PURPOSE: The multidisciplinary approach is becoming increasingly encouraged but little is known about the multidisciplinary experience compared to routine care. For patients with prostate cancer the goal is to provide evaluations by urologists, medical and radiation oncologists at a single visit. Although additional resources are required, this strategy may enhance the overall health care experience. We compared utilization determinants between a multidisciplinary and a urology prostate cancer clinic at Duke University Medical Center and identified factors associated with pursuing treatment at the university medical center for multidisciplinary clinic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data on patients referred for primary prostate cancer treatment evaluation at Duke University Medical Center from 2005 to 2009. Comparisons between 701 multidisciplinary clinic and 1,318 urology prostate cancer clinic patients were examined with the rank sum and chi-square tests. Predictive factors for pursuing treatment at the university medical center were assessed using multivariate adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: Compared to patients at the urology prostate cancer clinic those at the multidisciplinary clinic were more likely to be younger and white, have a higher income and travel a longer distance for evaluation. Of multidisciplinary clinic patients 58% pursued primary treatment at the university medical center. They were more likely to be younger, black and physician referred, have a lower income and reside closer to the medical center. Factors predictive of pursuing treatment at the medical center included high risk disease and physician referral. Factors predictive of not receiving care at the university medical center were income greater than $40,000 and a distance traveled of greater than 100 miles. CONCLUSIONS: A different patient demographic is using the multidisciplinary approach. However, when treatment is pursued at the institution providing multidisciplinary services, the patient demographic resembles that of the treating institution.
PURPOSE: The multidisciplinary approach is becoming increasingly encouraged but little is known about the multidisciplinary experience compared to routine care. For patients with prostate cancer the goal is to provide evaluations by urologists, medical and radiation oncologists at a single visit. Although additional resources are required, this strategy may enhance the overall health care experience. We compared utilization determinants between a multidisciplinary and a urology prostate cancer clinic at Duke University Medical Center and identified factors associated with pursuing treatment at the university medical center for multidisciplinary clinic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data on patients referred for primary prostate cancer treatment evaluation at Duke University Medical Center from 2005 to 2009. Comparisons between 701 multidisciplinary clinic and 1,318 urology prostate cancer clinic patients were examined with the rank sum and chi-square tests. Predictive factors for pursuing treatment at the university medical center were assessed using multivariate adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: Compared to patients at the urology prostate cancer clinic those at the multidisciplinary clinic were more likely to be younger and white, have a higher income and travel a longer distance for evaluation. Of multidisciplinary clinic patients 58% pursued primary treatment at the university medical center. They were more likely to be younger, black and physician referred, have a lower income and reside closer to the medical center. Factors predictive of pursuing treatment at the medical center included high risk disease and physician referral. Factors predictive of not receiving care at the university medical center were income greater than $40,000 and a distance traveled of greater than 100 miles. CONCLUSIONS: A different patient demographic is using the multidisciplinary approach. However, when treatment is pursued at the institution providing multidisciplinary services, the patient demographic resembles that of the treating institution.
Authors: Chad Tang; Karen E Hoffman; Pamela K Allen; Molly Gabel; David Schreiber; Seungtaek Choi; Brian F Chapin; Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; John W Davis; Paul Corn; Christopher Logothetis; John Ward; Steven J Frank; Neema Navai; Sean E McGuire; Mitchell Anscher; Louis Pisters; Curtis A Pettaway; Rachit Kumar; Patrick Linson; Prabhakar Tripuraneni; Jeffrey J Tomaszewski; Ashish B Patel; Mark Augspurger; Deborah A Kuban Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: J Zhang; M N Mavros; D Cosgrove; K Hirose; J M Herman; S Smallwood-Massey; I Kamel; A Gurakar; R Anders; A Cameron; J F H Geschwind; T M Pawlik Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Debasish Sundi; Jason E Cohen; Alexander P Cole; Brian P Neuman; John Cooper; Farzana A Faisal; Ashley E Ross; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: Prostate Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Joceline V Vu; Arden M Morris; Lillias H Maguire; Ana C De Roo; Anudeep Mukkamala; John C Krauss; Scott E Regenbogen; Samantha Hendren; Karin M Hardiman Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2020-08-27 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Anna Patrikidou; Pierre Maroun; Jean-Jacques Patard; Hervé Baumert; Laurence Albiges; Christophe Massard; Yohann Loriot; Bernard Escudier; Mario Di Palma; Julia Arfi-Rouche; Laurence Rocher; Zahira Merabet; Alberto Bossi; Karim Fizazi; Pierre Blanchard Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-07-06