Variation in the use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer

Medium-term follow up of active surveillance for early prostate cancer at a non-academic institution

OBJECTIVES

To report oncological outcomes of active surveillance (AS) at a single non-academic institution adopting the standardised Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Competing risk analyses estimated the incidence of overall mortality, metastases, conversion to treatment, and grade reclassification. The incidence of reclassification and adverse pathological findings at radical prostatectomy were compared between patients fulfilling all PRIAS inclusion criteria vs those not fulfilling at least one.

RESULTS

We analysed 341 men with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer (PCa) followed on AS between 2010 and 2022. There were no PCa deaths, two patients developed distant metastases and were alive at the end of the study period. The 10-year cumulative incidence of metastases was 1.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-6.4%). A total of 111 men were reclassified, and 127 underwent definitive treatment. Men not fulfilling at least one PRIAS inclusion criteria (n = 43) had a higher incidence of reclassification (subdistribution hazards ratio 1.73, 95% CI 1.07-2.81; P = 0.03), but similar rates of adverse pathological findings at radical prostatectomy.

CONCLUSION

Metastases in men on AS at a non-academic institution are as rare as those reported in established international cohorts. Men followed without stringent inclusion criteria should be counselled about the higher incidence of reclassification and reassured they can expect rates of adverse pathological findings comparable to those fulfilling all criteria. Therefore, AS should be proposed to all men with low-grade PCa regardless of whether they are followed at academic institutions or smaller community hospitals.

Delaying Surgery in Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients: An NCDB Analysis of Oncologic Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Concern for overtreatment in very low-, low-, and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer has promoted a more conservative approach through active surveillance (AS) with comparable survival outcomes. We analyzed the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to determine if delaying radical prostatectomy greater than 6 months is associated with an increase in the rate of adverse pathology or secondary treatment (adjuvant or salvage) at radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

Utilizing the NCDB from 2004 to 2019, 40 to 75-year-old men with very low-, low-, and favorable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer, as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, were identified for this study. These individuals received radical prostatectomy either before or after 6 months following diagnosis. Clinical, demographic, and pathologic characteristics were obtained. Adverse pathologic outcomes were defined as pT3-4N0-1 and/or positive surgical margins. Multiple logistic regression models were used to predict delays in treatment, adverse pathologic outcomes, and receipt of secondary therapy. Survival analysis was performed using the Cox Proportional Hazards Model and the Kaplan-Meier Method.

RESULTS

Of the 195,397 patients who met inclusion criteria, only 13,393 patients received surgery 6 months after diagnosis. The median time of delay was 7.5 months compared to 2.3 months in the immediate treatment group. Overall, delaying surgery had no statistically significant impact on adverse pathologic outcomes, regardless of risk category. However, when accounting for the interaction between race and delayed treatment, non-Hispanic black patients who received a delay in treatment were more likely to experience adverse features (OR 1.12, 95%CI 1.00-1.26, P = .041). Conversely, patients who had delayed surgery were less likely to receive additional therapy (either adjuvant or salvage) (OR 0.60, 95%CI 0.52-0.68, P < .001). Survival analysis showed that both groups fared well, with a 5-year survival of 97% for both groups. The treatment group was not predictive of survival.

CONCLUSION

Overall, delaying surgery more than 6 months following diagnosis did not have a significant impact on adverse pathologic features or overall survival. However, when specifically looking at non-Hispanic black patients with a treatment delay, these patients were at increased risk for adverse features, suggesting that the negative impact of treatment delay depends on the patient's race. As race is a social construct, this finding likely points to the complex socioeconomic factors that contribute to overall health outcomes rather than any inherent disease characteristics. Lastly, delayed treatment patients were actually less likely to require secondary therapy, regardless of race, possibly reflecting high clinician acumen in selecting patients appropriate for treatment delay. The results suggest that patients who ultimately "fail" AS and require subsequent surgery have overall comparable survival outcomes. However, pathologic outcomes are dependent on the patient's underlying race, with non-Hispanic black patients experiencing an increased risk of adverse outcomes if treatment is delayed.

Uncovering the Changing Treatment Landscape for Low-risk Prostate Cancer in the USA from 2010 to 2020: Insights from the National Cancer Data Base

The management of prostate cancer (PCa) has evolved from a paradigm of "treat when caught early" to "treat only when necessary". Despite inconsistency in its use, active surveillance has evolved over the past two decades into the gold standard for management of low-risk PCa. Our objective was to investigate whether the use of expectant management (active surveillance, watchful waiting, no treatment) as a first-line approach for low-risk PCa has increased over the past decade. We queried the US National Cancer Data Base for men diagnosed with localized PCa between 2010 and 2020. Two multivariable logistic regression models with different two-way interaction terms (year of diagnosis × D'Amico risk classification, and year of diagnosis × International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] grade group) were fitted to predict the probability of undergoing expectant management versus active treatment. The predicted probability of expectant management increased from 13.7% in 2010 to 64.4% in 2020 for men with low-risk PCa, and from 12.9% in 2010 to 61.6% in 2020 for ISUP grade group 1 PCa (both pinteraction < 0.001). The frequency of expectant management for low-risk PCa has increased dramatically during the past decade. We expect this trend to further increase owing to the growing awareness of the harms of overtreatment of indolent disease. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined the use of expectant management for prostate cancer between 2010 and 2020 in a large hospital-based registry from the USA. We found that the proportion of men receiving expectant management for low-risk prostate cancer is increasing. We conclude that growing awareness of the harms of overtreatment has profoundly affected trends for prostate cancer treatment in the USA.

Physician Perception of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite its low-risk nature, grade group 1 (GG 1) prostate cancer (PCa) remains overtreated. This suggests a disconnect between daily physician practice and the standard of care. We hypothesized that GG 1 disease is overtreated because of common misconceptions regarding its true natural history.

