Stephen McMahon1, Ram Basak2, Xi Zhou3, Angela B Smith4, Lixin Song5, Raj S Pruthi6, Eric M Wallen7, Matthew E Nielsen4, Hung-Jui Tan8. 1. School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 3. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 4. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Department of Urology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 5. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; School of Nursing, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 6. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 7. Department of Urology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 8. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Department of Urology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. Electronic address: ray_tan@med.unc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient-reported health status, more so than comorbidity, influences treatment in men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data linked with Medicare claims and CAHPS surveys, we identified men aged 65-84 diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from 2004 to 2013 and ascertained their National Cancer Institute (NCI) comorbidity score and patient-reported health status. Adjusting for demographics and cancer risk, we examined the relationship between these measures and treatment for the overall cohort, low-risk men aged 65-74, intermediate/high-risk men aged 65-74, and men aged 75-84. RESULTS: Among 2724 men, 43.0% rated their overall health as Excellent/Very Good, while 62.7% had a comorbidity score of 0. Beyond age and cancer risk, patient-reported health status was significantly associated with treatment. Compared to men reporting Excellent/Very Good health, men in Poor/Fair health less often received treatment (odds ratio [OR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.90). Younger men with intermediate/high-risk cancer in Good (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41-0.88) or Fair/Poor (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.79) health less often underwent prostatectomy vs radiation compared to men in Excellent/Very Good health. In contrast, men with NCI comorbidity score of 1 more often received treatment (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.11-1.70) compared to men with NCI comorbidity score of 0. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported health status drives treatment for prostate cancer in an appropriate direction whereas comorbidity has an inconsistent relationship. Greater understanding of this interplay between subjective and empiric assessments may facilitate more shared decision-making in prostate cancer care.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient-reported health status, more so than comorbidity, influences treatment in men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data linked with Medicare claims and CAHPS surveys, we identified men aged 65-84 diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from 2004 to 2013 and ascertained their National Cancer Institute (NCI) comorbidity score and patient-reported health status. Adjusting for demographics and cancer risk, we examined the relationship between these measures and treatment for the overall cohort, low-risk men aged 65-74, intermediate/high-risk men aged 65-74, and men aged 75-84. RESULTS: Among 2724 men, 43.0% rated their overall health as Excellent/Very Good, while 62.7% had a comorbidity score of 0. Beyond age and cancer risk, patient-reported health status was significantly associated with treatment. Compared to men reporting Excellent/Very Good health, men in Poor/Fair health less often received treatment (odds ratio [OR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.90). Younger men with intermediate/high-risk cancer in Good (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41-0.88) or Fair/Poor (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.79) health less often underwent prostatectomy vs radiation compared to men in Excellent/Very Good health. In contrast, men with NCI comorbidity score of 1 more often received treatment (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.11-1.70) compared to men with NCI comorbidity score of 0. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported health status drives treatment for prostate cancer in an appropriate direction whereas comorbidity has an inconsistent relationship. Greater understanding of this interplay between subjective and empiric assessments may facilitate more shared decision-making in prostate cancer care.
Authors: Eleanor Singer; Mick P Couper; Angela Fagerlin; Floyd J Fowler; Carrie A Levin; Peter A Ubel; John Van Hoewyk; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher Journal: Health Expect Date: 2011-11-10 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Hyunsoon Cho; Angela B Mariotto; Bhupinder S Mann; Carrie N Klabunde; Eric J Feuer Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Timothy J Daskivich; Julie Lai; Andrew W Dick; Claude M Setodji; Janet M Hanley; Mark S Litwin; Christopher Saigal Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Nancy L Schoenborn; Kimberley Lee; Craig E Pollack; Karen Armacost; Sydney M Dy; John F P Bridges; Qian-Li Xue; Antonio C Wolff; Cynthia Boyd Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: J L Donovan; F C Hamdy; J A Lane; D E Neal; M Mason; C Metcalfe; E Walsh; J M Blazeby; T J Peters; P Holding; S Bonnington; T Lennon; L Bradshaw; D Cooper; P Herbert; J Howson; A Jones; N Lyons; E Salter; P Thompson; S Tidball; J Blaikie; C Gray; P Bollina; J Catto; A Doble; A Doherty; D Gillatt; R Kockelbergh; H Kynaston; A Paul; P Powell; S Prescott; D J Rosario; E Rowe; M Davis; E L Turner; R M Martin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Pierre Lunardi; Guillaume Ploussard; Pascale Grosclaude; Mathieu Roumiguié; Michel Soulié; Jean Baptiste Beauval; Bernard Malavaud Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Laura D Scherer; Tanner J Caverly; James Burke; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Jeffrey T Kullgren; Douglas Steinley; Denis M McCarthy; Meghan Roney; Angela Fagerlin Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2016-09-12 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Neetu Chawla; Matthew Urato; Anita Ambs; Nicola Schussler; Ron D Hays; Steven B Clauser; Alan M Zaslavsky; Kayo Walsh; Margot Schwartz; Michael Halpern; Sarah Gaillot; Elizabeth H Goldstein; Neeraj K Arora Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Gregory T Chesnut; Amy L Tin; Katherine A Fleshner; Nicole E Benfante; Andrew J Vickers; James A Eastham; Daniel D Sjoberg; Sigrid V Carlsson Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2021-11-03 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Saira Khan; Sanah Vohra; Laura Farnan; Shekinah N C Elmore; Khadijah Toumbou; Madhav K C; Elizabeth T H Fontham; Edward S Peters; James L Mohler; Jeannette T Bensen Journal: Prostate Date: 2022-07-26 Impact factor: 4.012