Comparative effectiveness of cryotherapy vs brachytherapy for localised prostate cancer

Stephen Williams, Yin Lei, Paul L. Nguyen, Xiangmei Gu, Stuart R. Lipsitz, Hua Yin Yu, Keith J. Kowalczyk, Jim C. Hu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To compare prostate cryotherapy vs brachytherapy outcomes and costs, as despite the greater popularity of these emerging therapies for localised prostate cancer, outcomes data remains sparse beyond single-centre comparative studies. Patients and Methods Observational study of 10 928 men who underwent primary cryotherapy (943 patients) or brachytherapy (9985) with â¥2 years of follow-up using USA Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER-) Medicare linked data. Weighted propensity score methods were used. Results Use of cryotherapy increased four-fold whereas brachytherapy utilization remained the same from 2001 to 2005 (P <0.001). Men who underwent cryotherapy vs brachytherapy were older (P <0.001), more likely to be Black (P <0.001), less likely to live in areas of higher education (P <0.001), less likely to live in areas with greater income (P <0.001), and were more likely to live in urban vs rural areas (P= 0.007). In propensity score-weighted analyses, cryotherapy was associated with more urinary (41.4% vs 22.2%, P <0.001) and erectile dysfunction (ED) complications (34.7% vs 21.0%, P <0.001) while brachytherapy was associated with more bowel complications (19.0% vs 12.1%, P <0.001). Cryotherapy was associated with greater use of salvage androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; 1.4 vs 0.5 per 100 person-years, P <0.001), suggesting worse cancer control. Finally costs were significantly greater for brachytherapy vs cryotherapy ($16 887 vs $12 629 USA dollars, P <0.001). Conclusions Although less costly, cryotherapy was associated with more urinary and ED complications and greater need for salvage ADT. Conversely, cryotherapy was associated with fewer bowel complications. Patients and providers alike should consider these population-based outcomes when discussing therapeutic options for localised prostate cancer.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalBJU International
Volume110
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cryotherapy
Brachytherapy
Prostatic Neoplasms
Propensity Score
Erectile Dysfunction
Costs and Cost Analysis
Medicare
Androgens
Observational Studies
Prostate
Epidemiology
Therapeutics
Education

Keywords

  • and End Results (SEER)
  • brachytherapy
  • complications
  • cryotherapy
  • Epidemiology
  • prostate cancer
  • Surveillance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Comparative effectiveness of cryotherapy vs brachytherapy for localised prostate cancer. / Williams, Stephen; Lei, Yin; Nguyen, Paul L.; Gu, Xiangmei; Lipsitz, Stuart R.; Yu, Hua Yin; Kowalczyk, Keith J.; Hu, Jim C.

In: BJU International, Vol. 110, 07.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Williams, Stephen ; Lei, Yin ; Nguyen, Paul L. ; Gu, Xiangmei ; Lipsitz, Stuart R. ; Yu, Hua Yin ; Kowalczyk, Keith J. ; Hu, Jim C. / Comparative effectiveness of cryotherapy vs brachytherapy for localised prostate cancer. In: BJU International. 2012 ; Vol. 110.
@article{fc0f494554cf4d37b42d711cd95cacdb,
title = "Comparative effectiveness of cryotherapy vs brachytherapy for localised prostate cancer",
abstract = "Objective To compare prostate cryotherapy vs brachytherapy outcomes and costs, as despite the greater popularity of these emerging therapies for localised prostate cancer, outcomes data remains sparse beyond single-centre comparative studies. Patients and Methods Observational study of 10 928 men who underwent primary cryotherapy (943 patients) or brachytherapy (9985) with {\^a}¥2 years of follow-up using USA Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER-) Medicare linked data. Weighted propensity score methods were used. Results Use of cryotherapy increased four-fold whereas brachytherapy utilization remained the same from 2001 to 2005 (P <0.001). Men who underwent cryotherapy vs brachytherapy were older (P <0.001), more likely to be Black (P <0.001), less likely to live in areas of higher education (P <0.001), less likely to live in areas with greater income (P <0.001), and were more likely to live in urban vs rural areas (P= 0.007). In propensity score-weighted analyses, cryotherapy was associated with more urinary (41.4{\%} vs 22.2{\%}, P <0.001) and erectile dysfunction (ED) complications (34.7{\%} vs 21.0{\%}, P <0.001) while brachytherapy was associated with more bowel complications (19.0{\%} vs 12.1{\%}, P <0.001). Cryotherapy was associated with greater use of salvage androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; 1.4 vs 0.5 per 100 person-years, P <0.001), suggesting worse cancer control. Finally costs were significantly greater for brachytherapy vs cryotherapy ($16 887 vs $12 629 USA dollars, P <0.001). Conclusions Although less costly, cryotherapy was associated with more urinary and ED complications and greater need for salvage ADT. Conversely, cryotherapy was associated with fewer bowel complications. Patients and providers alike should consider these population-based outcomes when discussing therapeutic options for localised prostate cancer.",
keywords = "and End Results (SEER), brachytherapy, complications, cryotherapy, Epidemiology, prostate cancer, Surveillance",
author = "Stephen Williams and Yin Lei and Nguyen, {Paul L.} and Xiangmei Gu and Lipsitz, {Stuart R.} and Yu, {Hua Yin} and Kowalczyk, {Keith J.} and Hu, {Jim C.}",
year = "2012",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10775.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "110",
journal = "BJU International",
issn = "1464-4096",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative effectiveness of cryotherapy vs brachytherapy for localised prostate cancer

