Trends and variation in the use of radiotherapy in non-metastatic prostate cancer: A 12-year nationwide overview from the Netherlands

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Authors

Evers, Jelle
Kerkmeijer, L.G.W. Linda
Bergh, R.C. van den
Sangen, M.J. van der
Hulshof, M. Marian
Bloemers, M.
Siesling, S.
Aarts, M.J.
Aben, K.K.H. Katja
Struikmans, H.

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Abstract

PURPOSE: This population-based study describes nationwide trends and variation in the use of primary radiotherapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer in The Netherlands in 2008-2019. METHODS: Prostate cancer patients were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (N = 103,059). Treatment trends were studied over time by prognostic risk groups. Multilevel analyses were applied to identify variables associated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachy-monotherapy versus no active treatment in low-risk disease, and EBRT versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate and high-risk disease. RESULTS: EBRT use remained stable (5-6%) in low-risk prostate cancer and increased from 21% to 32% in intermediate-risk, 37% to 45% in high-risk localized and 50% to 57% in high-risk locally advanced disease. Brachy-monotherapy decreased from 19% to 6% and from 15% to 10% in low and intermediate-risk disease, respectively, coinciding an increase of no active treatment from 55% to 73% in low-risk disease. Use of EBRT or brachy-monotherapy versus no active treatment in low-risk disease differed by region, T-stage and patient characteristics. Hospital characteristics were not associated with treatment in low-risk disease, except for availability of brachy-monotherapy in 2008-2013. Age, number of comorbidities, travel time for EBRT, prognostic risk group, and hospital characteristics were associated with EBRT versus prostatectomy in intermediate and high-risk disease. CONCLUSION: Intermediate/high-risk PCa was increasingly managed with EBRT, while brachy-monotherapy in low/intermediate-risk PCa decreased. In low-risk PCa, the no active treatment-approach increased. Variation in treatment suggests treatment decision related to patient/disease characteristics. In intermediate/high-risk disease, variation seems furthermore related to the treatment modalities available in the diagnosing hospitals.

Description

Keywords

Citation

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By