Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author: Anthony V. D’Amico x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Early Versus Delayed Initiation of Salvage Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Risk of Prostate Cancer–Specific Mortality

Brandon A. Mahal, Ming-Hui Chen, Andrew A. Renshaw, Marian J. Loffredo, Philip W. Kantoff, and Anthony V. D'Amico

Background: This study sought to ascertain whether there is an association between prostate cancer (PC)–specific mortality (PCSM) and timing of salvage androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) among men with short versus long prostate-specific antigen doubling times (PSA-DTs). Methods: The study cohort was selected from 206 men with localized unfavorable-risk PC randomized to radiation therapy (RT) or RT plus 6 months of ADT between 1995 and 2001. A total of 54 men who received salvage ADT for PSA failure after a median follow-up of 18.72 years following randomization defined the study cohort. The Fine-Gray competing risks regression model was used to analyze whether the timing of salvage ADT was associated with an increased risk of PCSM after adjusting for age, comorbidity, known PC prognostic factors, and previously identified interactions. Results: After a median follow-up of 5.68 years (interquartile range, 3.05–9.56) following salvage ADT, 49 of the 54 men (91%) died, of which 27 from PC (54% of deaths). Increasing PSA-DT as a continuous covariate (per month increase) was associated with a decreasing risk of PCSM (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13–0.82; P=.02). Among men with a long PSA-DT (≥6 months), initiating salvage ADT later (PSA level >12 ng/mL, upper quartile) versus earlier was associated with an increased risk of PCSM (adjusted HR, 8.84; 95% CI, 1.99–39.27; P=.004), whereas for those with a short PSA-DT (<6 months; adjusted HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.38–3.54; P=.79) this was not true. Conclusions: Early initiation of salvage ADT for post-RT PSA failure in men with a PSA-DT of ≥6 months may reduce the risk of PCSM.

Full access

Alcohol Use Among Patients With Cancer and Survivors in the United States, 2000–2017

Nina N. Sanford, David J. Sher, Xiaohan Xu, Chul Ahn, Anthony V. D’Amico, Ayal A. Aizer, and Brandon A. Mahal

Background: Alcohol use is an established risk factor for several malignancies and is associated with adverse oncologic outcomes among individuals diagnosed with cancer. The prevalence and patterns of alcohol use among cancer survivors are poorly described. Methods: We used the National Health Interview Survey from 2000 to 2017 to examine alcohol drinking prevalence and patterns among adults reporting a cancer diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to define the association between demographic and socioeconomic variables and odds of self-reporting as a current drinker, exceeding moderate drinking limits, and engaging in binge drinking. The association between specific cancer type and odds of drinking were assessed. Results: Among 34,080 survey participants with a known cancer diagnosis, 56.5% self-reported as current drinkers, including 34.9% who exceeded moderate drinking limits and 21.0% who engaged in binge drinking. Younger age, smoking history, and more recent survey period were associated with higher odds of current, exceeding moderate, and binge drinking (P<.001 for all, except P=.008 for excess drinking). Similar associations persisted when the cohort was limited to 20,828 cancer survivors diagnosed ≥5 years before survey administration. Diagnoses of melanoma and cervical, head and neck, and testicular cancers were associated with higher odds of binge drinking (P<.05 for all) compared with other cancer diagnoses. Conclusions: Most cancer survivors self-report as current alcohol drinkers, including a subset who seem to engage in excessive drinking behaviors. Given that alcohol intake has implications for cancer prevention and is a potentially modifiable risk factor for cancer-specific outcomes, the high prevalence of alcohol use among cancer survivors highlights the need for public health strategies aimed at the reduction of alcohol consumption.

Full access

Models of Care and NCCN Guideline Adherence in Very-Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

Ayal A. Aizer, Jonathan J. Paly, Anthony L. Zietman, Paul L. Nguyen, Clair J. Beard, Sandhya K. Rao, Irving D. Kaplan, Andrzej Niemierko, Michelle S. Hirsch, Chin-Lee Wu, Aria F. Olumi, M. Dror Michaelson, Anthony V. D’Amico, and Jason A. Efstathiou

NCCN Guidelines recommend active surveillance as the primary management option for patients with very-low-risk prostate cancer and an expected survival of less than 20 years, reflecting the favorable prognosis of these men and the lack of perceived benefit of immediate, definitive treatment. The authors hypothesized that care at a multidisciplinary clinic, where multiple physicians have an opportunity to simultaneously review and discuss each case, is associated with increased rates of active surveillance in men with very-low-risk prostate cancer, including those with limited life expectancy. Of 630 patients with low-risk prostate cancer managed at 1 of 3 tertiary care centers in Boston, Massachusetts in 2009, 274 (43.5%) had very-low-risk classification. Patients were either seen by 1 or more individual practitioners in sequential settings or at a multidisciplinary clinic, in which concurrent consultation with 2 or more of the following specialties was obtained: urology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology. Patients seen at a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic were more likely to select active surveillance than those seen by individual practitioners (64% vs 30%; P<.001), an association that remained significant on multivariable logistic regression (odds ratio [OR], 4.16; P<.001). When the analysis was limited to patients with an expected survival of less than 20 years, this association remained highly significant (72% vs 34%, P<.001; OR, 5.19; P<.001, respectively). Multidisciplinary care is strongly associated with selection of active surveillance, adherence to NCCN Guidelines and minimization of overtreatment in patients with very-low-risk prostate cancer.

Full access

Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

James L. Mohler, Emmanuel S. Antonarakis, Andrew J. Armstrong, Anthony V. D’Amico, Brian J. Davis, Tanya Dorff, James A. Eastham, Charles A. Enke, Thomas A. Farrington, Celestia S. Higano, Eric Mark Horwitz, Michael Hurwitz, Joseph E. Ippolito, Christopher J. Kane, Michael R. Kuettel, Joshua M. Lang, Jesse McKenney, George Netto, David F. Penson, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Julio M. Pow-Sang, Thomas J. Pugh, Sylvia Richey, Mack Roach III, Stan Rosenfeld, Edward Schaeffer, Ahmad Shabsigh, Eric J. Small, Daniel E. Spratt, Sandy Srinivas, Jonathan Tward, Dorothy A. Shead, and Deborah A. Freedman-Cass

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer. The portions of the guidelines included herein focus on the roles of germline and somatic genetic testing, risk stratification with nomograms and tumor multigene molecular testing, androgen deprivation therapy, secondary hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.