Vahakn B Shahinian1, Yong-Fang Kuo. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, 1415 Washington Heights, Room 3627, SPH I, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA, vahakn@umich.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines recommend bone mineral density (BMD) monitoring for men on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer, but single center studies suggest this is underutilized. OBJECTIVE: We examined determinants of BMD testing in men receiving ADT in a large population-based cohort of men with prostate cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER)-Medicare database to identify 84,036 men with prostate cancer initiating ADT from 1996 through 2008. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of BMD testing within the period 12 months prior to 3 months after initiation of ADT were assessed and compared to matched controls without cancer and to men with prostate cancer not receiving ADT. A logistic regression model was performed predicting use of BMD testing, adjusted for patient demographics, indications for ADT use, year of diagnosis and specialty of the physician involved in the care of the patient. KEY RESULTS: Rates of BMD testing increased steadily over time in men receiving ADT, diverging from the control groups such that by 2008, 11.5 % of men were receiving BMD testing versus 4.4 % in men with prostate cancer not on ADT and 3.8 % in the non-cancer controls. In the logistic regression model, year of diagnosis, race/ethnicity, indications for ADT use and geographic region were significant predictors of BMD testing. Patients with only a urologist involved in their care were significantly less likely to receive BMD testing as compared to those with both a urologist and a primary care physician (PCP) (odds ratio 0.71, 95 % confidence interval 0.64-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: There has been a sharp increase in rates of BMD testing among men receiving ADT for prostate cancer over time, beyond rates noted in contemporaneous controls. Absolute rates of BMD testing remain low, however, but are higher in men who have a PCP involved in their care.
BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines recommend bone mineral density (BMD) monitoring for men on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer, but single center studies suggest this is underutilized. OBJECTIVE: We examined determinants of BMD testing in men receiving ADT in a large population-based cohort of men with prostate cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER)-Medicare database to identify 84,036 men with prostate cancer initiating ADT from 1996 through 2008. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of BMD testing within the period 12 months prior to 3 months after initiation of ADT were assessed and compared to matched controls without cancer and to men with prostate cancer not receiving ADT. A logistic regression model was performed predicting use of BMD testing, adjusted for patient demographics, indications for ADT use, year of diagnosis and specialty of the physician involved in the care of the patient. KEY RESULTS: Rates of BMD testing increased steadily over time in men receiving ADT, diverging from the control groups such that by 2008, 11.5 % of men were receiving BMD testing versus 4.4 % in men with prostate cancer not on ADT and 3.8 % in the non-cancer controls. In the logistic regression model, year of diagnosis, race/ethnicity, indications for ADT use and geographic region were significant predictors of BMD testing. Patients with only a urologist involved in their care were significantly less likely to receive BMD testing as compared to those with both a urologist and a primary care physician (PCP) (odds ratio 0.71, 95 % confidence interval 0.64-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: There has been a sharp increase in rates of BMD testing among men receiving ADT for prostate cancer over time, beyond rates noted in contemporaneous controls. Absolute rates of BMD testing remain low, however, but are higher in men who have a PCP involved in their care.
Authors: Matthew R Smith; Won Chan Lee; Jane Brandman; Qin Wang; Marc Botteman; Chris L Pashos Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrew Wilcox; Molly L Carnes; Timothy D Moon; Renee Tobias; Heather Baade; Emily Stamos; Mary E Elliott Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2006-11-28 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Jeffrey R Curtis; Andrew J Laster; David J Becker; Laura Carbone; Lisa C Gary; Meredith L Kilgore; Robert Matthews; Michael A Morrisey; Kenneth G Saag; S Bobo Tanner; Elizabeth Delzell Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2008-09-12 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Ellen F T Yee; Robert E White; Glen H Murata; Christine Handanos; Richard M Hoffman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-07-17 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Peter S Kirk; Tudor Borza; Vahakn B Shahinian; Megan E V Caram; Danil V Makarov; Jeremy B Shelton; John T Leppert; Ryan M Blake; Jennifer A Davis; Brent K Hollenbeck; Anne Sales; Ted A Skolarus Journal: BJU Int Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Alex Z Fu; Huei-Ting Tsai; Reina Haque; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Andrea E Cassidy-Bushrow; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Nancy L Keating; Matthew R Smith; Yingjun Zhou; David S Aaronson; Arnold L Potosky Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jennifer M Jones; Derek S Tsang; Shiyu Zheng; Ariel Yeheskel; Charles N Catton; Angela M Cheung; Robert Hamilton; Shabbir M H Alibhai Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Maria E Suarez-Almazor; Xerxes Pundole; Gerardo Cabanillas; Xiudong Lei; Hui Zhao; Linda S Elting; Maria A Lopez-Olivo; Sharon H Giordano Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-04-01
Authors: Brent K Hollenbeck; Mary Oerline; Samuel R Kaufman; Megan E V Caram; Stacie B Dusetzina; Andy M Ryan; Vahakn B Shahinian Journal: Urology Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 2.649