OBJECTIVE

To survey physicians worldwide to better understand their approach to management of GG 1 PCa.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A 17-question survey was sent to urology, radiation oncology, and pathology societies on six continents, and was posted on Twitter. Responses were collected and analyzed.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Pearson's χ2 test was used to assess correlation between physician-related variables and the perception of active surveillance (AS) for GG 1 PCa. Logistic regression was used for multivariable analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Among 1303 participants, 55% were urologists, 47% had completed fellowship, and 49% practice in an academic setting. Among the clinicians, 724 (83%) routinely recommend AS for GG 1 PCa and have never/rarely regretted it, while 18 (2%) "often" regretted it. Routine AS was more common among physicians aged <40 yr, those in practice for <10 yr, and those living in North America, Europe, or Australia/New Zealand. More than one-third of the respondents practicing in nonacademic settings reported 15-yr PCa mortality in low-risk PCa of >3%. Regarding reclassification of GG 1 to a precancerous lesion, 428 (39%) felt that this is a good idea, 340 (31%) disagreed, and 323 (30%) were uncertain. Those in support were more likely to be aged <40 yr (p = 0.001), in practice for <5 yr (p = 0.005), urologists (p < 0.001), and fellows trained in urologic oncology (p < 0.001). Opposition was common among pathologists (61%). Among terminologies proposed to replace "cancer" for GG 1 are neoplasm of low malignant potential (51% approval), indolent neoplasm rarely requiring treatment (23%), and indolent lesion of epithelial origin (8%).

CONCLUSIONS

AS is more commonly recommended by physicians who are younger, are fellowship-trained in urologic oncology, practice in academic settings, and are based in North America, Europe, or Australia/New Zealand. Misconceptions regarding AS outcomes may hinder its adoption. Frequent use of AS is associated with support for changing the "cancer" nomenclature.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, we found that active surveillance remains underused in the management of low-risk prostate cancer because of incorrect perceptions regarding cancer outcomes. Omitting the word "cancer" for low-risk lesions is a challenging but promising effort that is favored by many clinicians, particularly by those who advocate for active surveillance.

Impact of genomic testing on urologists' treatment preference in favorable risk prostate cancer: A randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

The Oncotype Dx Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) is a 17-gene relative expression assay that predicts adverse pathology at prostatectomy. We conducted a novel randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of GPS on urologist's treatment preference for favorable risk prostate cancer (PCa): active surveillance versus active treatment (i.e., prostatectomy/radiation). This is a secondary endpoint from the ENACT trial which recruited from three Chicago hospitals from 2016 to 2019.

METHODS

Ten urologists along with men with very low to favorable-intermediate risk PCa were included in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to standardized counseling with or without GPS assay. The main outcome was urologists' preference for active treatment at Visit 2 by study arm (GPS versus Control). Multivariable best-fit binary logistic regressions were constructed to identify factors independently associated with urologists' treatment preference.

RESULTS

Two hundred men (70% Black) were randomly assigned to either the Control (96) or GPS arm (104). At Visit 2, urologists' preference for prostatectomy/radiation almost doubled in the GPS arm to 29.3% (29) compared to 14.1% (13) in the Control arm (p = 0.01). Randomization to the GPS arm, intermediate NCCN risk level, and lower patient health literacy were predictors for urologists' preference for active treatment.

DISCUSSION

Limitations included sample size and number of urologists. In this study, we found that GPS testing reduced urologists' likelihood to prefer active surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate how obtaining prognostic biomarkers that predict negative outcomes before treatment decision-making might influence urologists' preference for recommending aggressive therapy in men eligible for active surveillance.

Retrospective analysis of the uptake of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer in Zurich, Switzerland

OBJECTIVES

Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer closely monitors patients conservatively instead of the pursuit of active treatment to reduce overtreatment of insignificant disease. Since 2009, active surveillance has been recommended as the primary management option in the European Association of Urology guidelines for low-risk disease. The present study aimed to investigate the use and uptake of active surveillance over 10 years in our certified prostate cancer centre (University Hospital of Zurich) compared with those derived from the cancer registry of the canton of Zurich, Switzerland.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively identified all men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer at our institution and from the cancer registry of the canton of Zurich from 2009 to 2018. The primary treatment of each patient was recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the use of different treatments in our centre. The results were compared with those derived from the cancer registry.

RESULTS

A total of 3393 men with low-risk prostate cancer were included in this study (University Hospital of Zurich: n = 262; cancer registry: n = 3131). In the University Hospital of Zurich and cancer registry cohorts, 146 (55.7%) and 502 (16%) men underwent active surveillance, respectively. The proportions of local treatment [115 (43.9%) vs 2220 (71%)] and androgen deprivation therapy [0 (0%) vs 43 (1.4%)] were distinctly lower in the University Hospital of Zurich cohort than in the cancer registry cohort. The uptake of active surveillance over the years was high in the University Hospital of Zurich cohort (35.4% in 2009 and 88.2% in 2018) but only marginal in the cancer registry cohort (12.2% in 2009 and 16.2% in 2018).

CONCLUSION

Despite clear guideline recommendations, active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer is still widely underused. Our analysis showed that access to a certified interdisciplinary tumour board significantly increases the use of active surveillance.

The 17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score Assay Is Prognostic for Biochemical Failure in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer After Radiation Therapy at a Community Cancer Center

Purpose

The objective of this study was to assess the association between the Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) assay and long-term outcomes in men with localized prostate cancer (PCa) after radiation therapy (RT). We hypothesized that the GPS assay is prognostic for biochemical failure (BCF), along with distant metastasis (DM) and PCa-specific mortality in patients with PCa receiving RT.

Methods and Materials

We retrospectively studied men with localized PCa treated with definitive RT at Georgia Urology from 2010 to 2016. The primary objective was to assess the association between GPS results and time to BCF per the Phoenix criteria; we also assessed time to DM and PCa-specific mortality. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models for all analyses, with clinicopathologic covariates determined a priori for multivariable modeling.

Results

A total of 450 patients (median age, 65 years; 35% Black) met eligibility criteria. There was a strong univariable association between GPS result and time to BCF (hazard ratio [HR] per 20-unit increase = 3.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.11-4.46; P < .001), which persisted after adjusting for clinicopathologic characteristics in multivariable analyses. We also observed this association for time to DM (HR = 5.19; 95% CI, 3.06-8.77; P < .001) and PCa-specific mortality (HR = 13.07; 95% CI, 4.42-49.39; P < .001). Race was not a predictor of time to BCF or DM, and the GPS assay was strongly prognostic for all endpoints in Black and White patients.

Conclusions

In a community-based cohort, the GPS assay was strongly prognostic for time to BCF as well as long-term outcomes in men treated with RT for localized PCa.

