Literature DB >> 12131295

Contemporary trends in imaging test utilization for prostate cancer staging: data from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor.

Matthew R Cooperberg1, Deborah P Lubeck, Gary D Grossfeld, Shilpa S Mehta, Peter R Carroll.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Previous investigators have reported widespread overuse of imaging tests for staging clinically localized prostate cancer. In this study imaging test utilization rates were analyzed in a contemporary group of patients, and clinical and demographic predictors of testing were identified.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were abstracted from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE), a longitudinal registry of men with various stages of prostate cancer. A total of 4,966 men met study inclusion criteria of available treatment and staging data. The rates of computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and bone scans performed between the dates of diagnosis and primary treatment were analyzed in patients at 3 levels of clinical risk based on serum prostate specific antigen, Gleason sum and T stage. Time trends in test utilization were analyzed by linear regression. Contemporary rates were compared with those identified in a previous analysis of an earlier CaPSURE cohort. Demographic and clinical predictors of utilization were identified using generalized linear model analysis.
RESULTS: Since June 1997, the overall use of staging tests has decreased 63%, 25.9% and 11.4% in patients at low, intermediate and high risk, respectively. The most precipitous decrease was noted for bone scan but the use of cross-sectional imaging also decreased in all groups. Utilization rates were lower in 2001 than in any other year studied in CaPSURE.
CONCLUSIONS: The rates of testing decreased significantly in all risk groups. However, in the absence of established clinical practice guidelines many patients at low and intermediate risk continue to undergo unnecessary testing, while a growing number of those at high risk are proceeding to treatment without previous imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12131295

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  14 in total

Review 1.  Global registries for measuring pharmacoeconomic and quality-of-life outcomes: focus on design and data collection, analysis and interpretation.

Authors:  Lisa Kennedy; Ann-Marie Craig
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Imaging utilization for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2011

3.  Regional-Level Correlations in Inappropriate Imaging Rates for Prostate and Breast Cancers: Potential Implications for the Choosing Wisely Campaign.

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; Pamela R Soulos; Heather T Gold; James B Yu; Sounok Sen; Joseph S Ross; Cary P Gross
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 31.777

4.  Appropriateness of Prostate Cancer Imaging among Veterans in a Delivery System without Incentives for Overutilization.

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; Elaine Y C Hu; Dawn Walter; R Scott Braithwaite; Scott Sherman; Heather T Gold; Xiao-Hua Andrew Zhou; Cary P Gross; Steven B Zeliadt
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-09-30       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Samir S Taneja
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2004

Review 6.  Updated trends in imaging use in men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Authors:  S P Porten; A Smith; A Y Odisho; M S Litwin; C S Saigal; P R Carroll; M R Cooperberg
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2014-05-13       Impact factor: 5.554

7.  Challenges in clinical prostate cancer: role of imaging.

Authors:  Gary J Kelloff; Peter Choyke; Donald S Coffey
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  The example of CaPSURE: lessons learned from a national disease registry.

Authors:  Sima P Porten; Matthew R Cooperberg; Badrinath R Konety; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-02-24       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Adherence to Guidelines among Italian Urologists on Imaging Preoperative Staging of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results from the MIRROR (Multicenter Italian Report on Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes and Research) Study.

Authors:  Alchiede Simonato; Virginia Varca; Mauro Gacci; Paolo Gontero; Ottavio De Cobelli; Massimo Maffezzini; Roberto Salvioni; Marco Carini; Andrea Decensi; Vincenzo Mirone; Giorgio Carmignani
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2012-05-15

Review 10.  Patterns of practice in the United States: insights from CaPSURE on prostate cancer management.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Jeanette M Broering; David M Latini; Mark S Litwin; Katrine L Wallace; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 2.862

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.