Radiation therapy utilization in older adults with high-risk prostate cancer: A SEER-based analysis.

178 Background: Radiation therapy (RT) is a cornerstone of curative treatment for high-risk prostate cancer. However, older adults are often undertreated, potentially due to concerns about comorbidities, life expectancy, or treatment-related toxicity. This study aimed to examine age-based trends in RT use in a large, population-based cohort to better understand potential disparities in care. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using SEER 22 data from 2012 to 2020. Men aged 60 years and older diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer, poorly differentiated, Grade III and undifferentiated, anaplastic, Grade IV were included. Patients were categorized into age groups: 60–64, 65–69, 70–74, 75–79, 80–84, and ≥85 years. The primary outcome was receipt of RT, defined by the SEER "Radiation Recode" variable. Descriptive statistics were used to determine RT receipt by age group, and a Chi-square test was performed to assess statistical significance. Results: Among 507,964 eligible patients, the overall rate of RT receipt was 33.9%. However, RT use varied markedly by age. RT was administered to 31.3% of men aged 60–64, 37.1% of those 65–69, 45.9% of those 70–74, and 46.4% of men aged 75–79. Usage declined significantly in the oldest groups, with 32.4% of those aged 80–84 and only 13.0% of those aged ≥85 receiving RT. The association between age and RT receipt was statistically significant (Chi-square p < 0.001). Due to data limitations in SEER, patients with 'None/Unknown' radiation status were grouped as not having received documented radiation. This may include patients with incomplete records. Conclusions: In this large national cohort, radiation therapy use declined substantially with increasing age, particularly among men aged 85 and older. While some variation may be attributable to clinical factors such as frailty or competing health risks, the steep drop in RT receipt suggests that age may be an independent barrier to treatment. These findings raise important concerns about age-related disparities in prostate cancer care and highlight the need for patient-centered, individualized decision-making to ensure equitable access to evidence-based therapies. RT rates in pts with prostate cancer based on age. Age Radiation Received Unknown if Radiation Received Sample Size Percentage 60-64 28031 61489 89520 31% 65-69 38877 65997 104874 37% 70-74 40609 47902 88511 46% 75-79 30820 35517 66337 46% 80-84 12570 26208 38778 32% 85+ 2877 19182 22059 13%

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JCO Oncology Practice
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/op.2025.21.10_suppl.178
Primary Topic
Advances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Radiation therapy utilization in older adults with high-risk prostate cancer: A SEER-based analysis.

Joseph P. Maslak, Tahir Malik, V. Garcia, Dillon Livecche
JCO Oncology Practice
Advances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
article

Radiation therapy utilization in older adults with high-risk prostate cancer: A SEER-based analysis.

Joseph P. Maslak, Tahir Malik, V. Garcia, Dillon Livecche
article en

Abstract

178 Background: Radiation therapy (RT) is a cornerstone of curative treatment for high-risk prostate cancer. However, older adults are often undertreated, potentially due to concerns about comorbidities, life expectancy, or treatment-related toxicity. This study aimed to examine age-based trends in RT use in a large, population-based cohort to better understand potential disparities in care. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using SEER 22 data from 2012 to 2020. Men aged 60 years and older diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer, poorly differentiated, Grade III and undifferentiated, anaplastic, Grade IV were included. Patients were categorized into age groups: 60–64, 65–69, 70–74, 75–79, 80–84, and ≥85 years. The primary outcome was receipt of RT, defined by the SEER "Radiation Recode" variable. Descriptive statistics were used to determine RT receipt by age group, and a Chi-square test was performed to assess statistical significance. Results: Among 507,964 eligible patients, the overall rate of RT receipt was 33.9%. However, RT use varied markedly by age. RT was administered to 31.3% of men aged 60–64, 37.1% of those 65–69, 45.9% of those 70–74, and 46.4% of men aged 75–79. Usage declined significantly in the oldest groups, with 32.4% of those aged 80–84 and only 13.0% of those aged ≥85 receiving RT. The association between age and RT receipt was statistically significant (Chi-square p < 0.001). Due to data limitations in SEER, patients with 'None/Unknown' radiation status were grouped as not having received documented radiation. This may include patients with incomplete records. Conclusions: In this large national cohort, radiation therapy use declined substantially with increasing age, particularly among men aged 85 and older. While some variation may be attributable to clinical factors such as frailty or competing health risks, the steep drop in RT receipt suggests that age may be an independent barrier to treatment. These findings raise important concerns about age-related disparities in prostate cancer care and highlight the need for patient-centered, individualized decision-making to ensure equitable access to evidence-based therapies. RT rates in pts with prostate cancer based on age. Age Radiation Received Unknown if Radiation Received Sample Size Percentage 60-64 28031 61489 89520 31% 65-69 38877 65997 104874 37% 70-74 40609 47902 88511 46% 75-79 30820 35517 66337 46% 80-84 12570 26208 38778 32% 85+ 2877 19182 22059 13%

JCO Oncology PracticeVol. 21(10_suppl)
Citigroup (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 58%
Advances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.