| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Pettersson, Andreas, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparative Effectiveness of Different Radical Radiotherapy Treatment Regimens for Prostate Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: JNCI cancer spectrum. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2515-5091. ; 4:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- It is unclear which radiotherapy technique and dose fractionation scheme is most effective in decreasing the risk of prostate cancer death.We conducted a population-based cohort study among 15164 men in the Prostate Cancer database Sweden (version 4.0) treated with primary radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer in Sweden from 1998 to 2016. We calculated hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the association between the following exposure groups and outcome: conventionally fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) to 78Gy (39 × 2Gy), EBRT combined with high dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) (25 × 2Gy + 2 × 10Gy), conventionally fractionated EBRT to 70Gy (35 × 2Gy), and moderately hypofractionated (M-HF) dose-escalated EBRT (29 × 2.5Gy or 22 × 3Gy).Of the men, 7296 received conventionally fractionated EBRT to 78Gy, 4657 EBRT combined with HDR-BT, 1672 conventionally fractionated EBRT to 70Gy, and 1539M-HF EBRT. Using EBRT to 78Gy as the reference, the multivariable hazard ratios (95% CIs) of prostate cancer death was 0.64 (0.53 to 0.78) for EBRT combined with HDR-BT, 1.00 (0.80 to 1.27) for EBRT to 70Gy, and 1.51 (0.99 to 2.32) for M-HF EBRT. The multivariable hazard ratios (95% CIs) for death from any cause were 0.79 (0.71 to 0.88), 0.99 (0.87 to 1.14), and 1.12 (0.88 to 1.42), respectively. The lower risk of prostate cancer death comparing EBRT combined with HDR-BT with conventionally fractionated EBRT to 78Gy was more pronounced for men with high-risk or poorly differentiated tumors.In this study, EBRT combined with HDR-BT was the most effective radiotherapy treatment regimen, especially for poorly differentiated tumors. Randomized trials comparing EBRT combined with HDR-BT with dose-escalated EBRT should be a priority.
|
|
| 3. |
- Strömberg, Ulf, 1964, et al.
(författare)
-
Socioeconomic inequality in prostate cancer diagnostics, primary treatment, rehabilitation, and mortality in Sweden
- 2024
-
Ingår i: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0020-7136 .- 1097-0215. ; 155:4, s. 637-645
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We designed a nationwide study to investigate the association between socioeconomic factors (household income and education) and different aspects of prostate cancer care, considering both individual- and neighbourhood-level variables. Data were obtained from Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe), a research database with data from several national health care registers including clinical characteristics and treatments for nearly all men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Sweden. Four outcomes were analysed: use of pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 2018-2020 (n = 11,843), primary treatment of high-risk non-metastatic disease in 2016-2020 (n = 6633), rehabilitation (>= 2 dispensed prescriptions for erectile dysfunction within 1 year from surgery in 2016-2020, n = 6505), and prostate cancer death in 7770 men with high-risk non-metastatic disease diagnosed in 2010-2016. Unadjusted and adjusted odds and hazard ratios (OR/HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Adjusted odds ratio (ORs) comparing low versus high individual education were 0.74 (95% CI 0.66-0.83) for pre-biopsy MRI, 0.66 (0.54-0.81) for primary treatment, and 0.82 (0.69-0.97) for rehabilitation. HR gradients for prostate cancer death were significant on unadjusted analysis only (low vs. high individual education HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.17-1.70); co-variate adjustments markedly attenuated the gradients (low vs. high individual education HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90-1.35). Generally, neighbourhood-level analyses showed weaker gradients over the socioeconomic strata, except for pre-biopsy MRI. Socioeconomic factors influenced how men were diagnosed with prostate cancer in Sweden but had less influence on subsequent specialist care. Neighbourhood-level socioeconomic data are more useful for evaluating inequality in diagnostics than in later specialist care.
|
|
| 4. |
- Van Hemelrijck, Mieke, et al.
(författare)
-
Primary Cancers Before and After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Cancer. - : Wiley. - 0008-543X .- 1097-0142. ; 118:24, s. 6207-6216
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The occurrence of multiple cancers may indicate common etiology; and, although some studies have investigated the risk of second primary cancers after prostate cancer (PCa), there are no studies on cancers before PCa. METHODS: The PCBaSe Sweden database is based on the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR), which covers >96% of PCa cases. The authors estimated the prevalence and cumulative incidence of different cancers before and after PCa diagnosis in 72,613 men according to PCa treatment and disease stage in PCBaSe and their matched comparison cohort of men who were free of PCa. RESULTS: In total, 6829 men were diagnosed with another primary cancer before their PCa diagnosis, including 138 men at the time of PCa diagnosis and 5230 men were diagnosed after PCa diagnosis. Cancer of the bladder or colon and nonmelanoma of the skin were the 3 most frequently observed cancers before and after PCa diagnosis. At the time of PCa diagnosis, the prevalence of these 3 cancers was 1.94% for bladder cancer, 1.08% for colon cancer, and 1.08% for nonmelanoma skin cancer, compared with 1.30%, 0.96%, and 1.03%, respectively, for the matched comparison cohort. Five years after PCa diagnosis, the difference in incidence proportion between PCa men and their comparison cohort was 7% (95% CI, 5.6%-8.5%), 1.3% (0%-2.6%), and 1.6% (0.6%-2.6%) for these 3 cancers, respectively. From a uro-oncologic point of view, it is interesting to note that the prevalence of kidney cancer at the time of PCa diagnosis was 0.42% compared with 0.28% for the matched comparison cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 17% of all PCa occurred in combination with another primary cancer (before or after PCa diagnosis). Detection bias probably explains part of this observation, but further investigations are required to assess possible underlying mechanisms.
|
|
