OBJECTIVE: The American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria panel has recommended that patients with prostate cancer who have received treatment undergo imaging only after suspected cancer recurrence. We examined whether local physicians followed this recommendation and what types of imaging examinations were ordered in a cohort of patients with local prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Rochester Epidemiology Project, a research consortium that collects, links, and stores medical record information of Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents, was used to capture the complete medical history of treated patients with prostate cancer from 2000 through 2011. Clinical information and imaging examinations performed were retrieved by chart review. Suspected recurrence was defined as treatment-specific prostate-specific antigen level elevations, bone pain, or abnormal digital rectal examination findings. RESULTS: Of the 670 treated patients with prostate cancer who were included in the final analysis, 129 (19%) underwent posttreatment imaging. After excluding imaging related to retreatment or another cancer, 13 patients (i.e., 2% of the entire cohort and 10% of imaged patients) underwent imaging in the absence of suspected recurrence. A total of 90 patients (70% of imaged patients) underwent imaging after suspected recurrence. Of these 90 patients, 62 (69%) underwent a bone scan as their first imaging modality either alone or in combination with other imaging modalities. Of the providers who ordered a bone scan first, 27% were urologists, 23% were radiation oncologists, and 24% were primary care physicians. CONCLUSION: Most patients in this study did not undergo imaging in the absence of suspected recurrence. Various types of imaging examinations were ordered for patients with suspected recurrence.
OBJECTIVE: The American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria panel has recommended that patients with prostate cancer who have received treatment undergo imaging only after suspected cancer recurrence. We examined whether local physicians followed this recommendation and what types of imaging examinations were ordered in a cohort of patients with local prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Rochester Epidemiology Project, a research consortium that collects, links, and stores medical record information of Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents, was used to capture the complete medical history of treated patients with prostate cancer from 2000 through 2011. Clinical information and imaging examinations performed were retrieved by chart review. Suspected recurrence was defined as treatment-specific prostate-specific antigen level elevations, bone pain, or abnormal digital rectal examination findings. RESULTS: Of the 670 treated patients with prostate cancer who were included in the final analysis, 129 (19%) underwent posttreatment imaging. After excluding imaging related to retreatment or another cancer, 13 patients (i.e., 2% of the entire cohort and 10% of imaged patients) underwent imaging in the absence of suspected recurrence. A total of 90 patients (70% of imaged patients) underwent imaging after suspected recurrence. Of these 90 patients, 62 (69%) underwent a bone scan as their first imaging modality either alone or in combination with other imaging modalities. Of the providers who ordered a bone scan first, 27% were urologists, 23% were radiation oncologists, and 24% were primary care physicians. CONCLUSION: Most patients in this study did not undergo imaging in the absence of suspected recurrence. Various types of imaging examinations were ordered for patients with suspected recurrence.
Entities:
Keywords:
American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria; bone scan; imaging guidelines; imaging utilization; prostate cancer
Authors: Hugh J Lavery; Jonathan S Brajtbord; Adam W Levinson; Fatima Nabizada-Pace; Matthew E Pollard; David B Samadi Journal: Urology Date: 2010-10-08 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Mette Nørgaard; Annette Østergaard Jensen; Jacob Bonde Jacobsen; Kara Cetin; Jon P Fryzek; Henrik Toft Sørensen Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-05-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Mario Eisenberger; Frederick J Dorey; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-07-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John A Miller; Eugenia Raichlin; Eric E Williamson; Robert B McCully; Patricia A Pellikka; David O Hodge; Todd D Miller; Raymond J Gibbons; Philip A Araoz Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2010 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: David D Casalino; Erick M Remer; Ronald S Arellano; Jay T Bishoff; Courtney A Coursey; Manjiri Dighe; Douglas F Eggli; Pat Fulgham; Gary M Israel; Elizabeth Lazarus; John R Leyendecker; Paul Nikolaidis; Nicholas Papanicolaou; Srinivasa Prasad; Parvati Ramchandani; Sheila Sheth; Raghunandan Vikram Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 5.532
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
Authors: Jennifer L St Sauver; Brandon R Grossardt; Barbara P Yawn; L Joseph Melton; Walter A Rocca Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 4.897