Bone scan use in the management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Survey of practice patterns among Canadian radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and urologists.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Meem M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7673833 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Bone scan use in the management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Survey of practice patterns among Canadian radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and urologists.
Meem Mahbuba M Zukotynski Katherine K Raman Srinivas S Emmenegger Urban U
Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada 20201101 11
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the treatment recommendation patterns among urologists and radiation oncologists, the level of concordance or discordance between physician recommendations, and the association between physician recommendations and the treatment that patients received.MethodThe study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial conducted November 2010 to April 2014 (NCT02053389). Eligible participants were patients from the trial who saw both specialists. The primary outcome was physician recommendations that were scored using an adapted version of the validated PhyReCS coding system. Secondary outcomes included concordance between physician recommendations and the treatment patients received.ResultsParticipants were 108 patients (Mean age 61.9 years; range 43-82; 87% non-Hispanic White). Urologists were more likely to recommend surgery (79% of recommendations) and radiation oncologists were more likely to recommend radiation (68% of recommendations). Recommendations from the urologists and radiation oncologists were concordant for only 33 patients (30.6%). Most patients received a treatment that both physicians recommended (59%); however, 35% received a treatment that only one of their physicians recommended. When discordant, urologists more often recommended surgery and radiation oncologists recommended radiation and surgery as equally appropriate options.ConclusionUrologists and radiation oncologists are more likely to differ than agree in their treatment recommendations for the same patients with clinically localized prostate cancer and more likely to favor treatment aligned with their specialty. Additional studies are needed to better understand how patients make decisions after meeting with two different specialists to inform the development of best practices within oncology clinics.
| S-EPMC10049001 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8095285 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate PSA levels and kinetic cutoffs to predict positive bone scans for men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) cohort.MethodsRetrospective analysis of 531 bone scans of 312 clinically CRPC patients with no known metastases at baseline treated with a variety of primary treatment types in the SEARCH database. The association of patients' demographics, pathological features, PSA levels and kinetics with risk of a positive scan was tested using generalized estimating equations.ResultsA total of 149 (28%) scans were positive. Positive scans were associated with younger age (odds ratio (OR)=0.98; P=0.014), higher Gleason scores (relative to Gleason 2-6, Gleason 3+4: OR=2.03, P=0.035; Gleason 4+3 and 8-10: OR=1.76, P=0.059), higher prescan PSA (OR=2.11; P<0.001), shorter prescan PSA doubling time (PSADT; OR=0.53; P<0.001), higher PSA velocity (OR=1.74; P<0.001) and more remote scan year (OR=0.92; P=0.004). Scan positivity was 6, 14, 29 and 57% for men with PSA<5, 5-14.9, 15-49.9 and ⩾ 50 ng ml(-1), respectively (P-trend <0.001). Men with PSADT ⩾ 15, 9-14.9, 3-8.9 and <3 months had a scan positivity of 11, 22, 34 and 47%, correspondingly (P-trend <0.001). Tables were constructed using PSA and PSADT to predict the likelihood of a positive bone scan.ConclusionsPSA levels and kinetics were associated with positive bone scans. We developed tables to predict the risk of positive bone scans by PSA and PSADT. Combining PSA levels and kinetics may help select patients with CRPC for bone scans.
| S-EPMC4640947 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAlthough many low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients worldwide currently receive active surveillance (AS), adherence to clinical guidelines on AS and variations in care at the population level remain poorly understood. We sought to develop system-level quality indicators (QIs) and performance measures for benchmarking the quality of care during AS.MethodsConvenience sampling methods were used to identify an expert panel among practicing urologists and radiation oncologists across Canada. QI development involved two phases: 1) proposed QIs were identified through a literature search and published clinical guidelines on AS; and 2) indicators were selected through a modified Delphi process during which each panelist independently rated each indicator based on clinical importance. QI items were chosen as appropriate measures for quality of AS care if they met prespecified criteria (disagreement index <1 and median importance of ≥7 on a nine-point scale).ResultsAmong 42 invited expert panel members, the response rate was 45% (n=19). Expert panel members were well-represented by type of physician (84% urologists, 16% radiation oncologists) and practice setting (79% academic, 21% non-academic). The expert panel endorsed 20 of 27 potential indicators as appropriate for measuring quality of AS care.ConclusionsWe developed a set of QIs to measure AS care using published guidelines and clinical experts. Use of the indicators will be assessed for feasibility in healthcare databases. Reporting quality of care with these AS indicators may enhance adherence, reduce variation in care, and improve patient outcomes among low-risk PCa patients on AS.