AU - Williams, Stephen

AU - Lei, Yin

AU - Nguyen, Paul L.

AU - Gu, Xiangmei

AU - Lipsitz, Stuart R.

AU - Yu, Hua Yin

AU - Kowalczyk, Keith J.

AU - Hu, Jim C.

PY - 2012/7

Y1 - 2012/7

N2 - Objective To compare prostate cryotherapy vs brachytherapy outcomes and costs, as despite the greater popularity of these emerging therapies for localised prostate cancer, outcomes data remains sparse beyond single-centre comparative studies. Patients and Methods Observational study of 10 928 men who underwent primary cryotherapy (943 patients) or brachytherapy (9985) with â¥2 years of follow-up using USA Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER-) Medicare linked data. Weighted propensity score methods were used. Results Use of cryotherapy increased four-fold whereas brachytherapy utilization remained the same from 2001 to 2005 (P <0.001). Men who underwent cryotherapy vs brachytherapy were older (P <0.001), more likely to be Black (P <0.001), less likely to live in areas of higher education (P <0.001), less likely to live in areas with greater income (P <0.001), and were more likely to live in urban vs rural areas (P= 0.007). In propensity score-weighted analyses, cryotherapy was associated with more urinary (41.4% vs 22.2%, P <0.001) and erectile dysfunction (ED) complications (34.7% vs 21.0%, P <0.001) while brachytherapy was associated with more bowel complications (19.0% vs 12.1%, P <0.001). Cryotherapy was associated with greater use of salvage androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; 1.4 vs 0.5 per 100 person-years, P <0.001), suggesting worse cancer control. Finally costs were significantly greater for brachytherapy vs cryotherapy ($16 887 vs $12 629 USA dollars, P <0.001). Conclusions Although less costly, cryotherapy was associated with more urinary and ED complications and greater need for salvage ADT. Conversely, cryotherapy was associated with fewer bowel complications. Patients and providers alike should consider these population-based outcomes when discussing therapeutic options for localised prostate cancer.

AB - Objective To compare prostate cryotherapy vs brachytherapy outcomes and costs, as despite the greater popularity of these emerging therapies for localised prostate cancer, outcomes data remains sparse beyond single-centre comparative studies. Patients and Methods Observational study of 10 928 men who underwent primary cryotherapy (943 patients) or brachytherapy (9985) with â¥2 years of follow-up using USA Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER-) Medicare linked data. Weighted propensity score methods were used. Results Use of cryotherapy increased four-fold whereas brachytherapy utilization remained the same from 2001 to 2005 (P <0.001). Men who underwent cryotherapy vs brachytherapy were older (P <0.001), more likely to be Black (P <0.001), less likely to live in areas of higher education (P <0.001), less likely to live in areas with greater income (P <0.001), and were more likely to live in urban vs rural areas (P= 0.007). In propensity score-weighted analyses, cryotherapy was associated with more urinary (41.4% vs 22.2%, P <0.001) and erectile dysfunction (ED) complications (34.7% vs 21.0%, P <0.001) while brachytherapy was associated with more bowel complications (19.0% vs 12.1%, P <0.001). Cryotherapy was associated with greater use of salvage androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; 1.4 vs 0.5 per 100 person-years, P <0.001), suggesting worse cancer control. Finally costs were significantly greater for brachytherapy vs cryotherapy ($16 887 vs $12 629 USA dollars, P <0.001). Conclusions Although less costly, cryotherapy was associated with more urinary and ED complications and greater need for salvage ADT. Conversely, cryotherapy was associated with fewer bowel complications. Patients and providers alike should consider these population-based outcomes when discussing therapeutic options for localised prostate cancer.

KW - and End Results (SEER)

KW - brachytherapy

KW - complications

KW - cryotherapy

KW - Epidemiology

KW - prostate cancer

KW - Surveillance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863543298&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84863543298&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10775.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10775.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 22192688

AN - SCOPUS:84863543298

VL - 110

JO - BJU International

JF - BJU International

SN - 1464-4096

ER -