Archana Radhakrishnan1, Lauren P Wallner1,2, Ted A Skolarus3,4, Arvin K George3, Bradley H Rosenberg5, Paul Abrahamse6, Sarah T Hawley1,4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. Department of Urology, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, Michigan. 6. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer do not receive all the recommended testing. Reasons for variation in receipt are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We combined prospective registry data from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, a collaborative of 46 academic and community urology practices across Michigan, with insurance claims from 2014 to 2018 for men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer. We defined receipt of recommended surveillance according to the collaborative's low-intensity criteria as: annual prostate specific antigen testing and either magnetic resonance imaging or prostate biopsy every 3 years. We assessed receipt of recommended surveillance among men with ≥36 months of followup (246). We conducted multilevel analyses to examine the influence of the urologist, urologist and primary care provider visits, and patient demographic and clinical factors on variation in receipt. RESULTS: During 3 years of active surveillance, just over half of men (56.5%) received all recommended surveillance testing (69.9% annual prostate specific antigen testing, 72.8% magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy). We found 19% of the variation in receipt was attributed to individual urologists. While increasing provider visits were not significantly associated with receipt, older men were less likely to receive magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy (≥75 vs <55 years, adjusted odds ratio 0.07; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer did not receive all recommended surveillance. While urologists substantially influenced receipt of recommended testing, exploring how to leverage patients and their visits with their primary care providers to positively influence receipt appears warranted.
PURPOSE: Men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer do not receive all the recommended testing. Reasons for variation in receipt are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We combined prospective registry data from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, a collaborative of 46 academic and community urology practices across Michigan, with insurance claims from 2014 to 2018 for men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer. We defined receipt of recommended surveillance according to the collaborative's low-intensity criteria as: annual prostate specific antigen testing and either magnetic resonance imaging or prostate biopsy every 3 years. We assessed receipt of recommended surveillance among men with ≥36 months of followup (246). We conducted multilevel analyses to examine the influence of the urologist, urologist and primary care provider visits, and patient demographic and clinical factors on variation in receipt. RESULTS: During 3 years of active surveillance, just over half of men (56.5%) received all recommended surveillance testing (69.9% annual prostate specific antigen testing, 72.8% magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy). We found 19% of the variation in receipt was attributed to individual urologists. While increasing provider visits were not significantly associated with receipt, older men were less likely to receive magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy (≥75 vs <55 years, adjusted odds ratio 0.07; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer did not receive all recommended surveillance. While urologists substantially influenced receipt of recommended testing, exploring how to leverage patients and their visits with their primary care providers to positively influence receipt appears warranted.
Entities:
Keywords:
biopsy; primary health care; prostate-specific antigen; urologists; watchful waiting
Authors: Karen E Hoffman; Jiangong Niu; Yu Shen; Jing Jiang; John W Davis; Jeri Kim; Deborah A Kuban; George H Perkins; Jay B Shah; Grace L Smith; Robert J Volk; Thomas A Buchholz; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Michael P Kosty; Amy Hanley; Veronica Chollette; Suanna S Bruinooge; Steven H Taplin Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Leonard P Bokhorst; Riccardo Valdagni; Antti Rannikko; Yoshiyuki Kakehi; Tom Pickles; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek J Rosario; Edward Rowe; David E Neal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ronald C Chen; R Bryan Rumble; D Andrew Loblaw; Antonio Finelli; Behfar Ehdaie; Matthew R Cooperberg; Scott C Morgan; Scott Tyldesley; John J Haluschak; Winston Tan; Stewart Justman; Suneil Jain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hyunsoon Cho; Carrie N Klabunde; K Robin Yabroff; Zhuoqiao Wang; Angela Meekins; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Angela B Mariotto Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh; Neal Patel; Xiaoyue Ma; Adam Calaway; Lee Ponsky; Jim C Hu; Jonathan E Shoag Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; Sarah L Mott; Bradley D McDowell; Sonia T Anand; Kenneth G Nepple Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 5.455