| S-EPMC9054336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe share of oncology practices owned by hospitals (ie, vertically integrated) nearly doubled from 2007 to 2017. We examined how integration between hospitals and oncologists affected care quality, outcomes, and spending among metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients.MethodsUsing Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data and the Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty, we identified Medicare beneficiaries who initiated systemic therapy for mCRPC between 2008 and 2017 (n = 9172). Primary outcomes included 1) bone-modifying agents (BMA) use, 2) time on systemic therapy, 3) survival, and 4) Medicare spending for the first 3 months following therapy initiation. We used a differences-in-differences approach to estimate the impact of vertical integration on outcomes, adjusting for patient and provider characteristics.ResultsThe proportion of patients treated by integrated oncologists increased from 28% to 55% from 2008 to 2017. Vertical integration was associated with an 11.7 percentage point (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.2 to 19.1) increased likelihood of BMA use. There were no satistically significant changes in time on systemic therapy, survival, or total per-patient Medicare spending. Further decomposition showed an increase in outpatient payment ($5190, 95% CI = $1451 to $8930) and decrease in professional service payment (-$4757, 95% CI = -$7644 to -$1870) but no statistically significant changes for other service types (eg, inpatient and prescription drugs).ConclusionsVertical integration was associated with statistically significant increased BMA use but not with other cancer outcomes among mCRPC patients. For oncologists who switched service billing from physician offices to outpatient departments, there was no statistically significant change in overall Medicare spending in the first 3 months of therapy initiation. Future studies should extend the investigation to other cancer types and patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC9996219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is no consensus on optimal use of radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy. The purpose of this study was to describe opinions of urologists and radiation oncologists regarding adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy.Urologists and genitourinary radiation oncologists were solicited to participate in an online survey. Respondent characteristics included demographics, training, practice setting, patient volume/experience, and access to radiotherapy. Participant practice patterns and attitudes towards use of adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy in standardized clinical scenarios were assessed.One hundred and forty-six staff physicians participated in the survey (104 urologists and 42 genitourinary radiation oncologists). Overall, high Gleason score (Gleason 7 vs. 6, RR 1.37 95% CI 1.19-1.56, p<0.0001 and Gleason 8-10 vs. 6, RR 1.56 95% CI 1.37-1.78, p<0.0001), positive surgical margin (RR 1.43 95% CI 1.26-1.62, p<0.0001), and extraprostatic tumour extension (RR 1.16 95% CI 1.05-1.28, p<0.002) conferred an increased probability of recommending adjuvant radiotherapy. Radiation oncologists were more likely to recommend adjuvant radiotherapy across all clinical scenarios (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.39, 1.60, p <0.001). Major differences were found for patients with Gleason 6 and isolated positive surgical margin (radiotherapy selected by 21% of urologists vs. 70% of radiation oncologists), and patients with extraprostatic extension and negative surgical margins (radiotherapy selected by 18% of urologist vs. 57% of radiation oncologists).Urologists and radiation oncologists frequently disagree about recommendation for post-prostatectomy adjuvant radiotherapy. Since clinical equipoise exists between adjuvant versus early salvage post-operative radiotherapy, support of clinical trials comparing these approaches is strongly encouraged.
| S-EPMC3817258 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo understand the influence of drug manufacturers on the prescribing patterns of medical oncologists and urologists, we examined the relationship between promotional payments from the manufacturers of abiraterone and enzalutamide and prescriptions for either drug by medical oncologists and urologists.MethodsPromotional payments for abiraterone or enzalutamide made to medical oncologists and urologists between January 2014 and December 2017 reported through the Open Payments Program were categorized as $0, $1$999, and $1000 or more. Prescriptions filled between January 2013 and December 2017 were identified in the Medicare Part D File. Associations between promotional payments and prescribing were assessed using generalized linear models.ResultsFrom 2013 through 2017, the number of medical oncologists and urologists prescribing abiraterone or enzalutamide increased by 38% - 298%, respectively. The odds of prescribing among medical oncologists receiving $1--$999 and those receiving $1,000 or more were 1.69 (95%CI:1.59--1.79) and 2.61 (95% CI: 2.14--3.18) times that of medical oncologists receiving no payments. Among urologists receiving $1--$999 and those receiving $1,000 or more, the odds of prescribing were 4.04 (95%CI: 3.59--4.54) and 13.57 (95%CI: 9.69--19.0) times that of urologists receiving no payments.ConclusionIncreasing promotional payments were associated with prescribing among medical oncologists and urologists, with a stronger relationship evident for urologists. Prescribing patterns for abiraterone and enzalutamide, particularly among urologists, may be influenced by payments from drug manufacturers.
