Matthew J Maurice1, Hui Zhu2, Robert Abouassaly1. 1. University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH. 2. Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center and Cleveland Clinic South Pointe Hospital, Cleveland, OH.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Initial observation (IO) is a strategy to minimize prostate cancer overtreatment. We sought to evaluate contemporary trends in IO utilization for low-risk prostate cancer in the United States and to identify factors associated with its uptake. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified men with low-risk prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2011. IO utilization was plotted over time. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the influence of diagnosis year and other factors on IO selection. RESULTS: Of the 219 971 men with low-risk prostate cancer, 21 231 (9.7%) underwent IO. Beginning in 2008, IO use increased significantly with time (range: 7.5%-14.3%). Compared to 2004, patients diagnosed in 2011 had 2.5 times the odds of choosing IO (odds ratio [OR] 2.5, confidence interval [CI] 2.3-2.6, p < 0.01). Aside from diagnosis year, age, race, Charlson score, clinical T stage, and PSA level predicted IO use (p < 0.01). Other predictors of IO included hospital type, insurance provider, and household income. Specifically, comprehensive cancer centres, private insurance, and higher income predicted decreased IO usage (OR 0.5, CI 0.5-0.5, p < 0.01; OR 0.4, CI 0.4-0.4, p < 0.01; and OR 0.8, CI 0.8-0.9, p < 0.01, respectively). Less educated men were also less likely to undergo observation (OR 0.8, CI 0.8-0.9, p < 0.01). Treatment within the western United States was significantly, but weakly, associated with increased use of IO (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, low-risk prostate cancer has been increasingly managed with IO, appropriately driven by patient and disease factors. Unexpectedly, observation usage also varies by race, hospital, insurance, income, and geography, suggesting that non-clinical factors may affect treatment selection.
INTRODUCTION: Initial observation (IO) is a strategy to minimize prostate cancer overtreatment. We sought to evaluate contemporary trends in IO utilization for low-risk prostate cancer in the United States and to identify factors associated with its uptake. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified men with low-risk prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2011. IO utilization was plotted over time. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the influence of diagnosis year and other factors on IO selection. RESULTS: Of the 219 971 men with low-risk prostate cancer, 21 231 (9.7%) underwent IO. Beginning in 2008, IO use increased significantly with time (range: 7.5%-14.3%). Compared to 2004, patients diagnosed in 2011 had 2.5 times the odds of choosing IO (odds ratio [OR] 2.5, confidence interval [CI] 2.3-2.6, p < 0.01). Aside from diagnosis year, age, race, Charlson score, clinical T stage, and PSA level predicted IO use (p < 0.01). Other predictors of IO included hospital type, insurance provider, and household income. Specifically, comprehensive cancer centres, private insurance, and higher income predicted decreased IO usage (OR 0.5, CI 0.5-0.5, p < 0.01; OR 0.4, CI 0.4-0.4, p < 0.01; and OR 0.8, CI 0.8-0.9, p < 0.01, respectively). Less educated men were also less likely to undergo observation (OR 0.8, CI 0.8-0.9, p < 0.01). Treatment within the western United States was significantly, but weakly, associated with increased use of IO (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, low-risk prostate cancer has been increasingly managed with IO, appropriately driven by patient and disease factors. Unexpectedly, observation usage also varies by race, hospital, insurance, income, and geography, suggesting that non-clinical factors may affect treatment selection.
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: Brian D Odom; M C Mir; Scott Hughes; Cedric Senechal; Alexis Santy; Remi Eyraud; Andrew J Stephenson; Kelly Ylitalo; Ranko Miocinovic Journal: Urology Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Hongyan Wu; Leon Sun; Judd W Moul; Hong Yu Wu; David G McLeod; Christopher Amling; Raymond Lance; Leo Kusuda; Timothy Donahue; John Foley; Andrew Chung; Wade Sexton; Douglas Soderdahl Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Chad R Ritch; Amy J Graves; Kirk A Keegan; Shenghua Ni; Jeffrey C Bassett; Sam S Chang; Matthew J Resnick; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; Tania Lobo; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Kimberly M Davis; George Luta; Amethyst D Leimpeter; David Aaronson; David F Penson; Kathryn Taylor Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 2.583