Dataset Information

Treatment of men with high-risk prostate cancer based on race, insurance coverage, and access to advanced technology.

ABSTRACT: We characterized factors related to nondefinitive management (NDM) of patients with high-risk prostate cancer and assessed impact from race, insurance status, and facility-level volume of technologically advanced prostate cancer treatments (i.e., intensity-modulated radiation therapy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy) on this outcome.We identified men with high-risk localized prostate cancer (based on D?Amico criteria) in the National Cancer Database (2010-2012). Primary outcome was NDM (i.e., delayed/no treatment with prostatectomy/radiation therapy or androgen-deprivation monotherapy). Treating facilities were classified by quartiles of proportions of patients treated with advanced technology. Multivariable regression estimated odds of primary outcome based on race, insurance status, and facility-level technology use, and evaluated for interactions between these covariates.Among 60,300 patients, 9,265 (15.4%) received NDM. This was more common among non-White men (P<0.001), Medicaid/uninsured patients (P<0.001), and those managed at facilities in the lowest quartile of technology use (25.1% vs. 11.0% highest, P<0.001). Though NDM was common among non-White men with Medicaid/no insurance treated at low-technology centers (43% vs. 10% White, private/Medicare, high-tech facility; adjusted odds ratios = 7.18, P<0.001), this was less likely if this group was managed at a high-tech hospital (22% vs. 43% low-tech, P<0.001).Technology use at a facility correlates with high-quality prostate cancer care and is associated with diminished disparities based on insurance status and patient race. More research is required to characterize other facility-level factors explaining these findings.

SUBMITTER: Gerhard RS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5400671 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Treatment of men with high-risk prostate cancer based on race, insurance coverage, and access to advanced technology.

Gerhard Robert Steven RS Patil Dattatraya D Liu Yuan Y Ogan Kenneth K Alemozaffar Mehrdad M Jani Ashesh B AB Kucuk Omer N ON Master Viraj A VA Gillespie Theresa W TW Filson Christopher P CP

Urologic oncology 20170112 5

<h4>Purpose</h4>We characterized factors related to nondefinitive management (NDM) of patients with high-risk prostate cancer and assessed impact from race, insurance status, and facility-level volume of technologically advanced prostate cancer treatments (i.e., intensity-modulated radiation therapy, robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy) on this outcome.<h4>Methods</h4>We identified men with high-risk localized prostate cancer (based on D׳Amico criteria) in the National Cancer Dat ...[more]

PMID: 28089387

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAn increasing diversity of children's health coverage options under the US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, together with uncertainty regarding reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) beyond 2017, merits renewed attention on the quality of these options for children.ObjectiveTo compare health care access, quality, and cost outcomes by insurance type (Medicaid, CHIP, private, and uninsured) for children in households with low to moderate incomes.Design, setting, and participantsA repeated cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from the 2003, 2007, and 2011-2012 US National Surveys of Children's Health, comprising 80,655 children 17 years or younger, weighted to 67 million children nationally, with household incomes between 100% and 300% of the federal poverty level. Multivariable logistic regression models compared caregiver-reported outcomes across insurance types. Analysis was conducted between July 14, 2014, and May 6, 2015.ExposuresInsurance type was ascertained using a caregiver-reported measure of insurance status and each household's poverty status (percentage of the federal poverty level).Main outcomes and measuresCaregiver-reported outcomes related to access to primary and specialty care, unmet needs, out-of-pocket costs, care coordination, and satisfaction with care.ResultsAmong the 80,655 children, 51,123 (57.3%) had private insurance, 11,853 (13.6%) had Medicaid, 9554 (18.4%) had CHIP, and 8125 (10.8%) were uninsured. In a multivariable logistic regression model (with results reported as adjusted probabilities [95% CIs]), children insured by Medicaid and CHIP were significantly more likely to receive a preventive medical (Medicaid, 88% [86%-89%]; P < .01; CHIP, 88% [87%-89%]; P < .01) and dental (Medicaid, 80% [78%-81%]; P < .01; CHIP, 77% [76%-79%]; P < .01) visits than were privately insured children (medical, 83% [82%-84%]; dental, 73% [72%-74%]). Children with all insurance types experienced challenges in access to specialty care, with caregivers of children insured by CHIP reporting the highest rates of difficulty accessing specialty care (28% [24%-32%]), problems obtaining a referral (23% [18%-29%]), and frustration obtaining health care services (26% [23%-28%]). These challenges were also magnified for privately insured children with special health care needs, whose caregivers reported significantly greater problems accessing specialty care (29% [26%-33%]) and frustration obtaining health care services (36% [32%-41%]) than did caregivers of children insured by Medicaid, and a lower likelihood of insurance always meeting the child's needs (63% [60%-67%]) than children insured by Medicaid or CHIP. Caregivers of privately insured children were also significantly more likely to experience out-of-pocket costs (77% [75%-78%]) than were caregivers of children insured by Medicaid (26% [23%-28%]; P < .01) or CHIP (38% [35%-40%]; P < .01).Conclusions and relevanceThis examination of caregiver experiences across insurance types revealed important differences that can help guide future policymaking regarding coverage for families with low to moderate incomes.

Project description:The use of advanced treatment technologies (ie, intensity-modulated radiotherapy [IMRT] and robotic prostatectomy) for prostate cancer is increasing. The extent to which these advanced treatment technologies have disseminated among patients at low risk of dying from prostate cancer is uncertain.To assess the use of advanced treatment technologies, compared with prior standards (ie, traditional external beam radiation treatment [EBRT] and open radical prostatectomy) and observation, among men with a low risk of dying from prostate cancer.Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, we identified a retrospective cohort of men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009 who underwent IMRT (n = 23,633), EBRT (n = 3926), robotic prostatectomy (n = 5881), open radical prostatectomy (n = 6123), or observation (n = 16,384). Follow-up data were available through December 31, 2010.The use of advanced treatment technologies among men unlikely to die from prostate cancer, as assessed by low-risk disease (clinical stage ?T2a, biopsy Gleason score ?6, and prostate-specific antigen level ?10 ng/mL), high risk of noncancer mortality (based on the predicted probability of death within 10 years in the absence of a cancer diagnosis), or both.In our cohort, the use of advanced treatment technologies increased from 32% (95% CI, 30%-33%) to 44% (95% CI, 43%-46%) among men with low-risk disease (P < .001) and from 36% (95% CI, 35%-38%) to 57% (95% CI, 55%-59%) among men with high risk of noncancer mortality (P < .001). The use of these advanced treatment technologies among men with both low-risk disease and high risk of noncancer mortality increased from 25% (95% CI, 23%-28%) to 34% (95% CI, 31%-37%) (P < .001). Among all patients diagnosed in SEER, the use of advanced treatment technologies for men unlikely to die from prostate cancer increased from 13% (95% CI, 12%-14%), or 129.2 per 1000 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, to 24% (95% CI, 24%-25%), or 244.2 per 1000 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (P < .001).Among men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009 who had low-risk disease, high risk of noncancer mortality, or both, the use of advanced treatment technologies has increased.

Dataset Information

Treatment of men with high-risk prostate cancer based on race, insurance coverage, and access to advanced technology.

Publications

Treatment of men with high-risk prostate cancer based on race, insurance coverage, and access to advanced technology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets