Robert Steven Gerhard1, Dattatraya Patil1, Yuan Liu2, Kenneth Ogan1, Mehrdad Alemozaffar3, Ashesh B Jani4, Omer N Kucuk5, Viraj A Master3, Theresa W Gillespie6, Christopher P Filson7. 1. Department of Urology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 2. Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 3. Department of Urology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 4. Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 5. Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Hematology and Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 6. Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Hematology and Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Department of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 7. Department of Urology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta Veterans Administration Medical Center, Decatur, GA. Electronic address: cfilson@emory.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We characterized factors related to nondefinitive management (NDM) of patients with high-risk prostate cancer and assessed impact from race, insurance status, and facility-level volume of technologically advanced prostate cancer treatments (i.e., intensity-modulated radiation therapy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy) on this outcome. METHODS: We identified men with high-risk localized prostate cancer (based on D׳Amico criteria) in the National Cancer Database (2010-2012). Primary outcome was NDM (i.e., delayed/no treatment with prostatectomy/radiation therapy or androgen-deprivation monotherapy). Treating facilities were classified by quartiles of proportions of patients treated with advanced technology. Multivariable regression estimated odds of primary outcome based on race, insurance status, and facility-level technology use, and evaluated for interactions between these covariates. RESULTS: Among 60,300 patients, 9,265 (15.4%) received NDM. This was more common among non-White men (P<0.001), Medicaid/uninsured patients (P<0.001), and those managed at facilities in the lowest quartile of technology use (25.1% vs. 11.0% highest, P<0.001). Though NDM was common among non-White men with Medicaid/no insurance treated at low-technology centers (43% vs. 10% White, private/Medicare, high-tech facility; adjusted odds ratios = 7.18, P<0.001), this was less likely if this group was managed at a high-tech hospital (22% vs. 43% low-tech, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Technology use at a facility correlates with high-quality prostate cancer care and is associated with diminished disparities based on insurance status and patient race. More research is required to characterize other facility-level factors explaining these findings. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: We characterized factors related to nondefinitive management (NDM) of patients with high-risk prostate cancer and assessed impact from race, insurance status, and facility-level volume of technologically advanced prostate cancer treatments (i.e., intensity-modulated radiation therapy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy) on this outcome. METHODS: We identified men with high-risk localized prostate cancer (based on D׳Amico criteria) in the National Cancer Database (2010-2012). Primary outcome was NDM (i.e., delayed/no treatment with prostatectomy/radiation therapy or androgen-deprivation monotherapy). Treating facilities were classified by quartiles of proportions of patients treated with advanced technology. Multivariable regression estimated odds of primary outcome based on race, insurance status, and facility-level technology use, and evaluated for interactions between these covariates. RESULTS: Among 60,300 patients, 9,265 (15.4%) received NDM. This was more common among non-White men (P<0.001), Medicaid/uninsured patients (P<0.001), and those managed at facilities in the lowest quartile of technology use (25.1% vs. 11.0% highest, P<0.001). Though NDM was common among non-White men with Medicaid/no insurance treated at low-technology centers (43% vs. 10% White, private/Medicare, high-tech facility; adjusted odds ratios = 7.18, P<0.001), this was less likely if this group was managed at a high-tech hospital (22% vs. 43% low-tech, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Technology use at a facility correlates with high-quality prostate cancer care and is associated with diminished disparities based on insurance status and patient race. More research is required to characterize other facility-level factors explaining these findings. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: John W Yaxley; Geoffrey D Coughlin; Suzanne K Chambers; Stefano Occhipinti; Hema Samaratunga; Leah Zajdlewicz; Nigel Dunglison; Rob Carter; Scott Williams; Diane J Payton; Joanna Perry-Keene; Martin F Lavin; Robert A Gardiner Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Justin E Bekelman; Nandita Mitra; Elizabeth A Handorf; Robert G Uzzo; Stephen A Hahn; Daniel Polsky; Katrina Armstrong Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-01-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jim C Hu; Padraic O'Malley; Bilal Chughtai; Abby Isaacs; Jialin Mao; Jason D Wright; Dawn Hershman; Art Sedrakyan Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; David J Bentrem; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Clifford Y Ko Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Elyn H Wang; James B Yu; Robert Abouassally; Neal J Meropol; Gregory Cooper; Nilay D Shah; Stephen B Williams; Christopher Gonzalez; Marc C Smaldone; Alexander Kutikov; Hui Zhu; Simon P Kim Journal: Urology Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Tomi F Akinyemiju; Gurudatta Naik; Kemi Ogunsina; Daniel T Dibaba; Neomi Vin-Raviv Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Matthew G Parry; Arunan Sujenthiran; Thomas E Cowling; Julie Nossiter; Paul Cathcart; Noel W Clarke; Heather Payne; Ajay Aggarwal; Jan van der Meulen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Daphne Y Lichtensztajn; John T Leppert; James D Brooks; Sumit A Shah; Weiva Sieh; Benjamin I Chung; Scarlett L Gomez; Iona Cheng Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 12.693
Authors: Penny Fang; Weiguo He; Daniel Gomez; Karen E Hoffman; Benjamin D Smith; Sharon H Giordano; Reshma Jagsi; Grace L Smith Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-05-04