Bruce L Jacobs1,2, Jonathan G Yabes2,3, Samia H Lopa1, Dwight E Heron4, Chung-Chou H Chang3,5, Florian R Schroeck6, Justin E Bekelman7,8,9, Jeremy M Kahn10, Joel B Nelson1, Amber E Barnato2,3,11. 1. Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Center for Research on Health Care, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 6. White River Junction Veterans Affairs Medical Center and The Dartmouth Institute Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 8. Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 9. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 10. Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 11. Department of Health Policy Management, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several new prostate cancer treatments have emerged since 2000, including 2 radiotherapies with similar efficacy at the time of their introduction: intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The objectives of this study were to compare their early adoption patterns and identify factors associated with their use. METHODS: By using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, patients who received radiation therapy during the 5 years after IMRT introduction (2001-2005) and the 5 years after SBRT introduction (2007-2011) were identified. The outcome of interest was the receipt of new radiation therapy (ie, IMRT or SBRT) compared with the existing standard radiation therapies at that time. The authors fit a series of multivariable, hierarchical logistic regression models accounting for patients nested within health service areas to examine the factors associated with the receipt of new radiation therapy. RESULTS: During 2001 to 2005, 5680 men (21%) received IMRT compared with standard radiation (n = 21,555). Men who received IMRT were older, had higher grade tumors, and lived in more populated areas (P < .05). During 2007 through 2011, 595 men (2%) received SBRT compared with standard radiation (n = 28,255). Men who received ng SBRT were more likely to be white, had lower grade tumors, lived in more populated areas, and were more likely to live in the Northeast (P < .05). Adjusting for cohort demographic and clinical factors, the early adoption rate for IMRT was substantially higher than that for SBRT (44% vs 4%; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: There is a stark contrast in the adoption rates of IMRT and SBRT at the time of their introduction. Further investigation of the nonclinical factors associated with this difference is warranted. Cancer 2017;123:2945-54.
BACKGROUND: Several new prostate cancer treatments have emerged since 2000, including 2 radiotherapies with similar efficacy at the time of their introduction: intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The objectives of this study were to compare their early adoption patterns and identify factors associated with their use. METHODS: By using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, patients who received radiation therapy during the 5 years after IMRT introduction (2001-2005) and the 5 years after SBRT introduction (2007-2011) were identified. The outcome of interest was the receipt of new radiation therapy (ie, IMRT or SBRT) compared with the existing standard radiation therapies at that time. The authors fit a series of multivariable, hierarchical logistic regression models accounting for patients nested within health service areas to examine the factors associated with the receipt of new radiation therapy. RESULTS: During 2001 to 2005, 5680 men (21%) received IMRT compared with standard radiation (n = 21,555). Men who received IMRT were older, had higher grade tumors, and lived in more populated areas (P < .05). During 2007 through 2011, 595 men (2%) received SBRT compared with standard radiation (n = 28,255). Men who received ng SBRT were more likely to be white, had lower grade tumors, lived in more populated areas, and were more likely to live in the Northeast (P < .05). Adjusting for cohort demographic and clinical factors, the early adoption rate for IMRT was substantially higher than that for SBRT (44% vs 4%; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: There is a stark contrast in the adoption rates of IMRT and SBRT at the time of their introduction. Further investigation of the nonclinical factors associated with this difference is warranted. Cancer 2017;123:2945-54.
Authors: Sujay A Vora; William W Wong; Steven E Schild; Gary A Ezzell; Michele Y Halyard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-03-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Bruce L Jacobs; Yun Zhang; Florian R Schroeck; Ted A Skolarus; John T Wei; James E Montie; Scott M Gilbert; Seth A Strope; Rodney L Dunn; David C Miller; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rosh K V Sethi; Antonia J Henry; Nathanael D Hevelone; Stuart R Lipsitz; Michael Belkin; Louis L Nguyen Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Joshua A Halpern; Art Sedrakyan; Wei-Chun Hsu; Jialin Mao; Timothy J Daskivich; Paul L Nguyen; Encouse B Golden; Josephine Kang; Jim C Hu Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Bruce L Jacobs; Jonathan G Yabes; Samia H Lopa; Dwight E Heron; Chung-Chou H Chang; Justin E Bekelman; Joel B Nelson; Julie P W Bynum; Amber E Barnato; Jeremy M Kahn Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Nima Aghdam; Michael Carrasquilla; Edina Wang; Abigail N Pepin; Malika Danner; Marilyn Ayoob; Thomas Yung; Brian T Collins; Deepak Kumar; Simeng Suy; Sean P Collins; Jonathan W Lischalk Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 6.244