BACKGROUND: Operability is both a crucial determinant in treatment selection and a potential confounder in analyses comparing surgery with non-surgical approaches such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). We aimed to assess the association between operability status and intervention with post-treatment mortality in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We defined four groups of patients with cT1-T2N0M0 NSCLC diagnosed 2010 to 2014 from the National Cancer Database: SBRT patients deemed operable vs. inoperable and surgery patients receiving open vs. minimally-invasive approaches. Mortality rates at 30, 60, and 90 days post-treatment were calculated and compared. RESULTS: We abstracted 80,108 patients, 0.8% undergoing SBRT and operable, 13.2% undergoing SBRT and inoperable, 52.4% undergoing open surgery, and 33.7% undergoing minimally-invasive surgery. Mortality rates were highest among open surgery patients and lowest among operable SBRT patients (2.0% vs. 0.2% at 30 days and 3.7% vs. 0.7% at 90 days), with intermediate results in the other two groups. These findings persisted on multivariate Cox regression: compared to patients undergoing minimally-invasive surgery, mortality risk was highest among open surgery patients (30 days HR 1.32, 95%CI 1.16-1.51; 90 days HR 1.36, 95%CI 1.24-1.50; both P < .001) and lowest among operable SBRT patients (30 days HR 0.09, 95%CI 0.01-0.64; 90 days HR 0.15, 95%CI 0.05-0.46; both P ≤ .016). These associations were maintained in a propensity score-matched subset. CONCLUSION: Operable patients undergoing SBRT experience minimal post-treatment mortality compared to their inoperable counterparts. These findings illustrate the potential for confounding by operability to bias results in cohort studies that compare surgical vs. non-surgical approaches in early-stage NSCLC.

Introduction

Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer must navigate a highly preference-sensitive decision between treatment options with varying adverse outcome profiles. We evaluated whether use of a decision support tool previously shown to decrease decisional conflict also impacted the secondary outcome of post-treatment decision regret.

Methods

Participants were randomized to receive personalized decision support via the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate or usual care prior to a final treatment decision. Symptoms were measured just before randomization and 6 months later; decision regret was measured at 6 months along with records review to ascertain treatment choices. Regression modeling explored associations between baseline variables including race and D`Amico risk, study group, and 6-month variables regret, choice, and symptoms.

Results

At 6 months, 287 of 392 (73%) men returned questionnaires of which 257 (89%) had made a treatment choice. Of that group, 201 of 257 (78%) completely answered the regret scale. Regret was not significantly different between participants randomized to the P3P intervention compared to the control group (P = 0.360). In univariate analyses, we found that Black men, men with hormonal symptoms, and men with bowel symptoms reported significantly higher decision regret (all P < 0.01). Significant interactions were detected between race and study group (intervention vs. usual care) in the multivariable model; use of the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate was associated with significantly decreased decisional regret among Black men (P = 0.037). Interactions between regret, symptoms and treatment revealed that (1) men choosing definitive treatment and reporting no hormonal symptoms reported lower regret compared to all others; and (2) men choosing active surveillance and reporting bowel symptoms had higher regret compared to all others.

Conclusion

The Personal Patient Profile-Prostate decision support tool may be most beneficial in minimizing decisional regret for Black men considering treatment options for newly-diagnosed prostate cancer.

Trial registration

NCT01844999.