Stacy Loeb1, Nataliya K Byrne2, Binhuan Wang3, Danil V Makarov4, Daniel Becker5, David R Wise6, Herbert Lepor7, Dawn Walter4. 1. Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY, USA; Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: stacyloeb@gmail.com. 2. Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY, USA. 3. Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA. 4. Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY, USA; Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA. 5. Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Medicine, New York University, New York, NY, USA. 6. Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY, USA; Department of Medicine, New York University, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
Current guidelines recommend conservative management as the preferred option for most low-risk prostate cancer cases, with certain possible exceptions (age <55yr, African Americans, and high-volume grade group 1). Although previous studies have documented substantial heterogeneity in the uptake of conservative management, less is known about the underlying reason for this variation and whether it is due to guideline-concordant factors (age, race, and biopsy cancer volume). We explored variation in the use of conservative management for low-risk prostate cancer among 20 597 men diagnosed in the US Veterans Affairs health care system from 2010 to 2016. Conservative management increased substantially over this time from 51% to 76% (p< 0.001). However, there was substantial variation by facility (35-100%). Multivariable analysis revealed that patient factors included in the guidelines (e.g., age and biopsy cores), other patient factors (eg, marital status and PSA) and non-patient factors (eg, geographic region, case volume, year) were associated with conservative management use. In conclusion, even within an integrated health care system, there remains significant heterogeneity in the uptake of conservative management for low-risk prostate cancer. Both guideline-concordant factors and other factors not discussed in the guidelines were associated with conservative management use. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the US Veterans Affairs health care system the vast majority of men with low-risk prostate cancer were managed conservatively by 2016, although there was significant variation by facility. Patient factors specifically mentioned in guidelines had the greatest impact on prediction of conservative management. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Current guidelines recommend conservative management as the preferred option for most low-risk prostate cancer cases, with certain possible exceptions (age <55yr, African Americans, and high-volume grade group 1). Although previous studies have documented substantial heterogeneity in the uptake of conservative management, less is known about the underlying reason for this variation and whether it is due to guideline-concordant factors (age, race, and biopsy cancer volume). We explored variation in the use of conservative management for low-risk prostate cancer among 20 597 men diagnosed in the US Veterans Affairs health care system from 2010 to 2016. Conservative management increased substantially over this time from 51% to 76% (p< 0.001). However, there was substantial variation by facility (35-100%). Multivariable analysis revealed that patient factors included in the guidelines (e.g., age and biopsy cores), other patient factors (eg, marital status and PSA) and non-patient factors (eg, geographic region, case volume, year) were associated with conservative management use. In conclusion, even within an integrated health care system, there remains significant heterogeneity in the uptake of conservative management for low-risk prostate cancer. Both guideline-concordant factors and other factors not discussed in the guidelines were associated with conservative management use. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the US Veterans Affairs health care system the vast majority of men with low-risk prostate cancer were managed conservatively by 2016, although there was significant variation by facility. Patient factors specifically mentioned in guidelines had the greatest impact on prediction of conservative management. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Entities:
Keywords:
Active surveillance; Conservative management; Prostate cancer; Veterans; Watchful waiting
Authors: Nataniel H Lester-Coll; Henry S Park; Charles E Rutter; Christopher D Corso; Brandon R Mancini; Debra N Yeboa; Simon P Kim; Cary P Gross; James B Yu Journal: Urology Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Christopher P Filson; Florian R Schroeck; Zaojun Ye; John T Wei; Brent K Hollenbeck; David C Miller Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ronald C Chen; R Bryan Rumble; D Andrew Loblaw; Antonio Finelli; Behfar Ehdaie; Matthew R Cooperberg; Scott C Morgan; Scott Tyldesley; John J Haluschak; Winston Tan; Stewart Justman; Suneil Jain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 44.544
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