Jonathan Li1, Dattatraya Patil1, Martin G Sanda2, Christopher P Filson3. 1. Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. 2. Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory Healthcare, Atlanta, GA. 3. Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory Healthcare, Atlanta, GA; Assistant Professor, Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine Member, Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA. Electronic address: cfilson@emory.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We characterized population-level cancer-specific outcomes for prostate cancer patients based on use of prebiopsy prostate MRI. METHODS: Using SEER-Medicare claims, we identified men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from 2010-2015 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) < 20 ng/mL. Primary exposure was prebiopsy prostate MRI prior to diagnosis (i.e., CPT 72197 linked to urology-specific diagnosis). Outcomes included diagnosis of Grade Group 2+ disease on biopsy and proportion treated with prostatectomy. We assessed those treated with prostatectomy and evaluated association with prebiopsy MRI and grade concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy. We estimated adjusted odds ratios with multivariable regression after accounting for other factors (e.g., age, year, PSA, race/ethnicity). RESULTS: We identified 48,574 patients, where 915 (1.9%) underwent prebiopsy MRI. Patients with prebiopsy MRI had more GG>2 cancer on biopsy (70.0% MRI vs. 62.8% no MRI) but lost significance after adjustment (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.96-1.30). Patients with prebiopsy MRI were more likely to have prostatectomy (39.2% vs. 28.5%, adjusted OR 1.51, 95%CI 1.31-1.76). Downgrading from biopsy GG 3-5 to final GG 1-2 was less common after prebiopsy MRI (21.3% vs. 28.2% no MRI, P = 0.05) but not significant after adjustment (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.51 - 1.08). Among 14,027 men with prostatectomy, accurate risk classification was not more likely with a prebiopsy MRI (48.0% no MRI vs. 49.6% prebiopsy MRI, P = 0.56). CONCLUSION: During initial adoption, men with prebiopsy prostate MRI had marginally increased detection of significant cancer on biopsy and were more likely to be treated with prostatectomy. For those treated with prostatectomy, use of prebiopsy MRI was not associated with a greater likelihood of accurate risk classification or grade concordance between biopsy and final pathology results. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: We characterized population-level cancer-specific outcomes for prostate cancer patients based on use of prebiopsy prostate MRI. METHODS: Using SEER-Medicare claims, we identified men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from 2010-2015 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) < 20 ng/mL. Primary exposure was prebiopsy prostate MRI prior to diagnosis (i.e., CPT 72197 linked to urology-specific diagnosis). Outcomes included diagnosis of Grade Group 2+ disease on biopsy and proportion treated with prostatectomy. We assessed those treated with prostatectomy and evaluated association with prebiopsy MRI and grade concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy. We estimated adjusted odds ratios with multivariable regression after accounting for other factors (e.g., age, year, PSA, race/ethnicity). RESULTS: We identified 48,574 patients, where 915 (1.9%) underwent prebiopsy MRI. Patients with prebiopsy MRI had more GG>2 cancer on biopsy (70.0% MRI vs. 62.8% no MRI) but lost significance after adjustment (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.96-1.30). Patients with prebiopsy MRI were more likely to have prostatectomy (39.2% vs. 28.5%, adjusted OR 1.51, 95%CI 1.31-1.76). Downgrading from biopsy GG 3-5 to final GG 1-2 was less common after prebiopsy MRI (21.3% vs. 28.2% no MRI, P = 0.05) but not significant after adjustment (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.51 - 1.08). Among 14,027 men with prostatectomy, accurate risk classification was not more likely with a prebiopsy MRI (48.0% no MRI vs. 49.6% prebiopsy MRI, P = 0.56). CONCLUSION: During initial adoption, men with prebiopsy prostate MRI had marginally increased detection of significant cancer on biopsy and were more likely to be treated with prostatectomy. For those treated with prostatectomy, use of prebiopsy MRI was not associated with a greater likelihood of accurate risk classification or grade concordance between biopsy and final pathology results. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Jonathan E Shoag; Peter Y Cai; Michael D Gross; Christopher Gaffney; Dongze Li; Jialin Mao; Molly Nowels; Douglas S Scherr; Art Sedrakyan; Jim C Hu Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Olivier Wegelin; Leonie Exterkate; Marloes van der Leest; Jean A Kummer; Willem Vreuls; Peter C de Bruin; J L H Ruud Bosch; Jelle O Barentsz; Diederik M Somford; Harm H E van Melick Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Christopher P Filson; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Patricia Lieu; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Wen Liu; Dattatraya Patil; David H Howard; Reneé H Moore; Heqiong Wang; Martin G Sanda; Christopher P Filson Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Rachael L Sherrer; Zachary A Glaser; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Jeffrey W Nix; Kristin K Porter; Soroush Rais-Bahrami Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Laurence Klotz; Joseph Chin; Peter C Black; Antonio Finelli; Maurice Anidjar; Franck Bladou; Ashley Mercado; Mark Levental; Sangeet Ghai; Silvia D Chang; Laurent Milot; Chirag Patel; Zahra Kassam; Caroline Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Andrew Loblaw; Marlene Kebabdjian; Craig C Earle; Greg R Pond; Masoom A Haider Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Jessica Rührup; Felix Preisser; Lena Theißen; Mike Wenzel; Frederik C Roos; Andreas Becker; Luis A Kluth; Boris Bodelle; Jens Köllermann; Felix K H Chun; Philipp Mandel Journal: Front Surg Date: 2019-09-18