Literature DB >> 29990573

National Trends in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Validation of Medicare Claims-based Algorithms.

Parth K Modi1, Samuel R Kaufman2, Ji Qi3, Brian R Lane4, Michael L Cher5, David C Miller6, Brent K Hollenbeck7, Vahakn B Shahinian8, James M Dupree9.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To better describe the real-world use of active surveillance. Active surveillance is a preferred management option for low-risk prostate cancer, yet its use outside of high-volume institutions is poorly understood. We created multiple claims-based algorithms, validated them using a robust clinical registry, and applied them to Medicare claims to describe national utilization.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men with prostate cancer from 2012-2014 in a 100% sample of Michigan Medicare data and linked them with the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry. Using MUSIC treatment assignment as the standard, we determined the performance of 8 claims-based algorithms to identify men on active surveillance. We selected 3 algorithms (the most sensitive, the most specific, and a balanced algorithm incorporating age and comorbidity) and applied them to a 20% national Medicare sample to describe national trends.
RESULTS: We identified 1186 men with incident prostate cancer and completely linked data. Eight algorithms were tested with sensitivity ranging from 23.5% to 88.2% and specificity ranging from 93.5% to 99.1%. We found that the use of surveillance for men with incident prostate cancer increased from 2007 to 2014, nationally. However, among all men in the population, there was a large decrease in the rate of prostate cancer diagnosis and an increased or stable rate in the use of active surveillance, depending on the algorithm used. Less than 25% of men on active surveillance underwent a confirmatory prostate biopsy.
CONCLUSION: We describe the performance of claims-based algorithms to identify active surveillance.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29990573      PMCID: PMC6462187          DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.06.037

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  11 in total

1.  Role of Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Clinical Stage in Evaluation of Disease Progression for Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Gregory T Chesnut; Emily A Vertosick; Nicole Benfante; Daniel D Sjoberg; Jonathan Fainberg; Taehyoung Lee; James Eastham; Vincent Laudone; Peter Scardino; Karim Touijer; Andrew Vickers; Behfar Ehdaie
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is Associated with Increased Medicare Spending in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Liam C Macleod; Jonathan G Yabes; Mina M Fam; Jathin Bandari; Michelle Yu; Avinash Maganty; Alessandro Furlan; Christopher P Filson; Benjamin J Davies; Bruce L Jacobs
Journal:  Eur Urol Focus       Date:  2019-04-25

3.  Primary Care Physician Perspectives on Low Risk Prostate Cancer Management: Results of a National Survey.

Authors:  Archana Radhakrishnan; Lauren P Wallner; Ted A Skolarus; Vahakn B Shahinian; Paul H Abrahamse; Michael D Fetters; Sarah T Hawley
Journal:  Urol Pract       Date:  2021-04-22

4.  Costs and Complications After a Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer Treated With Time-Efficient Modalities: An Analysis of National Medicare Data.

Authors:  Chad Tang; Xiudong Lei; Grace L Smith; Hubert Y Pan; Kenneth Hess; Aileen Chen; Karen E Hoffman; Brian F Chapin; Deborah A Kuban; Mitchell Anscher; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Steven J Frank; Benjamin D Smith
Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-04-13

5.  Trends in treatments for prostate cancer in the United States, 2010-2015.

Authors:  Jianwei Wang; Harry Hua-Xiang Xia; Yuanyuan Zhang; Lanjing Zhang
Journal:  Am J Cancer Res       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 6.166

6.  Development and Utility of the Observational Research in Oncology Toolbox: Cancer Medications Enquiry Database-Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS).

Authors:  Donna R Rivera; Clara J K Lam; Lindsey Enewold; Valentina I Petkov; Quyen Tran; Sean Brennan; Lois Dickie; Timothy S McNeel; Annie M Noone; Bradley Ohm; Dolly P White; Joan L Warren; Angela B Mariotto; Lynne Penberthy
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2020-05-01

7.  Patient-reported Health Status, Comorbidity Burden, and Prostate Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Stephen McMahon; Ram Basak; Xi Zhou; Angela B Smith; Lixin Song; Raj S Pruthi; Eric M Wallen; Matthew E Nielsen; Hung-Jui Tan
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2020-12-19       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Factors Associated with Time to Conversion from Active Surveillance to Treatment for Prostate Cancer in a Multi-Institutional Cohort.

Authors:  Lauren Folgosa Cooley; Adaeze A Emeka; Travis J Meyers; Phillip R Cooper; Daniel W Lin; Antonio Finelli; James A Eastham; Christopher J Logothetis; Leonard S Marks; Danny Vesprini; S Larry Goldenberg; Celestia S Higano; Christian P Pavlovich; June M Chan; Todd M Morgan; Eric A Klein; Daniel A Barocas; Stacy Loeb; Brian T Helfand; Denise M Scholtens; John S Witte; William J Catalona
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2021-09-10       Impact factor: 7.600

9.  Trends in the use of active surveillance and treatments in Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Yu Liu; Ingrid J Hall; Christopher Filson; David H Howard
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 2.954

10.  Urology Workforce Changes and Implications for Prostate Cancer Care Among Medicare Enrollees.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.