Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Mitchell JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9378464 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Mitchell Jean M JM Gresenz Carole Roan CR

Medical care 20220726 9

<h4>Background</h4>Vertical and horizontal integration among health care providers has transformed the practice arrangements under which many physicians work.<h4>Objective</h4>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.<h4>Research design</h4>We compiled a unique database from cancer registry records from 4 large states, Medicare e ...[more]

PMID: 35880758

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundObservation is underutilized among men with localized, low-risk prostate cancer.ObjectiveTo assess the costs and benefits of observation versus initial treatment.DesignDecision analysis simulating treatment or observation.Data sourcesMedicare schedules, published literature.Target populationMen aged 65 and 75 years who had newly diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen level <10 µg/L, stage ≤T2a, Gleason score ≤3 + 3).Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveSocietal.InterventionTreatment (brachytherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, or radical prostatectomy) or observation (active surveillance [AS] or watchful waiting [WW]).Outcome measuresQuality-adjusted life expectancy and costs.Results of base-case analysisObservation was more effective and less costly than initial treatment. Compared with AS, WW provided 2 additional months of quality-adjusted life expectancy (9.02 vs. 8.85 years) at a savings of $15,374 ($24,520 vs. $39,894) in men aged 65 years and 2 additional months (6.14 vs. 5.98 years) at a savings of $11,746 ($18,302 vs. $30,048) in men aged 75 years. Brachytherapy was the most effective and least expensive initial treatment.Results of sensitivity analysisTreatment became more effective than observation when it led to more dramatic reductions in prostate cancer death (hazard ratio, 0.47 vs. WW and 0.64 vs. AS). Active surveillance became as effective as WW in men aged 65 years when the probability of progressing to treatment on AS decreased below 63% or when the quality of life with AS versus WW was 4% higher in men aged 65 years or 1% higher in men aged 75 years. Watchful waiting remained least expensive in all analyses.LimitationResults depend on outcomes reported in the published literature, which is limited.ConclusionAmong these men, observation is more effective and costs less than initial treatment, and WW is most effective and least expensive under a wide range of clinical scenarios.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute, U.S. Department of Defense, Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

Project description:ContextIn the United States, 192,000 men were diagnosed as having prostate cancer in 2009, the majority with low-risk, clinically localized disease. Treatment of these cancers is associated with substantial morbidity. Active surveillance is an alternative to initial treatment, but long-term outcomes and effect on quality of life have not been well characterized.ObjectiveTo examine the quality-of-life benefits and risks of active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer.Design and settingDecision analysis using a simulation model was performed: men were treated at diagnosis with brachytherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), or radical prostatectomy or followed up by active surveillance (a strategy of close monitoring of newly diagnosed patients with serial prostate-specific antigen measurements, digital rectal examinations, and biopsies, with treatment at disease progression or patient choice). Probabilities and utilities were derived from previous studies and literature review. In the base case, the relative risk of prostate cancer-specific death for initial treatment vs active surveillance was assumed to be 0.83. Men incurred short- and long-term adverse effects of treatment.PatientsHypothetical cohorts of 65-year-old men newly diagnosed as having clinically localized, low-risk prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen level <10 ng/mL, stage ≤T2a disease, and Gleason score ≤6).Main outcome measureQuality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE).ResultsActive surveillance was associated with the greatest QALE (11.07 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), followed by brachytherapy (10.57 QALYs), IMRT (10.51 QALYs), and radical prostatectomy (10.23 QALYs). Active surveillance remained associated with the highest QALE even if the relative risk of prostate cancer-specific death for initial treatment vs active surveillance was as low as 0.6. However, the QALE gains and the optimal strategy were highly dependent on individual preferences for living under active surveillance and for having been treated.ConclusionsUnder a wide range of assumptions, for a 65-year-old man, active surveillance is a reasonable approach to low-risk prostate cancer based on QALE compared with initial treatment. However, individual preferences play a central role in the decision whether to treat or to pursue active surveillance.

Project description:PurposeProstate specific antigen velocity is an unreliable predictor of adverse pathology findings in patients on active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. However, to our knowledge a new concept called prostate specific antigen velocity risk count, recently validated in a screening cohort, has not been investigated in an active surveillance cohort.Materials and methodsWe evaluated a cohort of men from 1995 to 2012 with prostate cancer on active surveillance. They had stage T1c disease, prostate specific antigen density less than 0.15 ng/ml, Gleason score 6 or less, 2 or fewer biopsy cores and 50% or less involvement of any core with cancer. The men were observed by semiannual prostate specific antigen measurements, digital rectal examinations and an annual surveillance biopsy. Treatment was recommended for biopsy reclassification. Patients with 30 months or greater of followup and 3 serial prostate specific antigen velocity measurements were used in primary analysis by logistic regression, Cox proportional hazards, Kaplan-Meier analysis and performance parameters, including the AUC of the ROC curve.ResultsPrimary analysis included 275 of 668 men who met very low risk inclusion criteria, of whom 83 (30.2%) were reclassified at a median of 57.1 months. Reclassification risk increased with risk count, that is a risk count of 3 (HR 4.63, 95% CI 1.54-13.87) and 2 (HR 3.73, 95% CI 1.75-7.97) compared to zero. Results were similar for Gleason score reclassification (HR 7.45, 95% CI 1.60-34.71 and 3.96, 95% CI 1.35-11.62, respectively). On secondary analysis the negative predictive value (risk count 1 or less) was 91.5% for reclassification in the next year. Adding the prostate specific antigen velocity risk count improved the AUC in a model including baseline prostate specific antigen density (0.7423 vs 0.6818, p = 0.025) and it outperformed the addition of overall prostate specific antigen velocity (0.7423 vs 0.6960, p = 0.037).ConclusionsProstate specific antigen velocity risk count may be useful for monitoring patients on active surveillance and decreasing the frequency of biopsies needed in the long term.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Objective

Research design

Results

Conclusions

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets