S P Porten1, A Smith2, A Y Odisho1, M S Litwin3, C S Saigal3, P R Carroll1, M R Cooperberg1. 1. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA. 3. 1] Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA [2] Department of Health Services, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have found persistent overuse of imaging for clinical staging of men with low-risk prostate cancer. We aimed to determine imaging trends in three cohorts of men. METHODS: We analyzed imaging trends of men with prostate cancer who were a part of Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) (1998-2006), were insured by Medicare (1998-2006), or privately insured (Ingenix database, 2002-2006). The rates of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and bone scan (BS) were determined and time trends were analyzed by linear regression. For men in CaPSURE, demographic and clinical predictors of test use were explored using a multivariable regression model. RESULTS: Since 1998, there was a significant downward trend in BS (16%) use in the CaPSURE cohort (N=5156). There were slight downward trends (2.4 and 1.7%, respectively) in the use of CT and MRI. Among 54 322 Medicare patients, BS, CT and MRI use increased by 2.1, 10.8 and 2.2% and among 16 161 privately insured patients, use increased by 7.9, 8.9 and 3.7%, respectively. In CaPSURE, the use of any imaging test was greater in men with higher-risk disease. In addition, type of insurance and treatment affected the use of imaging tests in this population. CONCLUSIONS: There is widespread misuse of imaging tests in men with low-risk prostate cancer, particularly for CT. These findings highlight the need for examination of factors that drive decision making with respect to imaging in this setting.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have found persistent overuse of imaging for clinical staging of men with low-risk prostate cancer. We aimed to determine imaging trends in three cohorts of men. METHODS: We analyzed imaging trends of men with prostate cancer who were a part of Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) (1998-2006), were insured by Medicare (1998-2006), or privately insured (Ingenix database, 2002-2006). The rates of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and bone scan (BS) were determined and time trends were analyzed by linear regression. For men in CaPSURE, demographic and clinical predictors of test use were explored using a multivariable regression model. RESULTS: Since 1998, there was a significant downward trend in BS (16%) use in the CaPSURE cohort (N=5156). There were slight downward trends (2.4 and 1.7%, respectively) in the use of CT and MRI. Among 54 322 Medicare patients, BS, CT and MRI use increased by 2.1, 10.8 and 2.2% and among 16 161 privately insured patients, use increased by 7.9, 8.9 and 3.7%, respectively. In CaPSURE, the use of any imaging test was greater in men with higher-risk disease. In addition, type of insurance and treatment affected the use of imaging tests in this population. CONCLUSIONS: There is widespread misuse of imaging tests in men with low-risk prostate cancer, particularly for CT. These findings highlight the need for examination of factors that drive decision making with respect to imaging in this setting.
Authors: Jonathan S Brajtbord; Hugh J Lavery; Fatima Nabizada-Pace; Prathibha Senaratne; David B Samadi Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-08-26 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: David C Miller; Daniel S Murtagh; Ronald S Suh; Peter M Knapp; Timothy G Schuster; Rodney L Dunn; James E Montie Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-07-23 Impact factor: 7.450
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: D Lee; J Fontugne; N Gumpeni; K Park; T Y MacDonald; B D Robinson; A Sboner; M A Rubin; J M Mosquera; C E Barbieri Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Boyd R Viers; Matthew K Tollefson; David E Patterson; Matthew T Gettman; Amy E Krambeck Journal: World J Clin Cases Date: 2014-11-16 Impact factor: 1.337
Authors: Apurva A Bonde; Elena K Korngold; Bryan R Foster; Antonio C Westphalen; David R Pettersson; Megan L Troxell; Jeffry P Simko; Fergus V Coakley Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Peter S Kirk; Tudor Borza; Megan E V Caram; Dean A Shumway; Danil V Makarov; Jennifer A Burns; Jeremy B Shelton; John T Leppert; Christina Chapman; Michael Chang; Brent K Hollenbeck; Ted A Skolarus Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Hala T Borno; Tracy Kuo Lin; Anobel Y Odisho; Arpita Desai; Vadim Koshkin; Kalin Werner; Nichole Legaspi; Matthew Bucknor; Alexander Bell; Sylvia Zhang; Thomas A Hope Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-11-28 Impact factor: 4.452