BACKGROUND: The use of radiographic imaging (bone scan and computerized tomography) is only recommended for men diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer characteristics. The authors sought to characterize utilization patterns of imaging in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: The authors performed a population-based observational cohort study using the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data to identify 30,183 men diagnosed with prostate cancer during 2004 to 2005. RESULTS: Thirty-four percent of men with low-risk and 48% with intermediate-risk prostate cancer underwent imaging, whereas only 60% of men with high-risk disease received imaging before treatment. Radiographic imaging utilization was greater for men who were older than 75 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-1.37; P < .001), were black (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21; P = .030), resided in wealthier areas (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.32 for median income >$60,000 vs <$35,000; P < .001), lived in rural regions (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.12-1.36; P < .001), or underwent standard radiation therapies (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.60-1.84; P < .001). Imaging utilization was less for men living in areas with greater high school education (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.91 between highest and lowest graduation rates; P < .001) or opting for active surveillance (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.15-0.19 vs radical prostatectomy; P < .001). The estimated cost of unnecessary imaging over this 2-year period exceeded $3.6 million. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, there is widespread overutilization of imaging for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, whereas a worrisome number of men with high-risk disease did not receive appropriate imaging studies to exclude metastases before therapy.
BACKGROUND: The use of radiographic imaging (bone scan and computerized tomography) is only recommended for men diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer characteristics. The authors sought to characterize utilization patterns of imaging in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: The authors performed a population-based observational cohort study using the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data to identify 30,183 men diagnosed with prostate cancer during 2004 to 2005. RESULTS: Thirty-four percent of men with low-risk and 48% with intermediate-risk prostate cancer underwent imaging, whereas only 60% of men with high-risk disease received imaging before treatment. Radiographic imaging utilization was greater for men who were older than 75 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-1.37; P < .001), were black (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21; P = .030), resided in wealthier areas (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.32 for median income >$60,000 vs <$35,000; P < .001), lived in rural regions (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.12-1.36; P < .001), or underwent standard radiation therapies (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.60-1.84; P < .001). Imaging utilization was less for men living in areas with greater high school education (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.91 between highest and lowest graduation rates; P < .001) or opting for active surveillance (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.15-0.19 vs radical prostatectomy; P < .001). The estimated cost of unnecessary imaging over this 2-year period exceeded $3.6 million. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, there is widespread overutilization of imaging for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, whereas a worrisome number of men with high-risk disease did not receive appropriate imaging studies to exclude metastases before therapy.
Authors: Melissa K Accordino; Jason D Wright; Sowmya Vasan; Alfred I Neugut; Grace C Hillyer; Jim C Hu; Dawn L Hershman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 44.544
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
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
Authors: Justin R Gregg; Maximilian Lang; Lucy L Wang; Matthew J Resnick; Sandeep K Jain; Jeremy L Warner; Daniel A Barocas Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2017-06-08
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