Regression Discontinuity Analysis of Salvage Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer
Standard
Regression Discontinuity Analysis of Salvage Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer. / Gild, Philipp; Pompe, Raisa S; Seisen, Thomas; Keeley, Jacob; Tang, Hoang J; Bossi, Alberto; Tilki, Derya; Menon, Mani; Abdollah, Firas.
In: EUR UROL ONCOL, 2019.Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Regression Discontinuity Analysis of Salvage Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer
AU - Gild, Philipp
AU - Pompe, Raisa S
AU - Seisen, Thomas
AU - Keeley, Jacob
AU - Tang, Hoang J
AU - Bossi, Alberto
AU - Tilki, Derya
AU - Menon, Mani
AU - Abdollah, Firas
N1 - Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - There is a lack of randomized evidence comparing early (eSRT) to late (lSRT) salvage radiotherapy (SRT) after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa). Moreover, the existing evidence is often affected by lead-time bias. We sought to address this gap in a cohort of 1458 PCa patients undergoing SRT for biochemical recurrence (BCR) after RP in two tertiary care centers between 1992 and 2013. Using a quasi-randomized study design known as regression discontinuity (RD) and adjusting for lead-time bias, we compared metastasis-free survival (MFS) at 5 and 10 years after surgery between eSRT (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] <0.5 ng/ml) and lSRT (PSA ≥ 0.5 ng/ml). Overall, 1049 patients (71.9%) underwent eSRT and 409 (28.1%) lSRT at a mean follow-up of 84 mo (interquartile range (IQR) 52-120.4). The MFS rate decreased nonsignificantly at the proposed cutoff by 0.04 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.06 to 0.19) at 5 years and by 0.07 (95% CI: - 0.12 to 0.32) at 10 years. Cox regression analysis revealed a hazard ratio for the cutoff examined of 1.3 (95% CI: 0.8-2.4; p = 0.2). In conclusion, in a quasirandomized study design accounting for lead-time bias, eSRT (PSA < 0.5 ng/ml) did not improve MFS. Our results underline the need for level-one evidence to compare eSRT and lSRT. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared early versus late salvage radiotherapy (SRT) for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy by simulating a randomized trial. We found that early SRT (initiated at prostate-specific antigen <0.5 ng/ml) compared to late SRT did not improve metastasis-free survival.
AB - There is a lack of randomized evidence comparing early (eSRT) to late (lSRT) salvage radiotherapy (SRT) after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa). Moreover, the existing evidence is often affected by lead-time bias. We sought to address this gap in a cohort of 1458 PCa patients undergoing SRT for biochemical recurrence (BCR) after RP in two tertiary care centers between 1992 and 2013. Using a quasi-randomized study design known as regression discontinuity (RD) and adjusting for lead-time bias, we compared metastasis-free survival (MFS) at 5 and 10 years after surgery between eSRT (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] <0.5 ng/ml) and lSRT (PSA ≥ 0.5 ng/ml). Overall, 1049 patients (71.9%) underwent eSRT and 409 (28.1%) lSRT at a mean follow-up of 84 mo (interquartile range (IQR) 52-120.4). The MFS rate decreased nonsignificantly at the proposed cutoff by 0.04 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.06 to 0.19) at 5 years and by 0.07 (95% CI: - 0.12 to 0.32) at 10 years. Cox regression analysis revealed a hazard ratio for the cutoff examined of 1.3 (95% CI: 0.8-2.4; p = 0.2). In conclusion, in a quasirandomized study design accounting for lead-time bias, eSRT (PSA < 0.5 ng/ml) did not improve MFS. Our results underline the need for level-one evidence to compare eSRT and lSRT. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared early versus late salvage radiotherapy (SRT) for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy by simulating a randomized trial. We found that early SRT (initiated at prostate-specific antigen <0.5 ng/ml) compared to late SRT did not improve metastasis-free survival.
U2 - 10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.005
DO - 10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.005
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 31501084
JO - EUR UROL ONCOL
JF - EUR UROL ONCOL
SN - 2588-9311
ER -