Yu Liu1, Ingrid J Hall2, Christopher Filson3, David H Howard4. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 2. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. 3. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. 4. Department of Health Policy and Management, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Electronic address: david.howard@emory.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The treatment for men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer has changed over time given the increased attention to the harms associated with over-diagnosis and the development of protocols for active surveillance. METHODS: We examined trends in the treatment of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2015, using the most recently available data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)-Medicare. Patients were stratified by Gleason score, age, and race groups. RESULTS: The use of active surveillance increased from 22% in 2004-2005 to 50% in 2014-2015 for patients with a Gleason score of 6 or below and increased from 9% in 2004-2005 to 13% in 2014-2015 for patients with a Gleason score of 7 or above. Patients with a Gleason score of 7 or above had increased use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and prostatectomy, especially among patients aged 75 years and older. Among patients with a Gleason score of 6 or below non-Hispanic black men were less likely to undergo active surveillance than non-Hispanic white men. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a large increase in the use of active surveillance among men with a Gleason score of 6 or below. However, non-Hispanic black men with a Gleason score of 6 or below are less likely to receive active surveillance.
BACKGROUND: The treatment for men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer has changed over time given the increased attention to the harms associated with over-diagnosis and the development of protocols for active surveillance. METHODS: We examined trends in the treatment of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2015, using the most recently available data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)-Medicare. Patients were stratified by Gleason score, age, and race groups. RESULTS: The use of active surveillance increased from 22% in 2004-2005 to 50% in 2014-2015 for patients with a Gleason score of 6 or below and increased from 9% in 2004-2005 to 13% in 2014-2015 for patients with a Gleason score of 7 or above. Patients with a Gleason score of 7 or above had increased use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and prostatectomy, especially among patients aged 75 years and older. Among patients with a Gleason score of 6 or below non-Hispanic black men were less likely to undergo active surveillance than non-Hispanic white men. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a large increase in the use of active surveillance among men with a Gleason score of 6 or below. However, non-Hispanic black men with a Gleason score of 6 or below are less likely to receive active surveillance.
Authors: A V Diez Roux; S S Merkin; D Arnett; L Chambless; M Massing; F J Nieto; P Sorlie; M Szklo; H A Tyroler; R L Watson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-07-12 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek J Rosario; Edward Rowe; David E Neal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert T Dess; Holly E Hartman; Brandon A Mahal; Payal D Soni; William C Jackson; Matthew R Cooperberg; Christopher L Amling; William J Aronson; Christopher J Kane; Martha K Terris; Zachary S Zumsteg; Santino Butler; Joseph R Osborne; Todd M Morgan; Rohit Mehra; Simpa S Salami; Amar U Kishan; Chenyang Wang; Edward M Schaeffer; Mack Roach; Thomas M Pisansky; William U Shipley; Stephen J Freedland; Howard M Sandler; Susan Halabi; Felix Y Feng; James J Dignam; Paul L Nguyen; Matthew J Schipper; Daniel E Spratt Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; George Luta; Vasiliki Zotou; Tania Lobo; Richard M Hoffman; Kimberly M Davis; Arnold L Potosky; Tengfei Li; David Aaronson; Stephen K Van Den Eeden Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2021-12-14