Are high-risk prostate cancer patients being treated equally? The impact of PSA

BACKGROUND

Patients with high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa) represent a heterogeneous group, however, current treatment guidelines do not consider their specific features. The objective of this study was to evaluate treatment trends and outcomes in HR patients defined by PSA alone and otherwise low-risk features.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database, we identified patients diagnosed with HR PCa between 2010 and 2016. A study group of patients defined by PSA >20 ng/ml alone and otherwise low-risk features, was compared to a group of HR patients defined by Gleason score or stage. We compared treatment rates over time, the use of concomitant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and overall survival (OS). Examination of treatment trends was done using a Z-test analysis. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to determine 5-year OS with the Log-rank test for comparison. Statistical analyses were completed using R Version 3.5.2.

RESULTS

We identified 5,652 patients in the study group and 71,922 in the comparison group. Only 6.8% of the study group had disease ≥cT2, compared to 43.7% in the comparison group. In the study group, 12.5% (709), underwent active surveillance (AS), 36.4% (2,055) radiation therapy (EBRT) and 51.1% (2,888) radical prostatectomy (RP), while the rate of AS, EBRT, and RP in the comparison group were 0.3% (191), 43.0% (30,928), and 56.7% (40,803), respectively. Over the study period, adoption of AS increased from 6.2% in 2010 to 25.0% in 2016 in the study group (P< 0.001), but not in the comparison group. In patients undergoing EBRT, ADT treatment increased from 2010 to 2016 in both groups, though by 2016 only 45.3% of patients in the study group and 86.3% in the comparison group received ADT. The 5-year OS was 93.7% (95% CI 92.8-94.6) in the study group and 89.7% (95% CI 89.2-90.1) in the comparison group (P< 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Men with HR PCa defined by PSA with otherwise low risk features present at an earlier stage and receive less aggressive therapy than other HR patients. Despite increased rates of AS and decreased use of ADT, these patients appear to have improved survival when compared to other HR patients. These findings suggest that not all HR patients will benefit from aggressive definitive treatment.

The Influence of Practice Structure on Urologists' Treatment of Men With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Vertical and horizontal integration among health care providers has transformed the practice arrangements under which many physicians work.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the influence of type of practice structure, and by implication the financial incentives associated with each structure, on treatment received among men newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We compiled a unique database from cancer registry records from 4 large states, Medicare enrollment and claims for the years 2005-2014 and SK & A physician surveys corroborated by extensive internet searches. We estimated a multinomial logit model to examine the influence of urologist practice structure on type of initial treatment received.

RESULTS

The probability of being monitored with active surveillance was 7.4% and 4.2% points higher for men treated by health system and nonhealth system employed urologists ( P <0.01), respectively, in comparison to men treated by single specialty urology practices. Among multispecialty practices, the rate of active surveillance use was 3% points higher compared with single specialty urology practices( P <0.01). Use of intensity modulated radiation therapy among urologists with ownership in intensity modulated radiation therapy was 17.4% points higher compared with urologists working in small single specialty practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician practice structure attributes are significantly associated with type of treatment received but few studies control for such factors. Our findings-coupled with the observation that urologist practice structure shifted substantially over this time period due to mergers of small urology groups-provide one explanation for the limited uptake of active surveillance among men with low-risk disease in the US.

The added influence of genomics and post-MRI confirmatory biopsy results to MRI results alone on medical decision making for men with favorable risk prostate cancer being considered for active surveillance

BACKGROUND

We examined how the results of genomic classifier (GC) or post-magnetic resonance imaging confirmatory biopsy (pMRI-CBx) influenced management strategy for men with an MRI considering active surveillance (AS).

METHODS

We reviewed the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry for men with favorable-risk prostate cancer. Among men with an MRI after the diagnostic biopsy (n = 1162) a subset also had GC (n = 126) or pMRI-CBx (n = 309). Results of MRI, GC, and pMRI-CBx were deemed reassuring (RA) or non-reassuring (Non-RA). We assess the association of the combination of test results obtained with the selection of AS. Proportions were compared with the Fisher's exact test. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit for an association of test results with the selection of AS.

RESULTS

The results of pMRI-CBx tended to influence management decisions greater than that of GC, especially in situation where testing results were discordant with the MRI result. Fewer men with a RA MRI and non-RA pMRI-CBx where managed with AS compared with RA MRI alone (31% vs. 86%, p < 0.001). non-RA genomics did not seem to have the same influence on management as non-RA pMRI-CBx as a similar proportion of men with RA MRI and non-RA genomics were managed with AS compared with RA MRI alone (85% vs. 86%, p = 0.753). More men with non-RA MRI and RA pMRI-CBx were managed with AS compared with non-RA MRI alone (89% vs. 40%, p < 0.001). Alternatively, a similar proportion of men with non-RA MRI and RA genomics were managed with AS compared with non-RA MRI alone (42% vs. 40%, p > 0.999). In the multivariable models, pMRI-CBx results influenced the decision for AS versus treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer and an MRI, the additional information provided by pMRI-CBx influenced the decision of AS versus treatment, while the addition of GC results were less influential.

Trends and practices for managing low-risk prostate cancer: a SEER-Medicare study

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.

Geographic Access to Radiation Therapy Facilities in the United States

BACKGROUND

The current distribution of radiation therapy (RT) facilities in the US is not well established. A comprehensive inventory of US RT facilities was last assessed in 2005, based on data from state regulatory agencies and dosimetric quality assurance bodies. We updated this database to characterize population-level measures of geographic access to RT and analyze changes over the past 15 years.

METHODS

We compiled data from regulatory and accrediting organizations to identify US facilities with linear accelerators used to treat humans in 2018-2020. Addresses were geocoded and analyzed with Geographic Information Services (GIS) software. Geographic access was characterized by assessing the Euclidian distance between zip code tabulation areas (ZCTA)/county centroids and RT facilities. Populations were assigned to each county to estimate the impact of facility changes at the population level. Logistic regressions were performed to identify features associated with increased distance to RT and associated with regions that gained an RT facility between the two time points studied.

RESULTS

In 2020, a total of 2,313 US RT facilities were reported compared to 1,987 in 2005, representing a 16.4% growth in facilities over nearly 15 years. Based on population attribution to ZCTA centroids, 77.9% of the US population lives within 12.5 miles of an RT facility, and 1.8% of the US population lives more than 50 miles from an RT facility. We found that increased distance to RT was associated with non-metro status, less insurance, older median age, and less populated regions. Between 2005 and 2020, the population living within 12.5 miles from an RT facility increased by 2.1 percentage points, while the population living furthest from RT facilities decreased 0.6 percentage points. Regions with improved geographic RT access are more likely to be higher income and better insured.

