TY - JOUR
T1 - Trends and variation in the use of radiotherapy in non-metastatic prostate cancer
T2 - A 12-year nationwide overview from the Netherlands
AU - Evers, Jelle
AU - Kerkmeijer, Linda G. W.
AU - van den Bergh, Roderick C. N.
AU - van der Sangen, Maurice J. C.
AU - Hulshof, Maarten C. C. M.
AU - Bloemers, Monique C. W. M.
AU - Siesling, Sabine
AU - Aarts, Mieke J.
AU - Aben, Katja K. H.
AU - Struikmans, Henk
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was funded by the Dutch Association of Radiation Oncology (NVRO) which had the opportunity, thanks to external funding, to financially support our study.
Funding Information:
The authors thank the registration team of the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL) for the collection of the data for the Netherlands Cancer Registry, J.S.F. Maurits for the advice on multilevel analyses, and J.L. Evans for proofreading the manuscript. This work was funded by the Dutch Association of Radiation Oncology (NVRO) which had the opportunity, thanks to external funding, to financially support our study.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author(s)
PY - 2022/12/1
Y1 - 2022/12/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Brachytherapy
KW - Epidemiology
KW - Prostatectomy
KW - Prostatic neoplasms
KW - Radiotherapy
KW - Watchful waiting
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85141448759
U2 - 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.10.028
DO - 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.10.028
M3 - Article
C2 - 36328090
SN - 0167-8140
VL - 177
SP - 134
EP - 142
JO - Radiotherapy and oncology
JF - Radiotherapy and oncology
ER -