Variation in prostate cancer treatment associated with population density of the county of residence.

BACKGROUND: We sought to assess variation in the primary treatment of prostate cancer by examining the effect of population density of the county of residence on treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer and quantify variation in primary treatment attributable to the county and state level. METHODS: A total 138 226 men with clinically localized prostate cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Result (SEER) database in 2005 through 2008 were analyzed. The main association of interest was between prostate cancer treatment and population density using multilevel hierarchical logit models while accounting for the random effects of counties nested within SEER regions. To quantify the effect of county and SEER region on individual treatment, the percent of total variance in treatment attributable to county of residence and SEER site was estimated with residual intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Men with localized prostate cancer in metropolitan counties had 23% higher odds of being treated with surgery or radiation compared with men in rural counties, controlling for number of urologists per county as well as clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. Three percent (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-6.2%) of the total variation in treatment was attributable to SEER site, while 6% (95% CI: 4.3-9.0%) of variation was attributable to county of residence, adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in treatment for localized prostate cancer exists for men living in different population-dense counties of the country. These findings highlight the importance of comparative effectiveness research to improve understanding of this variation and lead to a reduction in unwarranted variation.

Nationally representative trends and geographic variation in treatment of localized prostate cancer: the Urologic Diseases in America project.

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.

Updated trends in imaging use in men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have found persistent overuse of imaging for clinical staging of men with low-risk prostate cancer. We aimed to determine imaging trends in three cohorts of men. METHODS: We analyzed imaging trends of men with prostate cancer who were a part of Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) (1998-2006), were insured by Medicare (1998-2006), or privately insured (Ingenix database, 2002-2006). The rates of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and bone scan (BS) were determined and time trends were analyzed by linear regression. For men in CaPSURE, demographic and clinical predictors of test use were explored using a multivariable regression model. RESULTS: Since 1998, there was a significant downward trend in BS (16%) use in the CaPSURE cohort (N=5156). There were slight downward trends (2.4 and 1.7%, respectively) in the use of CT and MRI. Among 54 322 Medicare patients, BS, CT and MRI use increased by 2.1, 10.8 and 2.2% and among 16 161 privately insured patients, use increased by 7.9, 8.9 and 3.7%, respectively. In CaPSURE, the use of any imaging test was greater in men with higher-risk disease. In addition, type of insurance and treatment affected the use of imaging tests in this population. CONCLUSIONS: There is widespread misuse of imaging tests in men with low-risk prostate cancer, particularly for CT. These findings highlight the need for examination of factors that drive decision making with respect to imaging in this setting.