Richard M Hoffman1,2,3, Sarah L Mott4,5, Bradley D McDowell4,5, Sonia T Anand5, Kenneth G Nepple4,6. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA. richard-m-hoffman@uiowa.edu. 2. Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. richard-m-hoffman@uiowa.edu. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, IA, USA. richard-m-hoffman@uiowa.edu. 4. Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. 5. Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, IA, USA. 6. Department of Urology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Expectant management (EM) has been widely recommended for men with low-risk prostate cancers (PCa). We evaluated trends in EM and the sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with EM, initiating a National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant active surveillance (AS) monitoring protocol, and switching from EM to active treatment (AT). METHODS: We used the SEER-Medicare database to identify men ages 66+ diagnosed with a low-risk PCa (PSA < 10 ng/mL, Gleason ≤ 6, stage ≤ T2a) in 2010-2013 with ≥1 year of follow-up. We used claims data to capture (1) PCa treatments, including surgical procedures, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy, and (2) AS monitoring procedures, including PSA tests and prostate biopsy. We defined EM as receiving no AT within 1 year of diagnosis. We used multivariable regression techniques to identify factors associated with EM, initiating AS monitoring, and switching to AT. RESULTS: During the study period, EM increased from 29.4% to 49.0%, p < 0.01. Age < 77, being married/partnered, non-Hispanic ethnicity, higher median ZIP code income, lower PSA levels, stage T1c, and more recent year of diagnosis were associated with EM. Nearly 39% of the EM cohort initiated AS monitoring; age <77, White race, being married/partnered, higher median ZIP code income, and lower PSA levels were associated with initiating AS. By three years after diagnosis, 21.3% of the EM cohort had switched to AT, usually after undergoing AS monitoring procedures. DISCUSSION: We found increasing uptake of EM over time, though over 50% still received AT. About 60% of EM patients did not initiate AS monitoring, even among those with life expectancy >10 years, implying that a substantial proportion was being managed by watchful waiting. AS monitoring was associated with switching to AT, suggesting that treatment decisions likely were based on cancer progression.
BACKGROUND: Expectant management (EM) has been widely recommended for men with low-risk prostate cancers (PCa). We evaluated trends in EM and the sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with EM, initiating a National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant active surveillance (AS) monitoring protocol, and switching from EM to active treatment (AT). METHODS: We used the SEER-Medicare database to identify men ages 66+ diagnosed with a low-risk PCa (PSA < 10 ng/mL, Gleason ≤ 6, stage ≤ T2a) in 2010-2013 with ≥1 year of follow-up. We used claims data to capture (1) PCa treatments, including surgical procedures, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy, and (2) AS monitoring procedures, including PSA tests and prostate biopsy. We defined EM as receiving no AT within 1 year of diagnosis. We used multivariable regression techniques to identify factors associated with EM, initiating AS monitoring, and switching to AT. RESULTS: During the study period, EM increased from 29.4% to 49.0%, p < 0.01. Age < 77, being married/partnered, non-Hispanic ethnicity, higher median ZIP code income, lower PSA levels, stage T1c, and more recent year of diagnosis were associated with EM. Nearly 39% of the EM cohort initiated AS monitoring; age <77, White race, being married/partnered, higher median ZIP code income, and lower PSA levels were associated with initiating AS. By three years after diagnosis, 21.3% of the EM cohort had switched to AT, usually after undergoing AS monitoring procedures. DISCUSSION: We found increasing uptake of EM over time, though over 50% still received AT. About 60% of EM patients did not initiate AS monitoring, even among those with life expectancy >10 years, implying that a substantial proportion was being managed by watchful waiting. AS monitoring was associated with switching to AT, suggesting that treatment decisions likely were based on cancer progression.
Authors: Santino Butler; Vinayak Muralidhar; Janice Chavez; Zoe Fullerton; Aman Mahal; Michelle Nezolosky; Marie Vastola; Shuang G Zhao; Anthony V D'Amico; Robert T Dess; Felix Y Feng; Martin T King; Kent W Mouw; Daniel E Spratt; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Paul L Nguyen; Timothy R Rebbeck; Brandon A Mahal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; Tania Lobo; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Kimberly M Davis; George Luta; Amethyst D Leimpeter; David Aaronson; David F Penson; Kathryn Taylor Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Scott E Eggener; Alex Mueller; Ryan K Berglund; Raj Ayyathurai; Cindy Soloway; Mark S Soloway; Robert Abouassaly; Eric A Klein; Steven J Jones; Chris Zappavigna; Larry Goldenberg; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Bertrand Guillonneau Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Björn Löppenberg; Akshay Sood; Deepansh Dalela; Patrick Karabon; Jesse D Sammon; Malte W Vetterlein; Joachim Noldus; James O Peabody; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Mani Menon; Firas Abdollah Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Meelan Bul; Xiaoye Zhu; Riccardo Valdagni; Tom Pickles; Yoshiyuki Kakehi; Antti Rannikko; Anders Bjartell; Deric K van der Schoot; Erik B Cornel; Giario N Conti; Egbert R Boevé; Frédéric Staerman; Jenneke J Vis-Maters; Henk Vergunst; Joris J Jaspars; Petra Strölin; Erik van Muilekom; Fritz H Schröder; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-11-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Gerrit Draisma; Ruth Etzioni; Alex Tsodikov; Angela Mariotto; Elisabeth Wever; Roman Gulati; Eric Feuer; Harry de Koning Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-03-10 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Martin G Sanda; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Erin Kirkby; Ronald C Chen; Tony Crispino; Joann Fontanarosa; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Greene; Laurence H Klotz; Danil V Makarov; Joel B Nelson; George Rodrigues; Howard M Sandler; Mary Ellen Taplin; Jonathan R Treadwell Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Leonardo D Borregales; Gina DeMeo; Xiangmei Gu; Emily Cheng; Vanessa Dudley; Edward M Schaeffer; Himanshu Nagar; Sigrid Carlsson; Andrew Vickers; Jim C Hu Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Archana Radhakrishnan; Lauren P Wallner; Ted A Skolarus; Arvin K George; Bradley H Rosenberg; Paul Abrahamse; Sarah T Hawley Journal: J Urol Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 7.600