CONCLUSION

1.8% of the US population has limited geographic access to radiation therapy. We found that people benefiting from improved access to RT facilities are more economically advantaged, suggesting disparities in geographic access may not improve without intervention.

Adoption of New Risk Stratification Technologies Within US Hospital Referral Regions and Association With Prostate Cancer Management

IMPORTANCE

The clinical decisions that arise from prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and genomic testing in patients with prostate cancer are not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between regional uptake of prostate MRI and genomic testing and observation vs treatment for prostate cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study of commercial insurance claims for prostate MRI and genomic testing included 65 530 patients 40 to 89 years of age newly diagnosed with prostate cancer from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Patient- and regional-level use of prostate MRI and genomic testing.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Observation vs definitive treatment for prostate cancer. Patient-level analyses examined the association between receipt of testing or residing in a hospital referral region (HRR) that adopted testing and observation. In regional-level analyses, the dependent variable was the change in the proportion of patients observed for prostate cancer at the HRR level between 2 periods: July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2014, and July 1, 2017, to June 20, 2019. The independent study variables included HRR-level changes in the proportion of men undergoing prostate MRI and genomic testing between these periods, and the models were adjusted for contextual factors associated with prostate cancer care and socioeconomic status.

RESULTS

This study identified 65 530 patients, including 27 679 in the early period (mean [SD] age, 58.0 [5.9] years) and 37 851 in the late period (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.7] years). Use of prostate MRI increased significantly from 7.2% (95% CI, 6.9%-7.5%) to 16.7% (95% CI, 16.3%-17.1%) from the early to late period. Use of genomic testing increased significantly from 1.3% (95% CI, 1.1%-1.4%) to 12.7% (95% CI, 12.3%-13.0%) from the early to late period. Compared with the lowest, the highest HRR quartiles of prostate MRI and genomic testing uptake were associated with an adjusted 4.1% (SE, 1.1%; P < .001) and 2.5% (SE, 1.1%; P = .03) absolute increase in the proportion of patients receiving observation, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, uptake of prostate MRI and genomic testing was associated with increased use of initial observation vs treatment for prostate cancer. Marked geographic variation supports the need for further patient-level research to optimize the dissemination and outcome of testing.

Urology Workforce Changes and Implications for Prostate Cancer Care Among Medicare Enrollees

OBJECTIVE

To characterize national trends in urologist workforce, practice organization, and management of incident prostate cancer.

METHODS

Using Medicare claims data from 2010 to 2016, we identified all urologists billing Medicare and the practice with which they were affiliated. We characterized groups as solo, small single specialty, large single specialty, multispecialty, specialist, or hospital-owned practices. Using a 20% sample of national Medicare claims, we identified all patients with incident prostate cancer and identified their primary treatment.

RESULTS

The number of urologists increased from 9,305 in 2010 to 9,570 in 2016 (P = .03), while the number of practices decreased from 3,588 to 2,861 (P < .001). The proportion of urologists in multispecialty groups increased from 17.1% in 2010 to 28.2% in 2016, while those within solo practices declined from 26.2% to only 15.8% over the same time period. A higher proportion of patients at hospital-owned practices were treated with observation (P < .001) and surgery (P < .001), while a higher proportion of patients at large single specialty practices were treated with radiation therapy (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

We characterized shifts in urologist membership from smaller, independent groups to larger, multispecialty or hospital-owned practices. This trend coincides with higher utilization of observation and surgical treatment for prostate cancer.

Variation in the Use of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Across US Census Regions

Substantial geographic variation in healthcare practices exist. Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a critical tool in the management of men with low-risk prostate cancer. Whether there have been regional differences in adoption is largely unknown. The SEER “Prostate with Watchful Waiting Database” was used to identify patients diagnosed with localized low-risk prostate cancer and managed with AS across US census regions between 2010 and 2016. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the impact of region on undergoing AS and factors associated with AS use within each US census region. Between 2010 and 2016, the proportion of men managed with AS increased from 20.8% to 55.9% in the West, 11.5% to 50.0% in Northeast, 9.9% to 43.4% in the South and 15.1% to 56.2% in Midwest (p < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, as compared to the West, men in all regions were less likely to undergo AS (p < 0.001). Black men in the West (OR 1.36, 95%CI 1.25–1.49) and Midwest (OR 1.62, 95%CI 1.35–1.95) were more likely to undergo AS, but less likely in Northeast (OR 0.80, 95%CI 0.69–0.92). Men with higher socioeconomic status (SES) were more likely to undergo AS in the West (OR 1.47, 95%CI 1.39–1.55), Northeast (OR 1.57, 95%CI 1.36–1.81), and South (OR 1.24, 95%CI 1.13–1.37) but not in the Midwest (OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.73–0.98). We found striking regional differences in the uptake of AS according to race and SES. Geography must be taken into consideration when assessing barriers to AS use.

Influence of Sociodemographic Factors on Definitive Intervention Among Low-risk Active Surveillance Patients

OBJECTIVES

To investigate sociodemographic factors influencing decision of initially active surveillance (AS) prostate cancer (CaP) patients to opt for definitive therapy, and, specifically, choice of radical prostatectomy (RP) versus radiation therapy (XRT).

METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Prostate with Watchful Waiting database was used to identify AS patients diagnosed with NCCN low-risk CaP between 2010 and 2015. We sought to determine predictors of treatment type using multivariable logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Out of 32,874 men included, 21,255 (64.7%) underwent delayed treatment, with 3,751 (17.6%) and 17,463 (82.2%) opting for RP and XRT, respectively. Patients who were married (Odds Ratio [OR]: 1.18, P <.001), insured (OR 2.94, P <.001), of higher socioeconomic status (OR 1.67 for highest vs lowest, P <.01), and residing in a Southeastern or Midwestern region (ORs 1.26 and 1.22 vs Northeast, respectively, P <.01) were significantly more likely to undergo definitive intervention. A significant interaction between patient race and marital/socioeconomic statuses on the decision-making process was identified. Decision for XRT (vs RP) was more likely in older (OR 11.6 for 70-79 vs 50-59 years, P <.01), unmarried (OR 1.89, P <.01), African American (OR 1.41, P .018), and higher socioeconomic status (OR 1.54 for highest versus lowest quartile, P <.01) patients.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients initially treated with AS underwent delayed treatment. After accounting for pathologic characteristics, the interaction of sociodemographic factors including race, socioeconomic status, marital status, insurance status, and region of residence are significantly associated with the likelihood of undergoing definitive therapy.

