PURPOSE: We compared how men with incident prostate cancer were staged before and after the 1995 publication of National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American Urological Association and American College of Radiology staging guidelines, and determined whether there were racial differences in the staging evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of the use of bone scan and pelvic imaging (pelvic computerized tomography or magnetic resonance imaging) in 96,986 men with incident prostate cancer from 1991 to 1994 compared to 1995 to 1999 from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked data files. RESULTS: During 1991 to 1994 bone scan was done in 83.1% and 73.7% of men who would and would not have met guideline criteria for staging, respectively. From 1995 to 1999 bone scan use decreased slightly in men who met guideline criteria (74.4%) but it decreased substantially in men who did not meet guideline criteria (55.2%). Between 1991 to 1994 and 1995 to 1999 rates of pelvic imaging increased for men who did and decreased for men who did not meet guideline criteria for staging (45.5% to 57.2% and 48.4% to 41.5%, respectively). On multivariate analysis in men who did not meet guideline criteria there was no change in the association between the use of staging tests and race from 1991 to 1994, to 1995 to 1999. However, of men who met guideline criteria for staging black men were less likely to undergo bone scan and less likely to undergo pelvic imaging than white men diagnosed in 1991 to 1994 but this racial difference was not seen during 1995 to 1999. CONCLUSIONS: Using a population based cohort this study reveals a decrease in racial disparity and an increase in evidence based use of staging tests in men with incident prostate cancer in the period after the publication of National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American Urological Association and American College of Radiology guidelines.
PURPOSE: We compared how men with incident prostate cancer were staged before and after the 1995 publication of National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American Urological Association and American College of Radiology staging guidelines, and determined whether there were racial differences in the staging evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of the use of bone scan and pelvic imaging (pelvic computerized tomography or magnetic resonance imaging) in 96,986 men with incident prostate cancer from 1991 to 1994 compared to 1995 to 1999 from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked data files. RESULTS: During 1991 to 1994 bone scan was done in 83.1% and 73.7% of men who would and would not have met guideline criteria for staging, respectively. From 1995 to 1999 bone scan use decreased slightly in men who met guideline criteria (74.4%) but it decreased substantially in men who did not meet guideline criteria (55.2%). Between 1991 to 1994 and 1995 to 1999 rates of pelvic imaging increased for men who did and decreased for men who did not meet guideline criteria for staging (45.5% to 57.2% and 48.4% to 41.5%, respectively). On multivariate analysis in men who did not meet guideline criteria there was no change in the association between the use of staging tests and race from 1991 to 1994, to 1995 to 1999. However, of men who met guideline criteria for staging black men were less likely to undergo bone scan and less likely to undergo pelvic imaging than white men diagnosed in 1991 to 1994 but this racial difference was not seen during 1995 to 1999. CONCLUSIONS: Using a population based cohort this study reveals a decrease in racial disparity and an increase in evidence based use of staging tests in men with incident prostate cancer in the period after the publication of National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American Urological Association and American College of Radiology guidelines.
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
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
Authors: Raj Satkunasivam; Mary Lo; Mariana Stern; Inderbir S Gill; Steven Fleming; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Roger T Anderson; Trevor D Thompson; Ann S Hamilton Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Ramzi G Salloum; Maureen O'Keeffe-Rosetti; Debra P Ritzwoller; Mark C Hornbrook; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Matthew E Nielsen Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 3.840