The Importance of Quality of Life to Patient Decision Making in Breast Cancer Care

doi:10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.02.ecas1-1402

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Notably, in cases where there was no significant difference in oncological outcomes between the RT and RP groups, complications following each treatment method may have been be more important for patients when choosing a treatment method. These complications are closely related to quality of life, which, for some patients, is the most important consideration when choosing a treatment modality ( 23 ). Another limitation was that our study was based on a retrospective design; therefore, we were unable to control for patient and disease factors, such as age, CCI, initial PSA, biopsy GG, or clinical stage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy as local therapy for primary tumors in patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer

Ham,

Park,

Jang

et al. 2024

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionWe compared radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) as local therapies for primary tumors and examined their associations with survival outcomes and urinary tract complications in patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer (omPC).MethodsWe evaluated the data of 85 patients diagnosed with omPC who underwent local therapy for primary tumors between January 2008 and December 2018. Of the 85 patients, 31 underwent prostate RT, while 54 underwent RP. Oligometastatic disease was defined as the presence of fewer than five metastatic lesions without visceral metastasis. Urinary tract complications, progression-free survival (PFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression analyses. ResultsPatients treated with RT showed higher prostate-specific antigen levels. There was no significant difference in the 5-year PFS (52.5% vs. 37.9%, p=0.351), CSS (67.6% vs. 84.7%, p=0.473), or OS (63.6% vs. 73.8%, p=0.897) between the RT and RP groups. In the multivariate analyses, the type of local therapy was not associated with PFS (hazard ratio [HR]=1.334, p=0.356), CSS (HR=0.744, p=0.475), or OS (HR=0.953, p=0.897). ConclusionTherefore, RP seems to be a possible treatment option for patients with omPC, exhibiting oncologic outcomes comparable to those with RT.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy as local therapy for primary tumors in patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer

Ham,

Park,

Jang

et al. 2024

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Participation in treatment decision-making among Chinese-Australian women with breast cancer

Kwok

Koo

2016

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Brachytherapy-Based Radiotherapy and Radical Prostatectomy Are Associated With Similar Survival in High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer

Ennis

Ryemon

et al. 2018

JCO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose There are no randomized trials to guide treatment decisions between radiotherapeutic and surgical options for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. Comparative studies have been limited by their ability to match patients on the basis of pretreatment prognostic variables and to adjust for the cancer-related, medical, and socioeconomic differences between patients who choose radiotherapeutic or surgical approaches. Methods We analyzed the outcome of all patients in the National Cancer Database with high-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer with complete prognostic data who were treated with either radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) combined with androgen deprivation (AD), or EBRT plus brachytherapy with or without AD. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for covariable imbalance among treatment groups. The weighted time-dependent Cox proportional hazards model was then used to estimate the effects of treatment groups on survival, accounting for differential treatment initiation times. A predictive model of pathologic nodal (pLN) status was built using prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, and clinical T stage; predicted pLN status was used to repeat the inverse probability of treatment weighting and time-dependent Cox proportional hazards model. Results A total of 42,765 patients were analyzed. There was no statistically significant difference in survival between RP and EBRT plus brachytherapy with or without AD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.55). However, EBRT plus AD was associated with higher mortality than RP (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.92). Adjustment for predicted pLN status did not yield statistically different results. A sensitivity analysis showed that EBRT plus AD ≥ 7920 cGy narrowed the difference, but a significantly higher mortality remained (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.68). Conclusion After comprehensively adjusting for imbalances in prostate cancer prognostic factors, other medical conditions, and socioeconomic factors, this analysis showed no statistical difference in survival between patients treated with RP versus EBRT plus brachytherapy with or without AD. EBRT plus AD was associated with lower survival.

show abstract

The Importance of Quality of Life to Patient Decision Making in Breast Cancer Care

Cited by 3 publications

References 2 publications

Radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy as local therapy for primary tumors in patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer

Radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy as local therapy for primary tumors in patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer

Participation in treatment decision-making among Chinese-Australian women with breast cancer

Brachytherapy-Based Radiotherapy and Radical Prostatectomy Are Associated With Similar Survival in High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About