Florian R Schroeck1, Samuel R Kaufman2, Bruce L Jacobs3, Brent K Hollenbeck4. 1. Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire; Veterans Affairs Outcomes Group, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont. 2. Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: bhollen@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated whether patients with prostate cancer who received best care according to a set of 5 nationally endorsed quality measures had decreased treatment related morbidity and improved cancer control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study we included 38,055 men from the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare database treated for localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2010. We determined whether each patient received best care, defined as care adherent to all applicable measures. We measured associations of best care with the need for interventions, addressing treatment related morbidity, and with the need for secondary cancer therapy using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Only 3,412 men (9.0%) received best care. Five years after treatment these men and men who did not receive best care had a similar likelihood of undergoing procedures for urinary morbidity (prostatectomy subset 10.7% vs 12.9%, p = 0.338) and secondary cancer therapy (prostatectomy for high risk prostate cancer subset 40.9% vs 37.3%, p = 0.522). However, they were more likely to be treated with a procedure for sexual morbidity (prostatectomy 17.3% vs 10.8%, p <0.001). Similar trends were observed in men treated with radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall men who received best care did not fare better in regard to treatment related morbidity or cancer control. Collectively our findings suggest that the current process of care measures are not tightly linked to outcomes and further research is needed to identify better measures that are meaningful and important to patients.
PURPOSE: We evaluated whether patients with prostate cancer who received best care according to a set of 5 nationally endorsed quality measures had decreased treatment related morbidity and improved cancer control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study we included 38,055 men from the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare database treated for localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2010. We determined whether each patient received best care, defined as care adherent to all applicable measures. We measured associations of best care with the need for interventions, addressing treatment related morbidity, and with the need for secondary cancer therapy using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Only 3,412 men (9.0%) received best care. Five years after treatment these men and men who did not receive best care had a similar likelihood of undergoing procedures for urinary morbidity (prostatectomy subset 10.7% vs 12.9%, p = 0.338) and secondary cancer therapy (prostatectomy for high risk prostate cancer subset 40.9% vs 37.3%, p = 0.522). However, they were more likely to be treated with a procedure for sexual morbidity (prostatectomy 17.3% vs 10.8%, p <0.001). Similar trends were observed in men treated with radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall men who received best care did not fare better in regard to treatment related morbidity or cancer control. Collectively our findings suggest that the current process of care measures are not tightly linked to outcomes and further research is needed to identify better measures that are meaningful and important to patients.
Authors: Florian R Schroeck; Samuel R Kaufman; Bruce L Jacobs; Ted A Skolarus; David C Miller; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Alon Z Weizer; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Maxine Sun; Jesse Sammon; Marco Bianchi; Shyam Sukumar; Khurshid R Ghani; Wooju Jeong; Ali Dabaja; Shahrokh F Shariat; Paul Perrotte; Piyush K Agarwal; Craig G Rogers; James O Peabody; Mani Menon; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jim C Hu; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Michael J Barry; Anthony V D'Amico; Aaron C Weinberg; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 56.272
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
Authors: Florian R Schroeck; Samuel R Kaufman; Bruce L Jacobs; Ted A Skolarus; John M Hollingsworth; Vahakn B Shahinian; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-10-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: David Reeves; Stephen M Campbell; John Adams; Paul G Shekelle; Evan Kontopantelis; Martin O Roland Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Davide Gori; Rajendra Dulal; Douglas W Blayney; James D Brooks; Maria P Fantini; Kathryn M McDonald; Tina Hernandez-Boussard Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2018-09-18
Authors: Janet S de Moor; Katherine S Virgo; Chunyu Li; Neetu Chawla; Xuesong Han; Danielle Blanch-Hartigan; Donatus U Ekwueme; Timothy S McNeel; Juan L Rodriguez; K Robin Yabroff Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Narhari Timilshina; Antonio Finelli; George Tomlinson; Anna Gagliardi; Beate Sander; Shabbir M H Alibhai Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 1.862