Literature DB >> 24518783

Variation in use of active surveillance among men undergoing expectant treatment for early stage prostate cancer.

Christopher P Filson1, Florian R Schroeck2, Zaojun Ye3, John T Wei3, Brent K Hollenbeck3, David C Miller3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We examined variation in active surveillance use in Medicare eligible men undergoing expectant treatment for early stage prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results) and Medicare data we identified 49,192 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from 2004 through 2007. Of 7,347 patients who did not receive treatment (ie expectant management) within 12 months of diagnosis we assessed the prevalence of active surveillance (ie repeat prostate biopsy and prostate specific antigen measurement) vs watchful waiting across health care markets. We fit multivariable logistic regression models to examine associations of active surveillance with patient demographics, cancer severity and health care market characteristics.
RESULTS: During the study interval use of active surveillance vs watchful waiting increased significantly in patients treated expectantly from 9.7% in 2004 to 15.3% in 2007 (p <0.001). Active surveillance was less common in older patients, those with high risk tumors and those with more comorbidities (each p <0.001). Patients who were white and had higher socioeconomic status were more likely to receive active surveillance (each p <0.05). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics significant differences in the predicted probability of active surveillance persisted across health care markets (range 2.4% to 30.1%). No significant variation in active surveillance use was associated with specific health care market characteristics, including intensity of end of life care, Medicare reimbursement or provider density.
CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance has been relatively uncommon in Medicare beneficiaries with localized prostate cancer. Its use relative to watchful waiting varies based on patient demographics, tumor severity and geographic location.
Copyright © 2014 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Medicare; SEER program; physician's practice patterns; prostate; prostatic neoplasms

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24518783     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.01.105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  23 in total

1.  Prospective quality-of-life outcomes for low-risk prostate cancer: Active surveillance versus radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Claudio Jeldres; Jennifer Cullen; Lauren M Hurwitz; Erika M Wolff; Katherine E Levie; Katherine Odem-Davis; Richard B Johnston; Khanh N Pham; Inger L Rosner; Timothy C Brand; James O L'Esperance; Joseph R Sterbis; Ruth Etzioni; Christopher R Porter
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-04-06       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  The uptake of active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer: A population-based analysis.

Authors:  Patrick O Richard; Shabbir M H Alibhai; Tony Panzarella; Laurence Klotz; Maria Komisarenko; Neil E Fleshner; David Urbach; Antonio Finelli
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 3.  Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Use, Outcomes, Imaging, and Diagnostic Tools.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Stacy Loeb; Jonathan I Epstein; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Edward M Schaeffer
Journal:  Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book       Date:  2016

4.  Creating a National Provider Identifier (NPI) to Unique Physician Identification Number (UPIN) Crosswalk for Medicare Data.

Authors:  Helen M Parsons; Lindsey R Enewold; Robert Banks; Michael J Barrett; Joan L Warren
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Variation in Guideline Concordant Active Surveillance Followup in Diverse Urology Practices.

Authors:  Amy N Luckenbaugh; Gregory B Auffenberg; Scott R Hawken; Apoorv Dhir; Susan Linsell; Sanjeev Kaul; David C Miller
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Active treatment in low-risk prostate cancer: a population-based study.

Authors:  S Roy; M E Hyndman; B Danielson; A Fairey; R Lee-Ying; W Y Cheung; A R Afzal; Y Xu; T Abedin; H C Quon
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 7.  Exploring Variation in the Use of Conservative Management for Low-risk Prostate Cancer in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Nataliya K Byrne; Binhuan Wang; Danil V Makarov; Daniel Becker; David R Wise; Herbert Lepor; Dawn Walter
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2020-02-22       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Analysis of active surveillance uptake for low-risk localized prostate cancer in Canada: a Canadian multi-institutional study.

Authors:  Narhari Timilshina; Veronique Ouellet; Shabbir M H Alibhai; Anne-Marie Mes-Masson; Nathalie Delvoye; Darrel Drachenberg; Antonio Finelli; Marie-Paule Jammal; Pierre Karakiewicz; Hélène Lapointe; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Kenny Lynch; Jean-Benoît Paradis; Paula Sitarik; Alan So; Fred Saad
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-07-22       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Treatment patterns for older veterans with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Richard M Hoffman; Ying Shi; Stephen J Freedland; Nancy L Keating; Louise C Walter
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2015-07-27       Impact factor: 2.984

10.  Sociodemographic and Clinical Predictors of Switching to Active Treatment among a Large, Ethnically Diverse Cohort of Men with Low Risk Prostate Cancer on Observational Management.

Authors:  Scott P Kelly; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Richard M Hoffman; David S Aaronson; Tania Lobo; George Luta; Amethyst D Leimpter; Jun Shan; Arnold L Potosky; Kathryn L Taylor
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.