Björn Löppenberg1,2, David F Friedlander1, Anna Krasnova1, Andrew Tam1, Jeffrey J Leow3, Paul L Nguyen4, Hawa Barry1, Stuart R Lipsitz1, Mani Menon5, Firas Abdollah5, Jesse D Sammon6, Maxine Sun1, Toni K Choueiri7, Adam S Kibel1, Quoc-Dien Trinh1. 1. Division of Urological Surgery, Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Urology, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. VUI Center for Outcomes Research, Analytics, and Evaluation, Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan. 6. Division of Urology and Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine. 7. Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study assessed the use of active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer and evaluated institutional factors associated with the receipt of active surveillance. METHODS: A retrospective, hospital-based cohort of 115,208 men with low-risk prostate cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 was used. Multivariate and mixed effects models were used to examine variation and factors associated with active surveillance. RESULTS: During the study period, the use of active surveillance increased from 6.8% in 2010 to 19.9% in 2014 (estimated annual percentage change, +28.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], + 19.6% to + 38.7%; P = .002). The adjusted probability of active-surveillance receipt by institution was highly variable. Compared with patients treated at comprehensive community cancer centers, patients treated at community cancer programs (odds ratio [OR], 2.00; 95% CI, 1.50-2.67; P < .001) and academic institutions (OR, 2.47; 95%, CI, 1.81-3.37; P < .001) had higher odds of receiving active surveillance. Compared with patients treated at very low-volume facilities, patients treated at very high-volume facilities had higher odds of receiving active surveillance (OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.94-6.55; P < .001). Patient and hospital characteristics accounted for 60.2% of the overall variation, whereas the treating institution accounted for 91.5% of the unexplained variability. CONCLUSIONS: Within this hospital-based cohort, the use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer increased significantly over time. Significant variation was found in the use of active surveillance. Most of the variation was attributable to facility-related factors such as the facility type, facility volume, and institution. Policies to achieve consistent and higher rates of active surveillance, when appropriate, should be a priority of professional societies and patient advocacy groups. Cancer 2018;124:55-64.
BACKGROUND: This study assessed the use of active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer and evaluated institutional factors associated with the receipt of active surveillance. METHODS: A retrospective, hospital-based cohort of 115,208 men with low-risk prostate cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 was used. Multivariate and mixed effects models were used to examine variation and factors associated with active surveillance. RESULTS: During the study period, the use of active surveillance increased from 6.8% in 2010 to 19.9% in 2014 (estimated annual percentage change, +28.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], + 19.6% to + 38.7%; P = .002). The adjusted probability of active-surveillance receipt by institution was highly variable. Compared with patients treated at comprehensive community cancer centers, patients treated at community cancer programs (odds ratio [OR], 2.00; 95% CI, 1.50-2.67; P < .001) and academic institutions (OR, 2.47; 95%, CI, 1.81-3.37; P < .001) had higher odds of receiving active surveillance. Compared with patients treated at very low-volume facilities, patients treated at very high-volume facilities had higher odds of receiving active surveillance (OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.94-6.55; P < .001). Patient and hospital characteristics accounted for 60.2% of the overall variation, whereas the treating institution accounted for 91.5% of the unexplained variability. CONCLUSIONS: Within this hospital-based cohort, the use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer increased significantly over time. Significant variation was found in the use of active surveillance. Most of the variation was attributable to facility-related factors such as the facility type, facility volume, and institution. Policies to achieve consistent and higher rates of active surveillance, when appropriate, should be a priority of professional societies and patient advocacy groups. Cancer 2018;124:55-64.
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
Authors: Simpa S Salami; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Srinivas Nallandhighal; Tonye A Jones; Scott Brockman; Fuad F Elkhoury; Selena Bazzi; Komal R Plouffe; Javed Siddiqui; Chia-Jen Liu; Lakshmi P Kunju; Todd M Morgan; Shyam Natarajan; Philip S Boonstra; Lauren Sumida; Scott A Tomlins; Aaron M Udager; Anthony E Sisk; Leonard S Marks; Ganesh S Palapattu Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ryan M Fiano; Gregory S Merrick; Kim E Innes; Malcolm D Mattes; Traci J LeMasters; Chan Shen; Usha Sambamoorthi Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh; Neal Patel; Xiaoyue Ma; Adam Calaway; Lee Ponsky; Jim C Hu; Jonathan E Shoag Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; Sarah L Mott; Bradley D McDowell; Sonia T Anand; Kenneth G Nepple Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 5.455
Authors: Kathryn A Marchetti; Mary Oerline; Brent K Hollenbeck; Samuel R Kaufman; Ted A Skolarus; Vahakn B Shahinian; Megan E V Caram; Parth K Modi Journal: Urology Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 2.633