Development of Mobile Application for Dynamically Monitoring the Risk of Prostate Cancer and Clinicopathology

Objective

To develop an application dynamically monitoring the prostate cancer (PCa) risk for patients to assess their own progression of PCa risk at home.

Methods

Between January 2010 and December 2019, all of the 1697 patients underwent transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy at the cancer center, which is one of the Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium. Patients’ clinical parameters from January 2010 to May 2018 were used to establish models that consisted of several risk factors with P value <0.1 in univariate analysis and with P value <0.05 in multivariate analysis (n=1113), including model 1 (predicting PCa), model 2 (predicting PCa with high Gleason scores (7 or higher)) and model 3 (predicting PCa with the high clinical stage (T2b or higher)). Other patients from June 2018 to December 2019 were used to validate models (n=440). Patients with a lack of sufficient data were eventually excluded (n=144).

Results

A total of 1553 patients were involved in this study, and an application was used to perform the models. The predictive cut-off value and area under the curves (AUCs) of model 1, 2 and 3 were, respectively, calculated (cut-off: 0.53, 0.38 and 0.40, AUCs: 0.88, 0.89 and 0.89). Using a cut-off value of 10%, three models obtained a high sensitivity (>95%). Besides, more patients can be correctly reclassified via our models (42.9 to 55.5%). Decision curve analyses revealed a decent net benefit in any probability for models. These results were well verified in the validation cohort.

Conclusion

This application showed decent performance in predicting the risk of PCa and clinicopathology, which was available and convenient for patients to self-assess the progress of PCa risks so that being better to participate in disease management.

Screening for Prostate Cancer

This article gives an overview of the current state of the evidence for prostate cancer early detection with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and summarizes current recommendations from guideline groups. The article reviews the global public health burden and risk factors for prostate cancer with clinical implications as screening tools. Screening studies, novel biomarkers, and MRI are discussed. The article outlines 7 key practice points for primary care physicians and provides a simple schema for facilitating shared decision-making conversations.

Decision support for men with prostate cancer: Concordance between treatment choice and tumor risk

BACKGROUND

Decision support tools improve decisional conflict and elicit patient preferences related to prostate cancer treatment. It was hypothesized that men using the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P) would be more likely to pursue guideline-concordant treatment.

METHODS

Men from a trial assessing the P3P decision support intervention were identified. The primary exposure was allocation to P3P (vs usual care), and the outcome was appropriate treatment per guidelines (eg, low risk = active surveillance). It was assessed whether providers recommended against any treatment options (ie, restricted). A multivariable model was fit for men with low-risk cancer that estimated the odds of the outcome of interest.

RESULTS

This study identified 295 men in the cohort: 113 (38%) had low-risk disease, 119 (40%) had favorable intermediate-risk disease, and 63 (21%) had unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Among low-risk patients, more men pursued active surveillance after using P3P whether they were given unrestricted (62% vs 54% with usual care; P = .54) or restricted options (71% vs 59% with usual care; P = .34). After adjustments, only Black race (odds ratio [OR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.89) and restricted options (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.65) had an inverse association with the receipt of surveillance for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. An impact associated with P3P versus usual care (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.36-2.20) was not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Among men in a trial assessing a decision support tool, Black race and restricted treatment options were associated with less use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Although the P3P instrument ameliorates decisional conflict, its use was not associated with more appropriate alignment of treatment with disease risk.

Access denied: The relationship between patient insurance status and access to high-volume hospitals

BACKGROUND

Underinsured patients face significant barriers in accessing high-quality care. Evidence of whether access to high-volume surgical care is mediated by disparities in health insurance coverage remains wanting.

METHODS

The authors used the National Cancer Data Base to identify all adult patients who had a confirmed diagnosis of breast, prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer during 2004 through 2016. The odds of receiving surgical care at a high-volume hospital were estimated according to the type of insurance using multivariable logistic regression analyses for each malignancy. Then, the interactions between study period and insurance status were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 1,279,738 patients were included in the study. Of these, patients with breast cancer who were insured by Medicare (odds ratio [OR], 0.75; P < .001), Medicaid (OR, 0.55; P < .001), or uninsured (OR, 0.50; P < .001); patients with prostate cancer who were insured by Medicare (OR, 0.87; P = .003), Medicaid (OR, 0.58; P = .001), or uninsured (OR, 0.36; P < .001); and patients with lung cancer who were insured by Medicare (OR, 0.84; P = .020), Medicaid (OR, 0.74; P = .001), or uninsured (OR, 0.48; P < .001) were less likely to receive surgical care at high-volume hospitals compared with patients who had private insurance. For patients with colorectal cancer, the effect of insurance differed by study period, and improved since 2011. For those on Medicaid, the odds of receiving care at a high-volume hospital were 0.51 during 2004 through 2007 and 0.99 during 2014 through 2016 (P for interaction = .001); for uninsured patients, the odds were 0.45 during 2004 through 2007 and 1.19 during 2014 through 2016 (P for interaction < .001) compared with patients who had private insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

Uninsured, Medicare-insured, and Medicaid-insured patients are less likely to receive surgical care at high-volume hospitals. For uninsured and Medicaid-insured patients with colorectal cancer, the odds of receiving care at high-volume hospitals have improved since implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.

Cause of Mortality after Radical Prostatectomy and the Impact of Comorbidity in Men with Prostate Cancer: A Multi-institutional Study in Korea

Purpose

This study aimed to examine the causes of death in Korean patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and investigate the relationship between comorbidity and mortality.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study including 4,064 consecutive patients who had prostate cancer and underwent radical prostatectomy between January 1998 and June 2013. The primary endpoint of this study was all-cause mortality, and the secondary endpoints were cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM). Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was calculated to assess the comorbidities of each patient.

Results

Of 4,064 patients, 446 (11.0%) died during follow-up. The cause of death was prostate cancer in 132 patients (29.6%), other cancers in 121 patients (27.1%), and vascular disease in 57 patients (12.8%) in our cohort. The overall 10-year CSM rate was lower than the OCM rate (4.6% vs. 10.5%). The 10-year CSM rate was lower than the OCM rate in low- to intermediate-risk group patients (1.2% vs. 10.6%), whereas they were similar in high-risk group patients (11.8% vs. 10.1%). In the multivariable analysis, CCI was independently associated with all-cause mortality after radical prostatectomy, regardless of age and pathologic features.

