Bonnie Liu1, Kunal Jana2, Gary Groot3. 1. College of Medicine; University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada. 2. Department of Urology; University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada. 3. Department of Community Health and Epidemiology; University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Saskatoon Prostate Assessment Pathway (SPAP) was developed in 2013 in part to decrease the wait times between physician referral and biopsy for patients with suspected prostate cancer. Using an algorithm carefully designed to optimize appropriate prostate biopsy rates, physicians can directly refer patients for biopsy through the SPAP without seeing a urologist. All other patients are referred to the Saskatoon Urology Associates (SUA). The present study evaluates the performance of the algorithm. METHODS: 971 patients seen at the SUA and 302 patients seen through the SPAP were identified. Information on age, biopsy status and outcome, risk stratification, and time between referral and biopsy was collected. Biopsy wait time data was analyzed using gamma distribution. Association between referral method and biopsy rate, and between referral method and risk stratification, was analyzed using Z-test. RESULTS: The expected wait time from referral to biopsy for patients seen through SUA was 2.63 times longer than those seen through SPAP (34 vs. 91 days). The biopsy rate of patients seen in the SPAP was significantly higher than those by SUA (88% vs. 69%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.26; p<0.00001). There was no significant difference in positive biopsy rates for patients seen through the SPAP vs. SUA (81% vs. 74%, 95% CI -0.011,0.14; p=0.095), for detection of low-risk cancer, (12% vs. 10%, 95% CI -0.034,0.080; p=0.44), or for clinically relevant cancer, i.e., intermediate- and high-risk cancer, for SPAP vs. SUA (56.54% vs. 56.68%, 95% CI -0.091,0.089; p=0.49). CONCLUSIONS: The algorithm used in the SPAP is effective in decreasing wait time to prostate biopsy and has the same cancer/pre-cancer detection rate, but at the cost of a higher biopsy rate. Both referral mechanisms result in few low-risk cancer detection biopsies, finding primarily cases of high- or intermediate-risk cancer.
INTRODUCTION: The Saskatoon Prostate Assessment Pathway (SPAP) was developed in 2013 in part to decrease the wait times between physician referral and biopsy for patients with suspected prostate cancer. Using an algorithm carefully designed to optimize appropriate prostate biopsy rates, physicians can directly refer patients for biopsy through the SPAP without seeing a urologist. All other patients are referred to the Saskatoon Urology Associates (SUA). The present study evaluates the performance of the algorithm. METHODS: 971 patients seen at the SUA and 302 patients seen through the SPAP were identified. Information on age, biopsy status and outcome, risk stratification, and time between referral and biopsy was collected. Biopsy wait time data was analyzed using gamma distribution. Association between referral method and biopsy rate, and between referral method and risk stratification, was analyzed using Z-test. RESULTS: The expected wait time from referral to biopsy for patients seen through SUA was 2.63 times longer than those seen through SPAP (34 vs. 91 days). The biopsy rate of patients seen in the SPAP was significantly higher than those by SUA (88% vs. 69%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.26; p<0.00001). There was no significant difference in positive biopsy rates for patients seen through the SPAP vs. SUA (81% vs. 74%, 95% CI -0.011,0.14; p=0.095), for detection of low-risk cancer, (12% vs. 10%, 95% CI -0.034,0.080; p=0.44), or for clinically relevant cancer, i.e., intermediate- and high-risk cancer, for SPAP vs. SUA (56.54% vs. 56.68%, 95% CI -0.091,0.089; p=0.49). CONCLUSIONS: The algorithm used in the SPAP is effective in decreasing wait time to prostate biopsy and has the same cancer/pre-cancer detection rate, but at the cost of a higher biopsy rate. Both referral mechanisms result in few low-risk cancer detection biopsies, finding primarily cases of high- or intermediate-risk cancer.
Authors: Rodolfo Montironi; Vincenzo Scattoni; Roberta Mazzucchelli; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; David G Bostwick; Francesco Montorsi Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-08-10 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Paul Baker; Helen Beesley; Robert Dinwoodie; Ian Fletcher; Jan Ablett; Christopher Holcombe; Peter Salmon Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2012-08-14 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Pepijn Brocken; Judith B Prins; P N Richard Dekhuijzen; Henricus F M van der Heijden Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Patrik Finne; Ralf Finne; Chris Bangma; Jonas Hugosson; Matti Hakama; Anssi Auvinen; Ulf-Håkan Stenman Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2004-08-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Margaret I Fitch; Ross E Gray; Tom McGowan; Ian Brunskill; Shawn Steggles; Scott Sellick; Andrea Bezjak; Donna McLeese Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2003 Oct-Nov Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Donna K Pauler; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Howard L Parnes; Lori M Minasian; Leslie G Ford; Scott M Lippman; E David Crawford; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-27 Impact factor: 91.245