Literature DB >> 20932557

Unnecessary imaging for the staging of low-risk prostate cancer is common.

Hugh J Lavery1, Jonathan S Brajtbord, Adam W Levinson, Fatima Nabizada-Pace, Matthew E Pollard, David B Samadi.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the rate of overuse of preoperative imaging procedures in a referral cohort of low-risk patients. International evidence-based best practice guidelines discourage routine imaging for staging purposes in low-risk patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: An institutional database comprised of all patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy was queried for "low-risk" patients between May 2005 and January 2010. "Low-risk" was defined by the most inclusive criteria for imaging recommendations: prostate-specific antigen ≤10 ng/mL and Gleason score ≤6. We defined staging imaging as a bone scan, computed tomography (CT) of the pelvis or endorectal magnetic resonance imaging performed after the diagnosis of prostate cancer and before prostatectomy for the indication of "prostate cancer." Six-hundred seventy-seven patients were identified as having low-risk disease and comprised our study population.
RESULTS: Of the 677 patients identified as low risk, 328 (48%) underwent at least one preoperative imaging procedure despite the guideline recommendations. Two-hundred two of 677 (30%) patients were administered at least 2 of the 3 modalities, and 18/677 (3%) patients received all 3 imaging examinations before prostatectomy. Suspicious results from the CT (7/265%, 2.7%) or bone scan (21/241%, 8.7%) resulted in 27 patients undergoing additional radiographic imaging, none of which resulted in suspicious lesions requiring intervention or biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite international evidence-based guidelines for the staging of newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients, many urologists continue to refer low-risk patients for unnecessary imaging studies. This may place the patient at increased risk from radiation or contrast exposure and places an unnecessary financial burden on the patient and health care system.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20932557     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.07.491

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  28 in total

1.  [Which components should living guidelines contain?].

Authors:  L Weissbach
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  Health services research in urology.

Authors:  Hua-Yin Yu; William Ulmer; Keith J Kowalczyk; Jim C Hu
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-02-27       Impact factor: 4.226

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

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

Review 4.  Overuse of Health Care Services in the Management of Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Shrujal S Baxi; Minal Kale; Salomeh Keyhani; Benjamin R Roman; Annie Yang; Antonio P Derosa; Deborah Korenstein
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Inpatient Complexity in Radiology-a Practical Application of the Case Mix Index Metric.

Authors:  Thusitha Mabotuwana; Christopher S Hall; Sebastian Flacke; Shiby Thomas; Christoph Wald
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Prostate cancer bone metastases on staging prostate MRI: prevalence and clinical features associated with their diagnosis.

Authors:  Hebert Alberto Vargas; Rachel Schor-Bardach; Niamh Long; Anna N Kirzner; Jane D Cunningham; Debra A Goldman; Chaya S Moskowitz; Ramon E Sosa; Evis Sala; David M Panicek; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2017-01

Review 7.  Determinants of the overuse of imaging in low-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review.

Authors:  Allison H Oakes; Ritu Sharma; Madeline Jackson; Jodi B Segal
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 3.498

8.  What is the use of imaging before referral to an orthopaedic oncologist? A prospective, multicenter investigation.

Authors:  Benjamin J Miller; Raffi S Avedian; Rajiv Rajani; Lee Leddy; Jeremy R White; Judd Cummings; Tessa Balach; Kevin MacDonald
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 9.  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

10.  Evaluation of Posttreatment Follow-Up of Patients With Prostate Cancer Relative to the American College of Radiology's Appropriateness Criteria.

Authors:  Jennifer S McDonald; Rickey E Carter; R Jeffrey Karnes; John D Port; Akira Kawashima; Stephanie K Carlson; Claire E Bender
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 3.959

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.