Conclusion

Death from prostate cancer was rare in Korean men who underwent radical prostatectomy. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer in men with significant comorbidity. Our findings may help to facilitate counseling and plan management in this patient group.

Associations of multimorbidity and patient-reported experiences of care with conservative management among elderly patients with localized prostate cancer

Background

Many elderly localized prostate cancer patients could benefit from conservative management (CM). This retrospective cohort study examined the associations of patient‐reported access to care and multimorbidity on CM use patterns among Medicare Fee‐for‐Service (FFS) beneficiaries with localized prostate cancer.

Methods

We used linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer Registry, Medicare Claims, and the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (MCAHPS) survey files. We identified FFS Medicare Beneficiaries (age ≥ 66; continuous enrollment in Parts A & B) with incident localized prostate cancer from 2003 to 2013 and a completed MCAHPS survey measuring patient‐reported experiences of care within 24 months after diagnosis (n = 496). We used multivariable models to examine MCAHPS measures (getting needed care, timeliness of care, and doctor communication) and multimorbidity on CM use.

Results

Localized prostate cancer patients with multimorbidity were less likely to use CM (adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=0.42 (0.27‐ 0.66), P < .001); those with higher scores on timeliness of care (AOR = 1.21 (1.09, 1.35), P < .001), higher education attainment (3.21 = AOR (1.50,6.89), P = .003), and impaired mental health status (4.32 = AOR (1.86, 10.1) P < .001) were more likely to use CM.

Conclusion(s)

Patient‐reported experience with timely care was significantly and positively associated with CM use. Multimorbidity was significantly and inversely associated with CM use. Addressing specific modifiable barriers to timely care along the cancer continuum for elderly localized prostate cancer patients with limited life expectancy could reduce the adverse effects of overtreatment on health outcomes and costs.

Serial Molecular Profiling of Low-grade Prostate Cancer to Assess Tumor Upgrading: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The potential for low-grade (grade group 1 [GG1]) prostate cancer (PCa) to progress to high-grade disease remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To interrogate the molecular and biological features of low-grade PCa serially over time.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Nested longitudinal cohort study in an academic active surveillance (AS) program. Men were on AS for GG1 PCa from 2012 to 2017.

INTERVENTION

Electronic tracking and resampling of PCa using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

ERG immunohistochemistry (IHC) and targeted DNA/RNA next-generation sequencing were performed on initial and repeat biopsies. Tumor clonality was assessed. Molecular data were compared between men who upgraded and those who did not upgrade to GG ≥ 2 cancer.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Sixty-six men with median age 64 yr (interquartile range [IQR], 59-69) and prostate-specific antigen 4.9 ng/mL (IQR, 3.3-6.4) underwent repeat sampling of a tracked tumor focus (median interval, 11 mo; IQR, 6-13). IHC-based ERG fusion status was concordant at initial and repeat biopsies in 63 men (95% vs expected 50%, p <  0.001), and RNAseq-based fusion and isoform expression were concordant in nine of 13 (69%) ERG⁺ patients, supporting focal resampling. Among 15 men who upgraded with complete data at both time points, integrated DNA/RNAseq analysis provided evidence of shared clonality in at least five cases. Such cases could reflect initial undersampling, but also support the possibility of clonal temporal progression of low-grade cancer. Our assessment was limited by sample size and use of targeted sequencing.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat molecular assessment of low-grade tumors suggests that clonal progression could be one mechanism of upgrading. These data underscore the importance of serial tumor assessment in men pursuing AS of low-grade PCa.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We performed targeted rebiopsy and molecular testing of low-grade tumors on active surveillance. Our findings highlight the importance of periodic biopsy as a component of monitoring for cancer upgrading during surveillance.

Temporal Changes in Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Men With Prostate Cancer Electing for Conservative Management in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the role of clinical and sociodemographic factors in the use of conservative management for localized prostate cancer in the US between 2010 and 2015, and to understand how those factors evolved in light of the recent national increase in conservative management rates.

METHODS

Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program "Prostate with Watchful Waiting Database," where conservative treatment was delineated by a distinct classifier, was used to evaluate factors associated with electing for conservative management at initial diagnosis (2010-2015). Men aged ≥40 years with cT1-T2a and T2NOS with Gleason score 3 + 3 and 3 + 4 were included (n = 118,415). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between clinical and sociodemographic factors and electing conservative management.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 15, a total of 22,099 (18.6%) men were managed conservatively. Mean age of men managed conservatively decreased from 66.6 to 64.6 years, and median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) increased from 5.7 to 6.0 ng/mL, P <.0001. Men with lower income experienced a greater increase in conservative management rates compared to those with high income (152% vs 72% for third and fifth [richest] income quintiles, respectively). On multivariable analysis, Gleason score 3 + 3, older age, lower PSA, more recent year, treatment in the West, and higher levels of county income were significantly associated with conservative management.

CONCLUSION

Characteristics of men undergoing conservative management are rapidly changing. Younger men, men with higher PSAs, and men of all incomes are increasingly being managed conservatively. Narrowing of income-based disparities with concurrent broadening of patients considered eligible for surveillance is encouraging.

Selecting Active Surveillance: Decision Making Factors for Men with a Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

Background. Men with a low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) should consider observation, particularly active surveillance (AS), a monitoring strategy that avoids active treatment (AT) in the absence of disease progression. Objective. To determine clinical and decision-making factors predicting treatment selection. Design. Prospective cohort study. Setting. Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC). Patients. Men newly diagnosed with low-risk PCa between 2012 and 2014 who remained enrolled in KPNC for 12 months following diagnosis. Measurements. We used surveys and medical record abstractions to measure sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and psychological and decision-making factors. Men were classified as being on observation if they did not undergo AT within 12 months of diagnosis. We performed multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results. The average age of the 1171 subjects was 61.5 years (s = 7.2 years), and 81% were white. Overall, 639 (57%) were managed with observation; in adjusted analyses, significant predictors of observation included awareness of low-risk status (odds ratio 1.75; 95% confidence interval 1.04-2.94), knowing that observation was an option (3.62; 1.62-8.09), having concerns about treatment-related quality of life (1.21, 1.09-1.34), reporting a urologist recommendation for observation (8.20; 4.68-14.4), and having a lower clinical stage (T1c v. T2a, 2.11; 1.16-3.84). Conversely, valuing cancer control (1.54; 1.37-1.72) and greater decisional certainty (1.66; 1.18-2.35) were predictive of AT. Limitations. Results may be less generalizable to other types of health care systems and to more diverse populations. Conclusions. Many participants selected observation, and this was associated with tumor characteristics. However, nonclinical decisional factors also independently predicted treatment selection. Efforts to provide early decision support, particularly targeting knowledge deficits, and reassurance to men with low-risk cancers may facilitate better decision making and increase uptake of observation, particularly AS.

