Abstract

ObjectiveTo assess the association of public health parameters with the regional variation in the initial treatment for prostate cancer.MethodsWe used data from German epidemiologic cancer registries for the years 2009–2013. Presence of a certified cancer center, a radiotherapy and/or urology institution, the district-specific GDP, and population density were used as predictors. Patients with indication for adjuvant treatment were excluded (T3b). Only districts with defined quality criteria were eligible. We used general linear mixed models (equivalent to logistic regression) with a covariance matrix weighted by the Euclidean distances between districts. Models were adjusted for age, grading, and TNM stage. We performed sensitivity analyses by imputing missing data with multiple imputation and considering extreme case scenarios. We applied inverse probability weighting to account for missing values.ResultsWhen radiotherapy/surgery is compared to neither treatment, the probability for the latter was higher in East than in West Germany (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.43–2.02). The same was true for districts with both, a radiotherapy and urologic treatment facility (OR 1.43, 1.19–1.72). Analyzing radiotherapy vs. surgery, the probability for prostatectomy was inversely associated with the presence of a radiotherapy unit when compared to districts with neither treatment facility (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38–0.73). Patients treated in East Germany were more likely to receive a surgical treatment (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.08–1.66). Sensitivity analyses revealed no relevant change of effect estimates.ConclusionTreatment differs between East and West Germany and is associated with the presence of a radiotherapy or urology clinic.

Highlights

  • Curative treatment of prostate cancer remains controversial building on the alternative options of prostatectomy or radiotherapy

  • When ‘neither treatment’ is compared to radiotherapy or surgery, we found that the probability for the former was higher in East than in West German registries

  • The same was true for districts with a radiotherapy and urologic treatment facility when compared to districts where neither is present in models adjusted for patient characteristics

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Curative treatment of prostate cancer remains controversial building on the alternative options of prostatectomy or radiotherapy. Randomized trials found a comparable efficacy of treatments in terms of overall survival, while patterns of adverse events differ between both options (Hamdy et al 2016). Respecting these findings, the preference of the informed patient should guide the choice of treatment. For certain patient cohorts, ‘active surveillance’ and ‘watchful waiting’ are further options to target prostate cancer. The former is restricted to patients with a very low risk and entails an active patient monitoring. Patients with a restricted life expectancy are candidates for this approach

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call