eur Urol 2011;59:88-95.
Loeb S, Berglund A, Stattin P. Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2013;190:1742-9.
Lu-Yao GL, Albertsen PC, Moore DF, Shih W, Lin Y, DiPaola RS, et al.
Outcomes of localized prostate cancer following conservative management. JAMA 2009;302:1202-9.
[Figure 1], [Figure 2]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]