Literature DB >> 33898656

Underutilization of Surgical Standard of Care for Insured Men with Invasive Penile Cancer.

Edward K Chang1, Rishi R Sekar1, Sarah K Holt1, John L Gore1, Jonathan L Wright1, Yaw A Nyame1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Prior studies of mixed insurance populations have demonstrated poor adherence to surgical standard of care (SOC) for penile cancer. We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry linked to Medicare to calculate SOC adherence to surgical treatment of penile cancer in insured men over the age of 65, focusing on potential social and racial disparities.
METHODS: This is an observational analysis of patients with T2-4 penile cancer of any histologic subtype without metastasis in the SEER-Medicare database (2004-2015). SOC was defined as penectomy (partial or radical) with bilateral inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. We calculated proportions of those receiving SOC and constructed multivariate models to identify factors associated with receiving SOC.
RESULTS: A total of 447 men were included. Of these men, 22.1% (99/447) received SOC while 18.8% (84/447) received no treatment at all. Only 23.3% (104/447) had ILND while 80.9% (362/447) underwent total or partial penectomy. Race and socioeconomic status (SES) were not associated with decreased SOC. Increasing age (OR 0.93, 95%CI:0.89-0.96), Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≥ 2 (OR 0.53, 95%CI:0.29-0.97), and T3-T4 disease (OR 0.34, 95%CI:0.18-0.65) were associated with not receiving SOC on adjusted analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Rates of SOC are low among insured men 65 years of age or older with invasive penile cancer, regardless of race or SES. This finding is largely driven by low rates of ILND. Strategies are needed to overcome barriers to SOC treatment for men with invasive penile cancer.

Entities:  

Keywords:  healthcare disparities; inguinal lymph node dissection; penectomy; penile cancer; standard of care

Year:  2021        PMID: 33898656      PMCID: PMC8063966          DOI: 10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000214

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Pract        ISSN: 2352-0779


  22 in total

1.  Disparity between pre-existing management of penile cancer and NCCN guidelines.

Authors:  Rebecca A Campbell; Emily A Slopnick; Elizabeth K Ferry; Hui Zhu; Simon P Kim; Robert Abouassaly
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2017-03-28       Impact factor: 3.498

2.  Treatment Trends and Outcomes for Patients With Lymph Node-Positive Cancer of the Penis.

Authors:  Shreyas S Joshi; Elizabeth Handorf; David Strauss; Andres F Correa; Alexander Kutikov; David Y T Chen; Rosalia Viterbo; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo; Marc C Smaldone; Daniel M Geynisman
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 31.777

3.  A contemporary population-based assessment of the rate of lymph node dissection for penile carcinoma.

Authors:  Rodolphe Thuret; Maxine Sun; Giovanni Lughezzani; Lars Budaus; Daniel Liberman; Firas Abdollah; Monica Morgan; Rupinder Johal; Claudio Jeldres; Mathieu Latour; Shahrokh F Shariat; François Iborra; Jacques Guiter; Jean-Jacques Patard; Paul Perrotte; Pierre I Karakiewicz
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-09-14       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Extensive inguinal lymphadenectomy improves overall 5-year survival in penile cancer patients: results from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program.

Authors:  Timothy V Johnson; Wayland Hsiao; Keith A Delman; Ashesh B Jani; Otis W Brawley; Viraj A Master
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Adherence to the EAU guidelines on Penile Cancer Treatment: European, multicentre, retrospective study.

Authors:  Maida Bada; Francesco Berardinelli; Peter Nyiràdy; Judith Varga; Pasquale Ditonno; Michele Battaglia; Paolo Chiodini; Cosimo De Nunzio; Giorgia Tema; Alessandro Veccia; Alessandro Antonelli; Luca Cindolo; Claudio Simeone; Stefano Puliatti; Salvatore Micali; Luigi Schips
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 6.  Racial variation in the pattern and quality of care for prostate cancer in the USA: mind the gap.

Authors:  Daniel A Barocas; David F Penson
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2010-06-14       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  Clinical characteristics in black and white men with prostate cancer in an equal access medical center.

Authors:  S J Freedland; M E Sutter; J Naitoh; F Dorey; G S Csathy; W J Aronson
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Initial symptoms and delay in patients with penile carcinoma.

Authors:  Elisabet Skeppner; Swen-Olof Andersson; Jan-Erik Johansson; Torgny Windahl
Journal:  Scand J Urol Nephrol       Date:  2012-07-02

9.  Adherence to EAU guidelines on penile cancer translates into better outcomes: a multicenter international study.

Authors:  Luca Cindolo; Philippe E Spiess; Maida Bada; Juan J Chipollini; Peter Nyirády; Paolo Chiodini; Judith Varga; Pasquale Ditonno; Michele Battaglia; Cosimo De Nunzio; Giorgia Tema; Alessandro Veccia; Alessandro Antonelli; Gennaro Musi; Ottavio De Cobelli; Andrea Conti; Salvatore Micali; Mario Álvarez-Maestro; José Quesada Olarte; Erico Diogenes; Marcos Venicio Alves Lima; Andrew Tracey; Georgi Guruli; Riccardo Autorino; Petros Sountoulides; Luigi Schips
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-10-30       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Social Determinants of Appropriate Treatment for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.

Authors:  Samuel L Washington; John Neuhaus; Maxwell V Meng; Sima P Porten
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 4.254

View more
  1 in total

1.  Patterns of Treatment and Outcomes in Older Men With Penile Cancer: A SEER Dataset Analysis.

Authors:  Maria T Bourlon; Haydee Verduzco-Aguirre; Elizabeth Molina; Elisabeth Meyer; Elizabeth Kessler; Simon P Kim; Philippe E Spiess; Thomas Flaig
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 5.738

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.