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. 1. Dow Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: pamodi@med.umich.edu. 2. Dow Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: skaufman@med.umich.edu. 3. Dow Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: qiji@med.umich.edu. 4. Urologic Oncology, Spectrum Health, Grand Rapids, MI. Electronic address: Brian.Lane@spectrumhealth.org. 5. Department of Urology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. Electronic address: mcher@med.wayne.edu. 6. Dow Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: dcmiller@med.umich.edu. 7. Dow Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: bhollen@med.umich.edu. 8. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: vahakn@med.umich.edu. 9. Dow Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: jmdupree@med.umich.edu.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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