DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Prostate Cancer in Younger and Older Patients: Do We Treat Them Differently?

  • Situmorang, Gerhard Reinaldi ;
  • Umbas, Rainy ;
  • Mochtar, Chaidir A. ;
  • Santoso, Rachmat Budi
  • Published : 2012.09.30

Abstract

Diagnostic and therapeutic strategies of prostate cancer may largely influenced by patients' age at presentation. This study is aimed to evaluate the characteristics, diagnostic and treatment strategies in prostate cancer patients in our centres. A cross-sectional analytic study of prostate cancer data in two main referral cancer centres, Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital and Dharmais National Cancer Centre from 1995-2010, was therefore performed. Patients were divided into 2 sub-populations; below 60 years (younger patients) and 75 years old and above (older patients). PSA levels, diagnostic modalities, Gleason score and therapeutic options were analysed for both and compared using bivariate analysis. 152 patients were <60 years and 210 were ${\geq}75$ years. There was no statistical difference in mean PSA level (797.9ng/mL vs 345.3 ng/mL, respectively; p>0.05) and diagnosis was made by biopsy in majority of patients in both groups (68.2% and 71.6% in younger and older groups respectively). Most presented with an advanced disease stage (65.1% and 66.0%, respectively) and there was no statistically significant difference in mean Gleason scores f (8.1 vs 7.7; p>0.05). Primary androgen deprivation therapy (PADT) was the main treatment for overall patients (48.0% and 50.7%, respectively). Radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy are the main therapeutic modalities for younger patients with local and locally advanced disease (39.6% and 35.4% respectively), while the majority of older patients with the same disease stage were treated with radiotherapy and PADT (45.8% and 39.0% respectively). Differences observed in treatment modalities were statistically significant (p<0.0003). We conclude that there is no difference in disease clinical aggressiveness of the two groups but significant differences were observed in therapeutic strategies utilised with younger and older patients.

Keywords

Prostate cancer;young;elderly;treatment;clinical agressiveness;Indonesia

References

  1. Astigueta JC, Abad, MA, Morante C, et al (2010). Characteristics of metastatic prostate cancer occurring in patients under 50 years of age. Acta Urol Esp, 34, 327-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2173-5786(10)70078-0
  2. Benaim EA, Pace CM, Roehrborn CG (2002). Gleason score predict androgen independent progression after androgen deprivation therapy. European Urology , 42, 12-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00238-5
  3. Berger I, Bohmer F, Ponholzer A, Madersbacher S (2009). Prostate cancer in senior adults: over-or undertreated?. Ien Med Wochenschr, 159, 521-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10354-009-0697-1
  4. Cooperberg MR, Konety BR (2009). Management of localised prostate cancer in men over 65 years. Curr Opin Urol, 19, 309-14. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e328329a303
  5. Derweesh IH, Kupelian PA, Zippe C et al (2004). Continuing trends in pathological stage migration in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Oncol, 22, 300-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2003.11.011
  6. Droz JP, balducci L, Bolla M, et al (2010). Management of prostate cancer in older men: recommendations of a working group of the international society of geriatric oncology. BJU Int, 106, 462-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09334.x
  7. Fitzpatrick JM (2008). Management of localised prostate cancer in senior adluts: the crucial role of comorbidity. bju int, 101 Suppl. 2, 16-22.
  8. Herman CM et al (2001). Primary gleason pattern as a predictor of disease progression in gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a multivariate analysis of 823 men treated with radical prostatectomy. am j. Surg Pathol, 25, 657-60. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-200105000-00014
  9. Jadeja NA, Dogra PN, Gupta NP (1994). Carcinoma of the prostate in young patients: a report of two cases. Urol Int, 52, 48-51. https://doi.org/10.1159/000282570
  10. Kanto S, Ohyama C, Okada Y, et al (2002). Clinical features of prostate cancer patients younger than 50 years: report of seven cases. Int J Urol, 9, 91-4. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-2042.2002.00427.x
  11. Klein AE, Platz EA, Thompson IM (2007). Epidemiology, Etiology and Prevention of Prostate Cancer. In Wein AJ (ed), Kavoussi LR (ed), Novick AC (ed), Partin AW (ed), Peters CA (ed), Campbell-Walsh Urology 9th ed, 90, 2854-73.
  12. Li J, German R, King J et al (2011). Recent trends in prostate cancer testing and incidence among men under age of 50. Cancer Epidemiol, 36, 122-7.
  13. Newcomer LM, Stanford JL, Blunenstein BA, Brawer MK (1997). Temporal trends in incidence of prostate cancer; declining incidence of advance stage disease. J Urol, 158, 1427-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64231-9
  14. O'Dowd GJ, Veltri RW, Miller MC (2001). The gleason score: a significant biologic manifestation of prostate cancer aggressiveness on biopsy. PCRI, 4, ?-?.
  15. Sasaki H, et al (2004). Prostatic cancer in a young adult: a report of 2 cases. Hinyokika Kiyo, 50, 57-9.
  16. Stangelberger A, Waldert M, Djavan B (2008). Prostate Cancer in Elderly Men. Reviews in Urol, 10, 111-8.
  17. Suzuki T, et al (2008). Prostate cancer in a relatively young adult: a case report. Hinyokika Kiyo, 54, 139- 42
  18. Umbas R (2005). Characteristics and management of prostate cancer in jakarta: a decade of observation. Indonesian J Surg, 33, 107-14.
  19. Wong YN, Mitra N, Hudes G, et al (2006). Survival associated with treatment vs observation of localised prostate cancer in elderly men. JAMA, 296, 2683-93. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.22.2683

Cited by

  1. Impact of PSA and DRE on Histologic Findings at Prostate Biopsy in Turkish Men Over 75 Years of Age vol.14, pp.10, 2013, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.10.6085
  2. Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Optimal Therapy in Older Patients vol.30, pp.12, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-013-0123-7
  3. Prostate Biopsy in the Elderly: Histologic Findings and Treatment Necessity vol.15, pp.20, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.20.8937
  4. Third-line Hormonal Therapy to Treat Prostate Cancer Relapse after Initial and Second-line Hormonal Therapy: Report of 52 Cases and Literature Review vol.15, pp.8, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.8.3645
  5. Risk Factors for Clinical Metastasis in Men Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy and Immediate Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy vol.15, pp.24, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.24.10729
  6. Prostate Cancer Screening in the Fit Chilean Elderly: a Head to Head Comparison of Total Serum PSA versus Age Adjusted PSA versus Primary Circulating Prostate Cells to Detect Prostate Cancer at Initial Biopsy vol.16, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.2.601
  7. Identifying inequitable healthcare in older people: systematic review of current research practice vol.16, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-017-0605-z
  8. Primary Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer in Koreans: A Retrospective Multicenter Study vol.32, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.2014.32.3.159