Incidence and survival of secondary malignancies after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer in the SEER database

Authors

  • Melissa J. Huynh Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Western University and Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Western University, and London Health Sciences Centre
  • Lawson Eng Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Department of Medicine, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto
  • Long H. Ngo Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard University
  • Nicholas E. Power Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Western University and Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Western University, and London Health Sciences Centre
  • Sophia C. Kamran Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard University
  • Theodore T. Pierce Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard University
  • Andrea C. Lo Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer and Department of Surgery, University of British Columbia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8508

Keywords:

secondary malignancies, prostate cancer, radiation, radiotherapy

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the incidence of secondary bladder (BCa) and rectal cancers (RCa) after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa) compared to radical prostatectomy (RP) alone, and compared cancer-specific survival (CSS) of these secondary neoplasms to their primary counterparts.

METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included men in the SEER cancer registry with a diagnosis of non-metastatic, clinically node-negative PCa treated with either RP or EBRT from 1995–2011 and allowed a minimum five-year lag period for the development of secondary BCa or RCa. Patients were divided into two eras, 1995–2002 and 2003–2011, to examine differences in incidence of secondary malignancies over time. Univariable and multivariable competing risk analyses with Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard and cause-specific hazard models were used to examine the risk of developing a secondary BCa or RCa. Competing risks analyses were used to compare CSS of primary vs. secondary BCa and RCa.

RESULTS: A total of 198 184 men underwent RP and 190 536 underwent EBRT for PCa. The cumulative incidence of secondary BCa at 10 years was 1.71% for RP, and 3.7% for EBRT (p<0.001), while that of RCa was 0.52% for RP and 0.99% for EBRT (p<0.001). EBRT was associated with almost twice the risk of developing a secondary BCa and RCa compared to RP. The hazard of secondary BCa following EBRT delivered during 2003–2011 was 20% less than from 1995–2002 (p<0.09, Fine-Gray model), while that of secondary RCa was 31% less (p<0.001) (hazard ratio 0.78, p<0.001) for Fine-Gray and cause-specific hazard models. In the Fine-Gray model, the risk of death from BCa was 27% lower for secondary BCa after RP compared to primary BCa, while the risk of death was 9% lower for secondary BCa after EBRT compared to primary BCa. There was no difference in RCa-specific survival between primary or secondary RCa after RP or EBRT.

CONCLUSIONS: The risk of BCa and RCa is almost twice as high for men undergoing EBRT for localized PCa vs. RP, but that risk is declining, likely reflecting advances in radiation delivery. The development of secondary RCa or BCa does not confer elevated risk of death compared to their primary counterparts.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2023-12-21

How to Cite

Huynh, M. J., Eng, L., Ngo, L. H., Power, N. E., Kamran, S. C., Pierce, T. T., & Lo, A. C. (2023). Incidence and survival of secondary malignancies after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer in the SEER database. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 18(4), 121–8. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8508

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 4 (2024): CUAJ April

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.