Abstract
Background:
Several treatment options for clinically localized prostate cancer currently exist under the established guidelines. We aim to assess nationally representative trends in treatment over time and determine potential geographic variation using two large national claims registries.
Methods:
Men with prostate cancer insured by Medicare (1998–2006) or a private insurer (Ingenix database, 2002–2006) were identified using International Classification of Diseases-9 and Current Procedural Terminology-4 codes. Geographic variation and trends in the type of treatment utilized over time were assessed. Geographic data were mapped using the GeoCommons online mapping platform. Predictors of any treatment were determined using a hierarchical generalized linear mixed model using the logit link function.
Results:
The use of radical prostatectomy increased, 33–48%, in the privately insured i3 database while remaining stable at 12% in the Medicare population. There was a rapid uptake in the use of newer technologies over time in both the Medicare and i3 cohorts. The use of laparoscopic-assisted prostatectomy increased from 1% in 2002 to 41% in 2006 in i3 patients, whereas the incidence increased from 3% in 2002 to 35% in 2006 for Medicare patients. The use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was lower in the i3 cohort and has decreased over time in both i3 and Medicare. Physician density had an impact on the type of primary treatment received in the New England region; however, this trend was not seen in the western or southern regions of the United States.
Conclusions:
Using two large national claims registries, we have demonstrated trends over time and substantial geographic variation in the type of primary treatment used for localized prostate cancer. Specifically, there has been a large increase in the use of newer technologies (that is, laparoscopic-assisted prostatectomy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy). These results elucidate the need for improved data collection on prostate cancer treatment outcomes to reduce unwarranted variation in care.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 4 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $64.75 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 2013; 63: 11–30.
Thompson IM, Thrasher JB, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, Cookson MS et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 2007; 177: 2106–2131.
Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 61–71.
Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR . Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1117–1123.
Shahinian VB, Kuo YF, Freeman JL, Goodwin JS . Determinants of androgen deprivation therapy use for prostate cancer: role of the urologist. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 839–845.
Nambudiri VE, Landrum MB, Lamont EB, McNeil BJ, Bozeman SR, Freedland SJ et al. Understanding variation in primary prostate cancer treatment within the Veterans Health Administration. Urology 2012; 79: 537–545.
Kawachi MH . Counterpoint: robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: perhaps the surgical gold standard for prostate cancer care. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2007; 5: 689–692.
Bechis SK, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR . Impact of age at diagnosis on prostate cancer treatment and survival. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 235–241.
Sun L, Caire AA, Robertson CN, George DJ, Polascik TJ, Maloney KE et al. Men older than 70 years have higher risk prostate cancer and poorer survival in the early and late prostate specific antigen eras. J Urol 2009; 182: 2242–2248.
Herr HW, O'Sullivan M . Quality of life of asymptomatic men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy. J Urol 2000; 163: 1743–1746.
Newton C, Slota D, Yuzpe AA, Tummon IS . Memory complaints associated with the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists: a preliminary study. Fertil Steril 1996; 65: 1253–1255.
Shahinian VB, Kuo Y-F, Freeman JL, Goodwin JS . Risk of fracture after androgen deprivation for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 154–164.
Keating NL, O'Malley AJ, Smith MR . Diabetes and cardiovascular disease during androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 4448–4456.
Cookson MS, Sogani PC, Russo P . Pathological staging and biochemical recurrence after neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy in combination with radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer: results of a phase II study. BJU Int 1997; 79: 432–438.
Krahn M, Bremner KE, Tomlinson G, Luo J, Ritvo P, Naglie G et al. Androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer: are rising concerns leading to falling use? BJU Int 2011; 108: 1588–1596.
Bolla M, Gonzalez D, Warde P, Dubois JB, Mirimanoff RO, Storme G et al. Improved survival in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy and goserelin. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 295–300.
D'Amico AV, Manola J, Loffredo M . 6-month androgen suppression plus radiation therapy vs radiation therapy alone for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2004; 292: 821–827.
Cooperberg MR, Cowan J, Broering JM, Carroll PR . High-risk prostate cancer in the United States, 1990-2007. World J Urol 2008; 26: 211–218.
Krupski TL, Kwan L, Afifi AA, Litwin MS . Geographic and socioeconomic variation in the treatment of prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 7881–7888.
Kramer KM, Bennett CL, Pickard AS, Lyons EA, Wolf MS, McKoy JM et al. Patient preferences in prostate cancer: a clinician's guide to understanding health utilities. Clin Prostate Cancer 2005; 4: 15–23.
Kapoor DA, Zimberg SH, Ohrin LM, Underwood W 3rd, Olsson CA . Utilization trends in prostate cancer therapy. J Urol 2011; 186: 860–864.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (HHSN276201200016C; to MSL).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
MRC is a consultant for Genomic Health, Myriad, GenomeDx, Dendreon, Eli Lilly, Abbott Labs, Janssen and Amgen. CSS is a cofounder of Wiser Care LLC. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cary, K., Punnen, S., Odisho, A. et al. Nationally representative trends and geographic variation in treatment of localized prostate cancer: the Urologic Diseases in America project. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 18, 149–154 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2015.3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2015.3
This article is cited by
-
Geographic and socioeconomic variation in treatment of elderly prostate cancer patients in Norway – a national register-based study
Research in Health Services & Regions (2024)
-
Head-to-head comparison of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI in the detection of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer: summary of head-to-head comparison studies
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases (2023)
-
Socioeconomic factors that impact patient no-shows in the ambulatory urology clinic
Journal of Public Health (2022)
-
Prostaatspecifiek membraanantigeengestuurde chirurgie voor prostaatkanker
Tijdschrift voor Urologie (2020)
-
Is it worth to perform salvage radical prostatectomy for radio-recurrent prostate cancer? A literature review
World Journal of Urology (2019)