| S-EPMC8940668 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo test the external validity of a previously developed risk table, designed to predict the probability of a positive bone scan among men with non-metastatic (M0) castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), in a separate cohort.Patients and methodsWe retrospectively analysed 429 bone scans of 281 patients with CRPC, with no known previous metastases, treated at three Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. We assessed the predictors of a positive scan using generalized estimating equations. Area under the curve (AUC), calibration plots and decision-curve analysis were used to assess the performance of our previous model to predict a positive scan in the current data.ResultsA total of 113 scans (26%) were positive. On multivariable analysis, the only significant predictors of a positive scan were log-transformed prostate-specific antigen (PSA): hazard ratio (HR) 2.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.71-2.66 (P < 0.001) and log-transformed PSA doubling time (PSADT): HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.41-0.68 (P < 0.001). Among men with a PSA level <5 ng/mL, the rate of positive scans was 5%. The previously developed risk table had an AUC of 0.735 to predict positive bone scan with excellent calibration, and provided additional net benefit in the decision-curve analysis.ConclusionWe have validated our previously developed table to predict the risk of a positive bone scan among men with M0/Mx CRPC. Use of this risk table may allow better tailoring of patients' scanning to identify metastases early, while minimizing over-imaging. Regardless of PSADT, positive bone scans were rare in men with a PSA <5 ng/mL.
| S-EPMC6986739 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1 and PD-L1 have demonstrated anti-tumor activity in several advanced solid malignancies. In previously treated metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), a small subset of patients have a therapeutic response to checkpoint inhibition. Those who do respond to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy have a marked, durable response to treatment, suggesting some derive long-term benefit from immune checkpoint blockade. In other cancers, one strategy to increase the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade is to combine it with a pro-immune stimulatory agent, such as radiation. Here we present a case of a patient with heavily treated mCRPC who had a significant tumor response to concurrent pembrolizumab and radiation therapy to the primary prostatic mass. We review the growing evidence supporting the use of this combination therapy in other cancers and its potential benefit and safety in mCRPC. Our report highlights a potential therapeutic approach that should be further investigated in previously treated mCRPC.
| S-EPMC7450451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite successes in the development of innovative anticancer therapies, the fiscal and capacity restraints of the Canadian public healthcare system result in challenges with drug access. A meaningful proportion of systemic therapies ultimately do not receive public funding despite supporting clinical evidence. In this study, we assessed Canadian medical oncologists' current attitudes toward discussing publicly unfunded cancer treatments with patients and predictors of different practices.MethodsA web-based survey consisting of multiple choice and case-based scenarios was distributed to medical oncologists identified through the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada directory.ResultsA total of 116 responses were received. Almost all respondents reported discussing publicly unfunded treatments, including those who did so for Health Canada (HC) approved treatments (50%) and those who discussed off-label treatments (i.e., not HC approved) as guided by national guidelines (48%). Respondents in practice for over 15 years versus less than 5 years (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.50, p = 0.002) and those who worked in a community practice versus comprehensive cancer center (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03-0.91, p = 0.04) were significantly less likely to discuss off-label treatment options with their patients. Almost half of respondents (47%) indicated that their institution did not permit the administration of unfunded treatments.ConclusionsThere is variability in medical oncologists' practices when it comes to discussing unfunded therapies. Given the limitations within Canada's publicly funded healthcare system, physicians are faced with the challenge of navigating an increasingly complex balance between patient care and available resources. Engagement of relevant stakeholders and policy makers is crucial in the continued evaluation of Canada's drug funding process.
| S-EPMC8628663 | biostudies-literature