BACKGROUND: Bone-modifying agent (BMA) therapy is recommended for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer but not metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). BMA treatment in mCSPC may therefore constitute overuse. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, we included patients diagnosed with stage IV prostate adenocarcinoma from 2007 to 2015 who were 66 years of age or older at diagnosis and had received androgen-deprivation or antiandrogen therapy. We excluded patients who had previously received BMAs or had existing osteoporosis, osteopenia, hypercalcemia, or prior bone fracture. The primary outcome was receipt of BMA (zoledronic acid or denosumab) within 180 days of diagnosis (emergence of CRPC within this time frame is unlikely). The secondary outcome was receipt of a BMA within 90 days. Exposures of interest included practice location (physician office vs hospital outpatient) and the specialty (medical oncologist vs urologist) of the treating physician. RESULTS: Our sample included 2627 patients, of whom 52.9% were treated by medical oncologists and 47.1% by urologists; 77.7% and 22.3% received care in physician office and hospital outpatient locations, respectively. Overall, 23.6% received a BMA within 180 days; 18.4% did within 90 days. BMA therapy was more common among patients treated by oncologists (odds ratio = 8.23, 95% confidence interval = 6.41 to 10.57) and in physician office locations (odds ratio = 1.33, 95% confidence interval = 1.06 to 1.69). Utilization has increased: 17.3% of patients received BMAs from 2007 to 2009 (17.3% zoledronic acid, 0% denosumab) and 28.1% from 2012 to 2015 (8.4% zoledronic acid, 20.3% denosumab). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with mCSPC who had no evidence of high osteoporotic fracture risk, more than one-quarter have received BMAs in recent years. This overuse may lead to excess costs and toxicity.
BACKGROUND: Bone-modifying agent (BMA) therapy is recommended for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer but not metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). BMA treatment in mCSPC may therefore constitute overuse. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, we included patients diagnosed with stage IV prostate adenocarcinoma from 2007 to 2015 who were 66 years of age or older at diagnosis and had received androgen-deprivation or antiandrogen therapy. We excluded patients who had previously received BMAs or had existing osteoporosis, osteopenia, hypercalcemia, or prior bone fracture. The primary outcome was receipt of BMA (zoledronic acid or denosumab) within 180 days of diagnosis (emergence of CRPC within this time frame is unlikely). The secondary outcome was receipt of a BMA within 90 days. Exposures of interest included practice location (physician office vs hospital outpatient) and the specialty (medical oncologist vs urologist) of the treating physician. RESULTS: Our sample included 2627 patients, of whom 52.9% were treated by medical oncologists and 47.1% by urologists; 77.7% and 22.3% received care in physician office and hospital outpatient locations, respectively. Overall, 23.6% received a BMA within 180 days; 18.4% did within 90 days. BMA therapy was more common among patients treated by oncologists (odds ratio = 8.23, 95% confidence interval = 6.41 to 10.57) and in physician office locations (odds ratio = 1.33, 95% confidence interval = 1.06 to 1.69). Utilization has increased: 17.3% of patients received BMAs from 2007 to 2009 (17.3% zoledronic acid, 0% denosumab) and 28.1% from 2012 to 2015 (8.4% zoledronic acid, 20.3% denosumab). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with mCSPC who had no evidence of high osteoporotic fracture risk, more than one-quarter have received BMAs in recent years. This overuse may lead to excess costs and toxicity.
Authors: Aaron P Mitchell; Alan C Kinlaw; Sharon Peacock-Hinton; Stacie B Dusetzina; Hanna K Sanoff; Jennifer L Lund Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-10-14
Authors: Blase N Polite; Jeffery C Ward; John V Cox; Roscoe F Morton; John Hennessy; Ray D Page; Rena M Conti Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Gerry Oster; Lois Lamerato; Andrew G Glass; Kathryn E Richert-Boe; Andrea Lopez; Karen Chung; Akshara Richhariya; Tracy Dodge; Greg G Wolff; Arun Balakumaran; John Edelsberg Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Allison Lipitz-Snyderman; Coral L Atoria; Stephen M Schleicher; Peter B Bach; Katherine S Panageas Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: L E Howard; A M De Hoedt; W J Aronson; C J Kane; C L Amling; M R Cooperberg; M K Terris; C H Divers; A Valderrama; S J Freedland Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: F Saad; J E Brown; C Van Poznak; T Ibrahim; S M Stemmer; A T Stopeck; I J Diel; S Takahashi; N Shore; D H Henry; C H Barrios; T Facon; F Senecal; K Fizazi; L Zhou; A Daniels; P Carrière; R Dansey Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-10-10 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Aaron P Mitchell; Jason S Rotter; Esita Patel; Daniel Richardson; Stephanie B Wheeler; Ethan Basch; Daniel A Goldstein Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Michael Mark; Roger von Moos; Richard Cathomas; Sandro Stoffel; Silke Gillessen Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 13.506