Aaron D Falchook1, Laura H Hendrix1, Ronald C Chen2. 1. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 2. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC ronald_chen@med.unc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Overuse of radiographic imaging in patients with prostate cancer (CaP) who are unlikely to have metastatic disease is costly and can lead to patient harm from unnecessary procedures. However, underuse of imaging can lead to undiagnosed metastatic disease, resulting in aggressive treatments in patients with incurable disease. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends bone scans and computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during initial work-up of select patients with intermediate- or high-risk CaP. We quantify the proportion of patients who received work-up discordant with NCCN guidelines. METHODS: Patients in the SEER-Medicare database diagnosed from 2004 to 2007 were included. We report bone scan and CT/MRI from date of diagnosis to the earlier of first treatment or 6 months. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of patients for whom bone scan was recommended received it, and 49% received recommended CT/MRI. Further, 43% of patients for whom bone scan was not recommended received it, and 38% received CT/MRI when not recommended. Age and race were significantly associated with discordance on multivariable models. There was significant regional variation. Underuse of recommended bone and CT/MRI scans decreased in more recent years, but overuse of unnecessary CT/MRI increased. CONCLUSION: There is a high prevalence of both overuse and underuse of guideline-recommended imaging in CaP. Additional research is required to examine contributing factors to guideline nonadherence in the imaging work-up of CaP.
PURPOSE: Overuse of radiographic imaging in patients with prostate cancer (CaP) who are unlikely to have metastatic disease is costly and can lead to patient harm from unnecessary procedures. However, underuse of imaging can lead to undiagnosed metastatic disease, resulting in aggressive treatments in patients with incurable disease. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends bone scans and computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during initial work-up of select patients with intermediate- or high-risk CaP. We quantify the proportion of patients who received work-up discordant with NCCN guidelines. METHODS:Patients in the SEER-Medicare database diagnosed from 2004 to 2007 were included. We report bone scan and CT/MRI from date of diagnosis to the earlier of first treatment or 6 months. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of patients for whom bone scan was recommended received it, and 49% received recommended CT/MRI. Further, 43% of patients for whom bone scan was not recommended received it, and 38% received CT/MRI when not recommended. Age and race were significantly associated with discordance on multivariable models. There was significant regional variation. Underuse of recommended bone and CT/MRI scans decreased in more recent years, but overuse of unnecessary CT/MRI increased. CONCLUSION: There is a high prevalence of both overuse and underuse of guideline-recommended imaging in CaP. Additional research is required to examine contributing factors to guideline nonadherence in the imaging work-up of CaP.
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: Roderick C N van den Bergh; Piet Ost; Christian Surcel; Massimo Valerio; Jurgen J Fütterer; Giorgio Gandaglia; Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Derya Tilki; Igor Tsaur; Guillaume Ploussard Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-04-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Danil V Makarov; Elaine Y C Hu; Dawn Walter; R Scott Braithwaite; Scott Sherman; Heather T Gold; Xiao-Hua Andrew Zhou; Cary P Gross; Steven B Zeliadt Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 3.402
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
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