Majed Alghamdi1, Amandeep Taggar2, Derek Tilley3, Marc Kerba2, Xanthoula Kostaras3, Geoffrey Gotto4, Michael Sia2. 1. Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Calgary and Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada; Albaha University, Albaha, Saudi Arabia. 2. Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Calgary and Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada. 3. CancerControl, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada. 4. Division of Urology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to determine the impact of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) on rates of radiation oncologist (RO) referral, androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), radiation therapy (RT), and radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PCa). METHODS: All men >18 years, diagnosed with PCa in 2005 and 2012 were identified from the Alberta Cancer Registry. Patient age, aggregated clinical risk group (ACRG) score, Gleason score (GS), pre-treatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA), RO referral, and treatment received were extracted from electronic medical records. Logistic regression modelling was used to examine associations between RO referral rates and relevant factors. RESULTS: HR-PCa was diagnosed in 261 of 1792 patients in 2005 and 435 of 2148 in 2012. Median age and ACRG scores were similar in both years (p>0.05). The rate of patients with PSA >20 were 67% and 57% in 2005 and 2012, respectively (p=0.004). GS ≤6 was found in 13% vs. 5% of patients, GS 7 in 27% vs. 24%, and GS ≥8 in 59% vs. 71% in 2005 and 2012, respectively (p<0.001). In 2005, RO referral rate was 68% compared to 56% in 2012 (p=0.001), use of RT + ADT was 53% compared to 32% (p<0.001), and RP rate was 9% vs. 17% (p=0.002). On regression analysis, older age, 2012 year of diagnosis and higher PSA were associated with decreased RO referral rates (odds ratios [OR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.61; OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.76; and OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39-0.61), respectively [p<0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: Since CPG creation in 2005, RO referral rates and ADT + RT use declined and RP rates increased, which demonstrates a need to improve adherence to CPG in the HR-PCa population.
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to determine the impact of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) on rates of radiation oncologist (RO) referral, androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), radiation therapy (RT), and radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PCa). METHODS: All men >18 years, diagnosed with PCa in 2005 and 2012 were identified from the Alberta Cancer Registry. Patient age, aggregated clinical risk group (ACRG) score, Gleason score (GS), pre-treatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA), RO referral, and treatment received were extracted from electronic medical records. Logistic regression modelling was used to examine associations between RO referral rates and relevant factors. RESULTS:HR-PCa was diagnosed in 261 of 1792 patients in 2005 and 435 of 2148 in 2012. Median age and ACRG scores were similar in both years (p>0.05). The rate of patients with PSA >20 were 67% and 57% in 2005 and 2012, respectively (p=0.004). GS ≤6 was found in 13% vs. 5% of patients, GS 7 in 27% vs. 24%, and GS ≥8 in 59% vs. 71% in 2005 and 2012, respectively (p<0.001). In 2005, RO referral rate was 68% compared to 56% in 2012 (p=0.001), use of RT + ADT was 53% compared to 32% (p<0.001), and RP rate was 9% vs. 17% (p=0.002). On regression analysis, older age, 2012 year of diagnosis and higher PSA were associated with decreased RO referral rates (odds ratios [OR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.61; OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.76; and OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39-0.61), respectively [p<0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: Since CPG creation in 2005, RO referral rates and ADT + RT use declined and RP rates increased, which demonstrates a need to improve adherence to CPG in the HR-PCa population.
Authors: T R Herrmann; R Rabenalt; J U Stolzenburg; E N Liatsikos; F Imkamp; H Tezval; A J Gross; U Jonas; M Burchardt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2007-03-13 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Stephen A Boorjian; R Jeffrey Karnes; Rosalia Viterbo; Laureano J Rangel; Eric J Bergstralh; Eric M Horwitz; Michael L Blute; Mark K Buyyounouski Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Brendan C Visser; Yifei Ma; Yulia Zak; George A Poultsides; Jeffrey A Norton; Kim F Rhoads Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Ofer Yossepowitch; Scott E Eggener; Angel M Serio; Brett S Carver; Fernando J Bianco; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-10-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Anders Widmark; Olbjørn Klepp; Arne Solberg; Jan-Erik Damber; Anders Angelsen; Per Fransson; Jo-Asmund Lund; Ilker Tasdemir; Morten Hoyer; Fredrik Wiklund; Sophie D Fosså Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Padraig Warde; Malcolm Mason; Keyue Ding; Peter Kirkbride; Michael Brundage; Richard Cowan; Mary Gospodarowicz; Karen Sanders; Edmund Kostashuk; Greg Swanson; Jim Barber; Andrea Hiltz; Mahesh K B Parmar; Jinka Sathya; John Anderson; Charles Hayter; John Hetherington; Matthew R Sydes; Wendy Parulekar Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Janet E Squires; Danielle Cho-Young; Laura D Aloisio; Robert Bell; Stephen Bornstein; Susan E Brien; Simon Decary; Melissa Demery Varin; Mark Dobrow; Carole A Estabrooks; Ian D Graham; Megan Greenough; Doris Grinspun; Michael Hillmer; Tanya Horsley; Jiale Hu; Alan Katz; Christina Krause; John Lavis; Wendy Levinson; Adrian Levy; Michelina Mancuso; Steve Morgan; Letitia Nadalin-Penno; Andrew Neuner; Tamara Rader; Wilmer J Santos; Gary Teare; Joshua Tepper; Amanda Vandyk; Michael Wilson; Jeremy M Grimshaw Journal: CMAJ Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 16.859