Dataset Information

Does Certificate of Need Minimize Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Use in Patients with Low Risk Prostate Cancer?

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Certificate of Need (CON) laws are optional from state to state, and are meant to limit proliferation of certain unnecessary medical facilities. Theoretically, CON should limit the use of IMRT (intensity modulated radiation therapy) in the population who likely would benefit from it the least: older or debilitated men with low risk prostate cancer. We evaluated the effect of CON on IMRT use in these patients in a population-based cohort. METHODS AND MATERIALS:Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database linked with Medicare files, we identified male residents of SEER regions who were diagnosed in 2004-2009 with low- risk prostate cancer (T1, Gleason?6, PSA<10) and were either ?70 years old or ?65 years old with Charlson comorbidity score ? 2. The endpoint was percentage of newly diagnosed patients who were treated with IMRT within 12 month of cancer diagnosis. Logistic regression was used to assess the impact of CON laws on IMRT use. RESULTS:Over 37% (4,491) of the patients came from states with radiation oncology CON laws, whereas 63% (7,572) came from non-CON states. IMRT was performed on 30% of CON patients versus 28% of non-CON patients. Logistic regression analysis revealed that IMRT was utilized more often in CON states than in non-CON states, odds ratio (OR) 1.13 (95% CI 1.04-1.23, p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS:CON laws do not effectively limit use of IMRT in older or debilitated patients with low risk prostate cancer.

SUBMITTER: Kim S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5648073 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does Certificate of Need Minimize Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Use in Patients with Low Risk Prostate Cancer?

Kim Sung S Patel Akshar N AN Nelson Carl C Shen Shunhua S Mayer Tina T Moore Dirk F DF Lu-Yao Grace L GL

Urology practice 20160901 5

<h4>Purpose</h4>Certificate of Need (CON) laws are optional from state to state, and are meant to limit proliferation of certain unnecessary medical facilities. Theoretically, CON should limit the use of IMRT (intensity modulated radiation therapy) in the population who likely would benefit from it the least: older or debilitated men with low risk prostate cancer. We evaluated the effect of CON on IMRT use in these patients in a population-based cohort.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>Using the Sur ...[more]

PMID: 29057297

Similar Datasets

Project description:There has been rapid adoption of newer radiation treatments such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton therapy despite greater cost and limited demonstrated benefit compared with previous technologies.To determine the comparative morbidity and disease control of IMRT, proton therapy, and conformal radiation therapy for primary prostate cancer treatment.Population-based study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-linked data from 2000 through 2009 for patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.Rates of gastrointestinal and urinary morbidity, erectile dysfunction, hip fractures, and additional cancer therapy.Use of IMRT vs conformal radiation therapy increased from 0.15% in 2000 to 95.9% in 2008. In propensity score-adjusted analyses (N = 12,976), men who received IMRT vs conformal radiation therapy were less likely to receive a diagnosis of gastrointestinal morbidities (absolute risk, 13.4 vs 14.7 per 100 person-years; relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96) and hip fractures (absolute risk, 0.8 vs 1.0 per 100 person-years; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93) but more likely to receive a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction (absolute risk, 5.9 vs 5.3 per 100 person-years; RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.20). Intensity-modulated radiation therapy patients were less likely to receive additional cancer therapy (absolute risk, 2.5 vs 3.1 per 100 person-years; RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89). In a propensity score-matched comparison between IMRT and proton therapy (n = 1368), IMRT patients had a lower rate of gastrointestinal morbidity (absolute risk, 12.2 vs 17.8 per 100 person-years; RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79). There were no significant differences in rates of other morbidities or additional therapies between IMRT and proton therapy.Among patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer, the use of IMRT compared with conformal radiation therapy was associated with less gastrointestinal morbidity and fewer hip fractures but more erectile dysfunction; IMRT compared with proton therapy was associated with less gastrointestinal morbidity.

Project description:BackgroundProstate cancer treatment is a significant source of morbidity and spending. Some men with prostate cancer, particularly those with significant health problems, are unlikely to benefit from treatment.ObjectiveTo assess relationships between financial incentives associated with urologist ownership of radiation facilities and treatment for prostate cancer.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2012. Patients were further classified by their risk of dying from noncancer causes in the 10 yr following their cancer diagnosis by using a mortality model derived from comparable patients known to be cancer-free.InterventionUrologists were categorized by their practice affiliation (single-specialty groups by size, multispecialty group) and ownership of a radiation facility.Outcome measurements and analysisUse of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and use of any treatment within 1 yr of diagnosis. Generalized estimating equations were used to adjust for patient differences.ResultsAmong men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, use of IMRT ranged from 24% in multispecialty groups to 37% in large urology groups (p<0.001). Patients managed in groups with IMRT ownership (n=5133) were more likely to receive IMRT than those managed by single-specialty groups without ownership (43% vs 30%, p<0.001), regardless of group size. Among patients with a very high risk (> 75%) of noncancer mortality within 10 yr of diagnosis, both IMRT use (42% vs 26%, p<0.001) and overall treatment (53% vs 44%, p<0.001) were more likely in groups with ownership than in those without, respectively.ConclusionsUrologists practicing in single-specialty groups with an ownership interest in radiation therapy are more likely to treat men with prostate cancer, including those with a high risk of noncancer mortality.Patient summaryWe assessed treatment for prostate cancer among urologists with varying levels of financial incentives favoring intervention. Those with stronger incentives, as determined by ownership interest in a radiation facility, were more likely to treat prostate cancer, even when treatment was unlikely to provide a survival benefit to the patient.

Project description:PurposeAlthough both intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) offer effective long-term disease control for localized prostate cancer (PCa), there are limited data directly comparing the 2 modalities.MethodsThe data from 334 patients treated with conventionally fractionated (79.2 GyRBE in 44 fractions) PBT or IMRT were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to balance factors associated with biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS). Age, race, and comorbidities (not BFFS associates) remained imbalanced after matching. Univariable and covariate-adjusted multivariable (MVA) Cox regression models were used to determine if modality affected BFFS.ResultsOf 334 patients, 176 (52.7%) were included in the matched cohort with exact matching to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. With a median follow-up time of 9.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 7.8-10.2 years), long-term BFFS was similar between the IMRT and PBT matched arms with 8-year estimates of 85% (95% CI: 76%-91%) and 91% (95% CI: 82%-96%, P = .39), respectively. On MVA, modality was not significantly associated with BFFS in both the unmatched (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.35-1.63, P = .47) and matched (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.33-2.33, P = .78) cohorts. Prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS) were also similar (P > .05). However, in an unmatched analysis, the PBT arm had significantly fewer incidences of secondary cancers within the irradiated field (0.6%, 95% CI: 0.0%-3.1% versus 4.5%, 95% CI: 1.8%-9.0%, P = .028).ConclusionsBoth PBT and IMRT offer excellent long-term disease control for PCa, with no significant differences between the 2 modalities in BFFS, PCSS, and OS in matched patients. In the unmatched cohort, fewer incidences of secondary malignancy were noted in the PBT group; however, owing to overall low incidence of secondary cancer and imbalanced patient characteristics between the 2 groups, these data are strictly hypothesis generating and require further investigation.

Dataset Information

Does Certificate of Need Minimize Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Use in Patients with Low Risk Prostate Cancer?

Publications

Does Certificate of Need Minimize Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Use in Patients with Low Risk Prostate Cancer?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets