Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
Journal of Urology ; 209(Supplement 4):e1105, 2023.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2318362


INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: In 2018, The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) changed its recommendations for prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening from "non-recommended" to "shared decision-making among men aged 55-69". Thereafter, COVID-19 Pandemic disrupted cancer care with evidence suggesting overall reduced access to and utilization of health care services including preventive screening. We aim to examine the impacts of both events on PSA screening for men aged 55-69. METHOD(S): We analyzed 2013, 2015, 2018, 2019, and 2021 National Health Interview Survey data. Men >54 who reported PSA testing within 12 months preceding survey were considered to have undergone screening. Adjusted difference in differences (DID) analyses were performed to compare changes in screening in men aged 55-69 with reference to men >70 between 2015 and 2019 (pre- and post- 2018 USPSTF recommendation) and between 2019 and 2021 (pre- and post-Pandemic). RESULT(S): A total of 24,308 men were included. PSA screening prevalence was 35.4% (95%CI: 33.7%, 37.1%), 32.1% (95%CI: 30.3%, 33.9%), 33.3% (95%CI: 31.6%, 34.9%), 37.2% (95%CI: 35.7%, 38.8%), and 34.9% (95%CI: 33.3%, 36.5%) respectively for included years. From 2015 to 2019, PSA screening increased 4.6% among men aged 55-69 (95%CI: 1.7, 7.5%) and increased 6.5% among men >70 (95% CI: 2.7, 10.4%). From 2019 to 2021, PSA screening decreased 3.1% among men aged 55-69 (95%CI: 0.58%, 5.8%);PSA screening also decreased 0.8% among older men but did not reach significance (95% CI: -2.6%, 4.2%). DID analysis did not show difference in changes between men aged 55-69 in reference to men >70 from both 2015 to 2019 (DID=-1.9%, 95%CI, -6.7%, 2.9%) and 2019 to 2021 (DID =-2.3%, 95%CI, -6.5%, 1.9%). CONCLUSION(S): We saw an increase in PSA screening after 2018 USPSTF recommendations among its target population e men aged 55-69 and also among older men >70. In contrast, the period from 2019 to 2021 saw a significant decrease in PSA screening in those aged 55-69. The lack of significant DID between groups as well as the downward trend of PSA screening in men >70 together suggest an overall trend of decrease in PSA screening post-Pandemic.

Journal of Urology ; 209(Supplement 4):e1032, 2023.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2315174


INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Low value health care is defined as care in which the potential to cause harm is greater than benefit. We hypothesize that rationing of health care services during the pandemic decreased the delivery of low value services. METHOD(S): Data was retrieved from the Mass General Brigham Research Patient Data Registry. High value care services were defined by U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, while low value care services were adapted for claims as described in the literature. Twenty-one services (4 high value and 17 low value) had adequate volume for analysis. Three month periods were considered, consisting of the pandemic period (Q4: 3/2/20 to 6/1/20) and control periods preceding the pandemic (Q1: 12/1/18 to 3/1/19;Q2: 3/2/19 to 6/1/19;and Q3: 12/1/19 to 3/1/20). Ratio measures of services per period were used to account for seasonality and differences in frequency.The 2019 high value (H) care ratio (Y0H = NHQ2/NHQ1) illustrates relative service counts during a typical year and the 2020 ratio (Y1H = NHQ4/NHQ3) represents the change due to the pandemic. Difference in ratios YH=Y1H-Y0H less than zero reflects a reduction in high value services during the pandemic. The same calculation was made for low value (L) procedures;YL=Y1LY0L. The difference between YL and YH is the difference in differences (DID) estimator and illustrates the differential decline in services. YH- YL greater than zero suggests that low value care declined to a greater degree than high value care. Subdivision DID in ratio analyses were performed for cancer and non-cancer care. RESULT(S): Included in this analysis were 3,271,957 patients. Mean age was 51.4 years, 59.1% of patients were female, and 71.7% were non-Hispanic. Of 21 identified services, 18 had a reduction in volume during the pandemic. The YL for PSA testing in men older than 75 was -0.81. The DID in ratios of all care was 0.08 (p<0.01), suggesting a modest decline in low-value care (Figure 1). The reduction was more pronounced for cancer care with a DID in ratios of 3.39 (p<0.01). CONCLUSION(S): We observed a reduction in both low and high value care with a greater reduction in low value services, especially for cancer care. Limitations include use of data from a single health system, limited number of services, and short time periods given the rapid onset of the pandemic.

