Literature DB >> 24321784

Use of bone scan during initial prostate cancer workup, downstream procedures, and associated Medicare costs.

Aaron D Falchook1, Ramzi G Salloum2, Laura H Hendrix1, Ronald C Chen3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: For patients with a high likelihood of having metastatic disease (high-risk prostate cancer), bone scan is the standard, guideline-recommended test to look for bony metastasis. We quantified the use of bone scans and downstream procedures, along with associated costs, in patients with high-risk prostate cancer, and their use in low- and intermediate-risk patients for whom these tests are not recommended. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2004 to 2007 were included. Prostate specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score, and clinical T stage were used to define D'Amico risk categories. We report use of bone scans from the date of diagnosis to the earlier of treatment or 6 months. In patients who underwent bone scans, we report use of bone-specific x-ray, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, and bone biopsy within 3 months after bone scan. Costs were estimated using 2012 Medicare reimbursement rates.
RESULTS: In all, 31% and 48% of patients with apparent low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer underwent a bone scan; of these patients, 21% underwent subsequent x-rays, 7% CT, and 3% MRI scans. Bone biopsies were uncommon. Overall, <1% of low- and intermediate-risk patients were found to have metastatic disease. The annual estimated Medicare cost for bone scans and downstream procedures was $11,300,000 for low- and intermediate-risk patients. For patients with apparent high-risk disease, only 62% received a bone scan, of whom 14% were found to have metastasis.
CONCLUSIONS: There is overuse of bone scans in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancers, which is unlikely to yield clinically actionable information and results in a potential Medicare waste. However, there is underuse of bone scans in high-risk patients for whom metastasis is likely.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24321784      PMCID: PMC5842944          DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.10.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  6 in total

1.  Inappropriate utilization of radiographic imaging in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in the United States.

Authors:  Sandip M Prasad; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Paul L Nguyen; Jim C Hu
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-08-05       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Overuse of imaging for staging low risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Wesley W Choi; Stephen B Williams; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Paul L Nguyen; Jim C Hu
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  The population level prevalence and correlates of appropriate and inappropriate imaging to stage incident prostate cancer in the medicare population.

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; Rani A Desai; James B Yu; Richa Sharma; Nitya Abraham; Peter C Albertsen; David F Penson; Cary P Gross
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Cost implications of the rapid adoption of newer technologies for treating prostate cancer.

Authors:  Paul L Nguyen; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Toni K Choueiri; Wesley W Choi; Yin Lei; Karen E Hoffman; Jim C Hu
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-03-14       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-09-16       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  A refined comorbidity measurement algorithm for claims-based studies of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer patients.

Authors:  Carrie N Klabunde; Julie M Legler; Joan L Warren; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2007-05-25       Impact factor: 3.797

  6 in total
  16 in total

Review 1.  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

Review 2.  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

3.  Use and overuse of diagnostic neck ultrasound in Ontario: Retrospective population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Stephen F Hall; Rebecca Griffiths
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  Prostate cancer: Better use of bone scans in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Steven M Larson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2014-11-11       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  Comparison of orthogonal NLP methods for clinical phenotyping and assessment of bone scan utilization among prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Jean Coquet; Selen Bozkurt; Kathleen M Kan; Michelle K Ferrari; Douglas W Blayney; James D Brooks; Tina Hernandez-Boussard
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2019-04-20       Impact factor: 6.317

6.  Variations in Preoperative Use of Bone Scan Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Radical Cystectomy.

Authors:  Robert M Turner; Jonathan G Yabes; Benjamin J Davies; Dwight E Heron; Bruce L Jacobs
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Application of bone scans for prostate cancer staging: Which guideline shows better result?

Authors:  Ari Chong; Insang Hwang; Jung-Min Ha; Seong Hyeon Yu; Eu Chang Hwang; Ho Song Yu; Sun Ouck Kim; Seung-Il Jung; Taek Won Kang; Dong Deuk Kwon; Kwangsung Park
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 8.  Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world.

Authors:  Shannon Brownlee; Kalipso Chalkidou; Jenny Doust; Adam G Elshaug; Paul Glasziou; Iona Heath; Somil Nagpal; Vikas Saini; Divya Srivastava; Kelsey Chalmers; Deborah Korenstein
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  External Validation of and Factors Associated with the Overuse Index: a Nationwide Population-Based Study from Taiwan.

Authors:  Yu-Chi Tung; Guo-Hong Li; Hsien-Yen Chang
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 10.  Surgical management of high-risk, localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Lamont J Wilkins; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Debasish Sundi; Ashley E Ross; Dominic Grimberg; Eric A Klein; Brian F Chapin; Yaw A Nyame
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.