Practice-Level Adoption of Conservative Management for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

We describe the longitudinal adoption of conservative management (ie, the absence of treatment) for prostate cancer among urology group practices in the United States and identify group practice features that influence this adoption.

METHODS

Using a 20% sample of Medicare claims, we identified men with incident prostate cancer from 2010 through 2014 and assigned each to his predominant urologist. We linked each urologist to a practice and characterized the practice's organization (eg, solo, single specialty, multispecialty) and ownership of intensity-modulated radiation therapy. For each group, we determined the rate of conservative management within 1 year of diagnosis. We then fit mixed-effects logistic regression models to assess relationships between practice organization and the adoption of conservative management over time, adjusted for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

We identified 22,178 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer managed by 350 practices. Practices that increased use the most over time also used conservative management the most in 2010, whereas those that increased use the least used conservative management the least in 2010. Thus, the difference in average use of conservative management between highest- and lowest-use practices widened between 2010 and 2014. Urology groups increased their use of conservative management more rapidly than multispecialty groups. There was no difference in the rate of increase between intensity-modulated radiation therapy owning and nonowning groups.

CONCLUSION

There is increasing variation among group practices in the use of conservative management for prostate cancer. This underscores the need for a better understanding of practice-level factors that influence prostate cancer management.

Multilevel Analysis of Readmissions After Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer in the USA: Does the Hospital Make a Difference?

BACKGROUND

Hospitals are increasingly being held responsible for their readmissions rates. The contribution of hospital versus patient factors (eg, case mix) to hospital readmissions is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the relative contribution of hospital and patient factors to readmissions after radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We identified individuals who underwent RC in 2014 in the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). The NRD is a nationally representative (USA), all-payer database that includes readmissions at index and nonindex hospitals. Survey weights were used to generate national estimates.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The main outcome was readmission within 30 d after RC. Using a multilevel mixed-effects model, we estimated the statistical association between patient and hospital characteristics and readmission. A hospital-level random-effects term was used to estimate hospital-level readmission rates while holding patient characteristics constant.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

We identified a weighted sample of 7095 individuals who underwent RC at 341 hospitals in the USA. The 30-d readmission rate was 29.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 27.8-31.2%), ranging from 1.4% (95% CI 0.6-2.2%) in the bottom quartile to 73.6% (95% CI 68.4-78.7) in the top. In our multilevel model, female sex and comorbidity score were associated with a higher likelihood of readmission. The hospital random-effects term, encompassing both measured and unmeasured hospital characteristics, contributed minimally to the model for readmission when patient characteristics were held constant at population mean values (pseudo-R²<0.01% for hospital effects). Surgical volume, bed size, hospital ownership, and academic status were not significantly associated with readmission rates when these terms were added to the model.

CONCLUSIONS

After adjusting for patient characteristics, hospital-level effects explained little of the large between-hospital variability in readmission rates. These findings underscore the limitations of using 30-d post-discharge readmissions as a hospital quality metric.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The chance of being readmitted after radical cystectomy varies substantially between hospitals. Little of this variability can be explained by hospital-level characteristics, while far more can be explained by patient characteristics and random variability.

Variation in Positive Surgical Margin Status After Radical Prostatectomy for pT2 Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated patient, hospital, and cancer-specific factors associated with positive surgical margin (PSM) variability after radical prostatectomy in pT2 prostate cancer in the United States.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 45,426 men from 1152 hospitals with pT2 prostate cancer and known margin status after radical prostatectomy were identified using the National Cancer Database (2010-2015). Data on patient, cancer, hospital factors, and surgical approach were extracted. A mixed effects logistic regression model was computed to examine factors associated with PSM and partial R² values to assess the relative contributions of patient, cancer, and hospital variables to PSM status.

RESULTS

Median PSM rate of 8.5% (interquartile range, 5.2%-13.0%). Robotic (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.99) and laparoscopic (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.90) surgical approach, academic institution (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.00) and high hospital surgical volume (>297 cases [OR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99) were independently associated with a lower PSM. Black men (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26) and adverse cancer-specific features (prostate-specific antigen [PSA], 10-20; PSA >20; cT3 stage; Gleason 7, 8, 9-10; all P > .01) were independently associated with a higher PSM. Patient-specific, hospital-specific, and cancer-specific factors had a contribution of 2.3%, 3.9%, and 15.2%, respectively, to the variation in PSM. Facility had a contribution of 23.7% to the variation in PSM.

CONCLUSION

Cancer-specific factors account for 15.2% of PSM variation with the remaining 84.8% of PSM variation due to patient, hospital, and other factors not accounted within the model. Noncancer-specific factors represent addressable factors that are important for policy-makers in efforts to improve patient outcome.

Facility Level Variation in Rates of Definitive Therapy for Low Risk Prostate Cancer in Men with Limited Life Expectancy: An Opportunity for Value Based Care Redesign

PURPOSE

We sought to identify facility level variation in the use of definitive therapy among men diagnosed with clinically localized, low risk prostate cancer who were more than 65 years old and had a limited life expectancy of less than 10 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using data from the National Cancer Database we identified 18,178 men older than 65 years with less than a 10-year life expectancy receiving definitive therapy at a total of 1,172 facilities for biopsy confirmed localized, low risk prostate cancer diagnosed between January 2004 and December 2013. A multilevel, hierarchical, mixed effects logistic regression model was fitted to predict the odds of receiving definitive therapy.

RESULTS

Overall 18,178 men (76%) older than 65 years with limited life expectancy and a diagnosis of low risk prostate cancer received definitive therapy, although the rate of therapy decreased significantly with time (p <0.001). Patients receiving definitive therapy were more often younger (80 years or older vs 66 to 69 years OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.09-0.15, p <0.001) and white rather than black (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.98, p = 0.03). Conversely, being uninsured (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21-0.63, p <0.001) and receiving care at an academic medical center (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28-0.46, p <0.001) conferred decreased odds of undergoing definitive therapy. The proportion of men undergoing definitive therapy ranged from 0.12% to 100% across facilities.

