SUO 2017: A Quantitative Assessment Of Residual Confounding In The Comparison Between Surgery And Radiotherapy In The Treatment Of Non-Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Washington, DC (UroToday.com) Introduction: Observational comparisons of surgery and radiotherapy as prostate cancer treatments may be affected by residual confounding. The authors sought to quantify the degree of this bias in men treated for non-metastatic prostate cancer, both between treatment modalities and compared to men without prostate cancer.

Methods: The authors performed a population-based, retrospective cohort study of men treated for non-metastatic prostate cancer in Ontario, Canada from 2002-2009. Patients treated with surgery and radiotherapy were matched on demographics, comorbidity, and cardiovascular risk factors. The primary outcome was non-prostate cancer mortality. The Fine & Gray sub-distribution method with generalized estimating equations was used to compare outcomes. Additionally, the authors compared these patients with prostate cancer to the general population. The authors used a previously published technique to quantify the prevalence and strength of residual confounding necessary to account for observed results.

Results: The study demonstrated that of 20,651 eligible men, 10,786 (5393 pairs) were matched. The 10-year cumulative incidence of non-prostate cancer mortality was higher among patients who underwent radiotherapy (12%) than surgery (8%); adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio 1.57, 95% CI 1.35-1.83). Both groups had significantly lower rates of non-prostate cancer mortality than matched men without prostate cancer (18%, p<0.001). Hypothetical residual confounders would have to be both strongly associated with non-prostate cancer mortality (HRs in excess of 2.5) and have highly differential prevalence in order to nullify the observed effect.

Conclusion: The authors concluded that patients treated for non-metastatic prostate cancer have significantly lower non-prostate cancer mortality than men in the general population. The authors identified the magnitude of potential residual confounders to account for differences in treatment effects for prostate cancer.

Presented by: Christopher Wallis, Toronto, Canada

Written by: Hanan Goldberg, MD, Urologic Oncology Fellow (SUO), University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, @GoldbergHanan, at the 18th Annual Meeting of the Society of Urologic Oncology, November 29-December 1, 2017 – Washington, DC