Sung Kim1,2,3, Akshar N Patel1,2, Carl Nelson4, Shunhua Shen5, Tina Mayer1,3, Dirk F Moore1,6, Grace L Lu-Yao1,7,3. 1. Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, NewBrunswick, NJ. 3. The Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Center. 4. The University of Vermont Cancer Center, Radiation Oncology. 5. Smith Hanley Consulting Group. 6. Department of Biostatistics, The School of Public Health, Rutgers, Piscataway, NJ. 7. Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Certificate of Need (CON) laws are optional from state to state, and are meant to limit proliferation of certain unnecessary medical facilities. Theoretically, CON should limit the use of IMRT (intensity modulated radiation therapy) in the population who likely would benefit from it the least: older or debilitated men with low risk prostate cancer. We evaluated the effect of CON on IMRT use in these patients in a population-based cohort. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database linked with Medicare files, we identified male residents of SEER regions who were diagnosed in 2004-2009 with low- risk prostate cancer (T1, Gleason≤6, PSA<10) and were either ≥70 years old or ≥65 years old with Charlson comorbidity score ≥ 2. The endpoint was percentage of newly diagnosed patients who were treated with IMRT within 12 month of cancer diagnosis. Logistic regression was used to assess the impact of CON laws on IMRT use. RESULTS: Over 37% (4,491) of the patients came from states with radiation oncology CON laws, whereas 63% (7,572) came from non-CON states. IMRT was performed on 30% of CON patients versus 28% of non-CON patients. Logistic regression analysis revealed that IMRT was utilized more often in CON states than in non-CON states, odds ratio (OR) 1.13 (95% CI 1.04-1.23, p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: CON laws do not effectively limit use of IMRT in older or debilitated patients with low risk prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: Certificate of Need (CON) laws are optional from state to state, and are meant to limit proliferation of certain unnecessary medical facilities. Theoretically, CON should limit the use of IMRT (intensity modulated radiation therapy) in the population who likely would benefit from it the least: older or debilitated men with low risk prostate cancer. We evaluated the effect of CON on IMRT use in these patients in a population-based cohort. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database linked with Medicare files, we identified male residents of SEER regions who were diagnosed in 2004-2009 with low- risk prostate cancer (T1, Gleason≤6, PSA<10) and were either ≥70 years old or ≥65 years old with Charlson comorbidity score ≥ 2. The endpoint was percentage of newly diagnosed patients who were treated with IMRT within 12 month of cancer diagnosis. Logistic regression was used to assess the impact of CON laws on IMRT use. RESULTS: Over 37% (4,491) of the patients came from states with radiation oncology CON laws, whereas 63% (7,572) came from non-CON states. IMRT was performed on 30% of CON patients versus 28% of non-CON patients. Logistic regression analysis revealed that IMRT was utilized more often in CON states than in non-CON states, odds ratio (OR) 1.13 (95% CI 1.04-1.23, p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: CON laws do not effectively limit use of IMRT in older or debilitated patients with low risk prostate cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Certificate of Need; Prostate cancer; radiation therapy
Authors: Abhinav Khanna; Jim C Hu; Xiangmei Gu; Paul L Nguyen; Stuart Lipsitz; Ganesh S Palapattu Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Toni K Choueiri; Wesley W Choi; Yin Lei; Karen E Hoffman; Jim C Hu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael J Zelefsky; Zvi Fuks; Margie Hunt; Yoshiya Yamada; Christine Marion; C Clifton Ling; Howard Amols; E S Venkatraman; Steven A Leibel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Abrahim Al-Mamgani; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Stephanie T H Peeters; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-08-19 Impact factor: 7.038