Huei-Ting Tsai1, George Philips2, Kathryn L Taylor1, Keith Kowalczyk3, Kuo Huai-Ching1, Arnold L Potosky1. 1. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Georgetown University, Washington D.C., USA. 2. Department of Medicine, Georgetown University Medical Center, Georgetown University, Washington D.C., USA. 3. Department of Urology, Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Road, NW, Washington, DC 20007 USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Expectant management (EM) reduces overtreatment in low-risk but not intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa). We assessed the use and predictors of EM to understand its uptake in U.S. practice. METHODS: Using the U.S. SEER-Medicare database, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of men 66 years and older diagnosed with low-risk (N=25,506) or intermediate-risk (N=25,597) localized PCa between 2004 - 2011 and followed through December 31, 2012. We defined EM as no definitive therapy (DT) and at least one prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or re-biopsy 4 - 12 months post diagnosis; or receiving DT after PSA testing or re-biopsy 7 - 12 months after diagnosis. We performed separate analyses for low-risk and intermediate-risk groups using multiple logistic regressions. RESULTS: For men diagnosed with PCa in 2004-2011, EM increased from 22% to 43% in the low-risk group and from 15% to 18% in the intermediate-risk group. In the low-risk group, EM increased with patients' age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.26 for 71-75 years; 2.21 for 76-80 years; 6.33 for older then 80, p<0.0001, compared to 66-70 years). EM uptake was higher among men with comorbidities (aOR=1.29), and residing in the Pacific region (aOR=0.56, compared to the East Coast). CONCLUSIONS: In U.S. practice, the utilization of EM steadily increased in low-risk PCa and remained low in the intermediate-risk group over time. While patients with advanced age or comorbidities were more likely to receive EM, its use varied substantially by geographic region. Our findings bring attention to the presence of multiple barriers for EM implementation.
INTRODUCTION: Expectant management (EM) reduces overtreatment in low-risk but not intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa). We assessed the use and predictors of EM to understand its uptake in U.S. practice. METHODS: Using the U.S. SEER-Medicare database, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of men 66 years and older diagnosed with low-risk (N=25,506) or intermediate-risk (N=25,597) localized PCa between 2004 - 2011 and followed through December 31, 2012. We defined EM as no definitive therapy (DT) and at least one prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or re-biopsy 4 - 12 months post diagnosis; or receiving DT after PSA testing or re-biopsy 7 - 12 months after diagnosis. We performed separate analyses for low-risk and intermediate-risk groups using multiple logistic regressions. RESULTS: For men diagnosed with PCa in 2004-2011, EM increased from 22% to 43% in the low-risk group and from 15% to 18% in the intermediate-risk group. In the low-risk group, EM increased with patients' age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.26 for 71-75 years; 2.21 for 76-80 years; 6.33 for older then 80, p<0.0001, compared to 66-70 years). EM uptake was higher among men with comorbidities (aOR=1.29), and residing in the Pacific region (aOR=0.56, compared to the East Coast). CONCLUSIONS: In U.S. practice, the utilization of EM steadily increased in low-risk PCa and remained low in the intermediate-risk group over time. While patients with advanced age or comorbidities were more likely to receive EM, its use varied substantially by geographic region. Our findings bring attention to the presence of multiple barriers for EM implementation.
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: Brandon A Mahal; Matthew R Cooperberg; Ayal A Aizer; David R Ziehr; Andrew S Hyatt; Toni K Choueiri; Jim C Hu; Christopher J Sweeney; Clair J Beard; Anthony V D'Amico; Neil E Martin; Peter F Orio; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Paul L Nguyen Journal: Am J Med Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Karen E Hoffman; Jiangong Niu; Yu Shen; Jing Jiang; John W Davis; Jeri Kim; Deborah A Kuban; George H Perkins; Jay B Shah; Grace L Smith; Robert J Volk; Thomas A Buchholz; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Grace L Lu-Yao; Peter C Albertsen; Dirk F Moore; Yong Lin; Robert S DiPaola; Siu-Long Yao Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-03-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Patricia A Ganz; John M Barry; Wylie Burke; Nananda F Col; Phaedra S Corso; Everett Dodson; M Elizabeth Hammond; Barry A Kogan; Charles F Lynch; Lee Newcomer; Eric J Seifter; Janet A Tooze; Kasisomayajula Vish Viswanath; Hunter Wessells Journal: NIH Consens State Sci Statements Date: 2011 Dec 5-7
Authors: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Hans Garmo; Jennifer R Rider; Kimmo Taari; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Anders Spångberg; Ove Andrén; Juni Palmgren; Gunnar Steineck; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marcin Popiolek; Jennifer R Rider; Ove Andrén; Sven-Olof Andersson; Lars Holmberg; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-10-13 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Roderick C N van den Bergh; Hashim U Ahmed; Chris H Bangma; Matthew R Cooperberg; Arnauld Villers; Christopher C Parker Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Donna L Berry; Fangxin Hong; Traci M Blonquist; Barbara Halpenny; Christopher P Filson; Viraj A Master; Martin G Sanda; Peter Chang; Gary W Chien; Randy A Jones; Tracey L Krupski; Seth Wolpin; Leslie Wilson; Julia H Hayes; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Mitchell Sokoloff; Prabhakara Somayaji Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 7.450