CONCLUSIONS

We found significant facility level variation in rates of definitive therapy in men with localized prostate cancer and limited life expectancy. Health care providers and policy makers alike should be aware of the varying frequency with which this potentially low value service is performed.

The current landscape of low-value care in men diagnosed with prostate cancer: what is the role of individual hospitals?

BACKGROUND

A considerable number of prostate cancer (PCa) patients eligible for expectant management receive definitive treatment. We aimed to investigate the hospital-level contribution to overtreatment in the United States.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database we identified two nonoverlapping cohorts: (1) men with a life expectancy <10 years harbouring low or intermediate risk PCa (2) men with life expectancy ≥10 years with low-risk PCa. Multivariable mixed models with patient characteristics as fixed and hospital-level intercept as random effect were used to assess the hospital-level risk-adjusted probability of definitive treatment in both groups. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to investigate the correlation between the hospitals probabilities of treating patients of both cohorts.

RESULTS

We found 33,431 men with a life expectancy <10 years and 122,514 men with a life expectancy ≥10 years and low-risk PCa. In the latter, the probability of treatment ranged from 29.0% in the bottom to 90.0% in the top decile and from 35.0% to 88.0% for men with a life expectancy <10 years. Age and race were independent predictors of low-value treatment in both cohorts. The correlation between 1,225 hospitals treating men of both cohorts was strong (Pearson's r = 0.66, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

There is wide hospital-level variability in low-value treatment of men with limited life expectancies and low-risk PCa. Hospitals more likely to treat men with limited life expectancies were more likely to treat men with low-risk PCa and vice versa. Identifying drivers and modifying practice at these hospitals may represent an effective tool for reducing overtreatment.

Prostate cancer awareness, case-finding, and early diagnosis: Interviews with undiagnosed men in Australia

Previous research in Victoria, Australia, found differences in prostate cancer outcomes in regional and metropolitan areas. This investigation of undiagnosed men in regional areas and a metropolitan area of South Australia sought their perspectives on prostate cancer. Our aim was to learn whether men who had not been diagnosed could shed light on why men outside metropolitan areas tended to have poorer outcomes than metropolitan men. Our goal was to build on evidence contributing to improving outcomes in prostate cancer care. Semi-structured interviews were designed to elicit explanation and meaning. 15 men (10 metropolitan, 5 regional) not diagnosed with prostate cancer were recruited through widely-distributed flyers in medical and community settings. Interviews were recorded and transcribed; transcripts were analysed thematically. Five main themes were identified, four of which were prompted by the questions: Addressing prostate health, Experiences with and expectations of GPs, Differences in care between regional and metropolitan areas, and Achieving early diagnosis. The fifth theme arose spontaneously: Australian masculinity. Men identified as problematic the limited availability of GPs in regional areas, the lack of consistency in approaches to prostate cancer detection, and men’s reluctance to seek medical care. Community-level strategies appear to be valued to encourage men to address prostate health. Maintaining and extending a systemic approach to prostate care may improve outcomes for men in Australia.

[Active surveillance of prostate cancer : An update]

Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease. In cases of low-risk prostate cancer, active surveillance represents an attractive alternative treatment. Significant complications of a definitive treatment can therefore be delayed or completely avoided. Despite strict inclusion criteria for active surveillance, the diagnosis of low-risk prostate cancer can be inaccurate and there is therefore a risk of missing the optimal point in time for definitive treatment. Multimodal diagnostics and continuous aftercare are therefore crucial.

National Trends in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Validation of Medicare Claims-based Algorithms

OBJECTIVE

To better describe the real-world use of active surveillance. Active surveillance is a preferred management option for low-risk prostate cancer, yet its use outside of high-volume institutions is poorly understood. We created multiple claims-based algorithms, validated them using a robust clinical registry, and applied them to Medicare claims to describe national utilization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified men with prostate cancer from 2012-2014 in a 100% sample of Michigan Medicare data and linked them with the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry. Using MUSIC treatment assignment as the standard, we determined the performance of 8 claims-based algorithms to identify men on active surveillance. We selected 3 algorithms (the most sensitive, the most specific, and a balanced algorithm incorporating age and comorbidity) and applied them to a 20% national Medicare sample to describe national trends.

RESULTS

We identified 1186 men with incident prostate cancer and completely linked data. Eight algorithms were tested with sensitivity ranging from 23.5% to 88.2% and specificity ranging from 93.5% to 99.1%. We found that the use of surveillance for men with incident prostate cancer increased from 2007 to 2014, nationally. However, among all men in the population, there was a large decrease in the rate of prostate cancer diagnosis and an increased or stable rate in the use of active surveillance, depending on the algorithm used. Less than 25% of men on active surveillance underwent a confirmatory prostate biopsy.

CONCLUSION

We describe the performance of claims-based algorithms to identify active surveillance.

Active Surveillance Use Among a Low-risk Prostate Cancer Population in a Large US Payer System: 17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score Versus Other Risk Stratification Methods

Many men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) receive definitive treatment despite recommendations that have been informed by two large, randomized trials encouraging active surveillance (AS). We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Optum™ Research Database (Eden Prairie, MN) of electronic health records and administrative claims data to assess AS use for patients tested with a 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score™ (GPS; Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA) assay and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). De-identified records were extracted on health plan members enrolled from June 2013 to June 2016 who had ≥1 record of PCa (n 5 291,876). Inclusion criteria included age ≥18 years, new diagnosis, American Urological Association low-risk PCa (stage T1-T2a, prostate-specific antigen ≤10 ng/mL, Gleason score 5 6), and clinical activity for at least 12 months before and after diagnosis. Data included baseline characteristics, use of GPS testing and/or MRI, and definitive procedures. GPS or MRI testing was performed in 17% of men (GPS, n 5 375, 4%; MRI, n 5 1174, 13%). AS use varied from a low of 43% for men who only underwent MRI to 89% for GPStested men who did not undergo MRI (P <.001). At 6-month follow-up, AS use was 31.0% higher (95% CI, 27.6%-34.5%; P <.001) for men receiving the GPS test only versus men who did not undergo GPS testing or MRI; the difference was 30.5% at 12-month follow-up. In a large US payer system, the GPS assay was associated with significantly higher AS use at 6 and 12 months compared with men who had MRI only, or no GPS or MRI testing.