Journal of Urology ; 209(Supplement 4):e1110, 2023.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2312938


INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic placed a significant burden on the US healthcare system. Moreover, many healthcare systems triaged cases based on the severity of disease. Therefore, we assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on prostate cancer management according to the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade groups. METHOD(S): We retrospectively analyzed the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for patients with prostate cancer between 2018- 2020. We divided our cohort into "Pre-Pandemic" (2018/2019) and "Pandemic" (2020) periods. Men were classified according to their ISUP grade group at diagnosis. Hospital characteristics and patient-level clinical and sociodemographic variables were extracted. Our primary outcome was the utilization of definitive treatment (surgery or radiation) versus expectant management (active surveillance, watchful waiting, or no treatment). We performed multivariable logistic regressions to predict the type of management for each ISUP grade group across the two periods adjusting for clinical and socioeconomic covariates. RESULT(S): A total of 398,719 men with a diagnosis of prostate cancer were reported during the "Pre-Pandemic" (70.6%) and "Pandemic" (29.4%) periods. Overall, 24.5% had an ISUP 1, 30.6% an ISUP 2, 18.2% an ISUP 3, 13% ISUP 4, and 13.8% ISUP 5 disease (Table 1). Treatment was less likely during the "Pandemic" compared to the "Pre-Pandemic" period for ISUP grade group 1 (aOR 0.80;95% CI 0.77 - 0.83;p-value <0.001), for ISUP grade group 2 (aOR 0.85;95% CI 0.81 - 0.89;p-value <0.001) and for ISUP grade group 3 (aOR 0.87;95% CI 0.80 - 0.96;p-value <0.003). However, no differences in treatment trends were found for ISUP grade groups 4 and 5 across the two time periods. CONCLUSION(S): During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with prostate cancers ISUP grade groups 1, 2, and 3 were more likely to receive expectant management than definitive treatment;however, this was not true for patients with more aggressive diseases. This finding suggests a high capacity of facilities to appropriately risk stratify and prioritize higher-risk cases during a public health emergency. A limitation of our study is the inability to assess the treatment trends of men diagnosed in the last 2020 quarter due to the lack of follow-up.

Journal of Urology ; 209(Supplement 4):e1105, 2023.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2312937


INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic likely affected the healthcare system's ability to deliver prostate cancer care services. Herein, we sought to evaluate prostate cancer's stage and grade migration resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD(S): We retrospectively analyzed the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for men with prostate cancer between 2018-2020. We divided our cohort into the "Pre-Pandemic" (2018/2019) and "Pandemic" (2020) periods. Stage and grade of prostate cancer were stratified according to the severity of disease: PSA value (<=20 vs. >20), clinical T stage (cT1-T2 vs. cT3-T4), clinical M stage (cM0 vs. cM1), International Society of Uropathology (ISUP) grade group (ISUP 1-2-3 vs. ISUP 4-5), and D'Amico risk classification (low risk vs. intermediate & high risk). Pearson's chi-square test was used to assess differences in the distribution of stage and grade across the two periods. We performed multivariable logistic regressions to estimate the effect of the "Pandemic" period on stage and grade distribution adjusting for clinical and socioeconomic covariates. RESULT(S): A total of 398,719 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer during the "Pre-pandemic" (70.6%) and "Pandemic" (29.4%) periods (Table 1). On univariable comparisons, an increase in stage/ grade across the two periods was demonstrated (all p<0.001). After adjusting for covariates, compared to the "Pre-pandemic", the "Pandemic" period was associated with increased odds of PSA >20 levels (aOR 1.06;95% CI 1.03 - 1.08;p-value <0.001), cT3-4 stages (aOR 1.12;95% CI 1.08 - 1.16;p<0.001), cM1 stage (aOR 1.15;95% CI 1.12 - 1.18;p<0.001), ISUP grade group 4 or 5 (aOR 1.03;95% CI 1.01 - 1.05;p=0.003) and D'Amico Intermediate & High risk groups (aOR 1.15;95% CI 1.13 - 1.18;p<0.001). CONCLUSION(S): The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with significant changes in the distribution of both stage and grade of prostate cancer. Possible explanations for this migration include a better selection of patients for prostate biopsy during the pandemic or changes in prostate cancer screening patterns.