Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Nov;8(11-12):E775-82.
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.2073.

American trends in expectant management utilization for prostate cancer from 2000 to 2009

Affiliations

American trends in expectant management utilization for prostate cancer from 2000 to 2009

Matthew J Maurice et al. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014 Nov.

Abstract

Introducton: The overtreatment of early prostate cancer has become a major public health concern. Expectant management (EM) is a strategy to minimize overtreatment, but little is known about its pattern of use. We sought to examine national EM utilization over the preceding decade.

Methods: We examined prostate cancer treatment utilization from 2000 to 2009 using the National Cancer Database. EM use was analyzed in relation to other treatments and by cancer stage, age group, Charlson score, and hospital practice setting.

Results: Overall, 109 997 (8.2%) men were managed initially with EM. EM usage remained stable at 7.6% to 9.5% from 2000 to 2009 with no appreciable increase for low-stage cancers. Usage was only slightly higher in elderly patients and in patients with multiple comorbidities. Veterans Affairs and low-volume hospitals had a much higher and increasing EM rate (range: 18.8%-29.8% and 15.1%-24.2%, respectively), compared to community hospitals, comprehensive cancer centres, and teaching hospitals, which showed no increased adoption. On further analysis, EM use remained high for low-stage cancers at Veterans Affairs and low-volume hospitals (24.0% and 19.1%, respectively), regardless of age or comorbidity, a pattern not shared by other practice settings.

Conclusions: EM utilization remained low and stable last decade, regardless of disease or patient characteristics. Conversely, Veterans Affairs and low-volume hospitals led the trend in national EM adoption, particularly in men with low-stage cancers and limited life expectancies. The limitations of this dataset preclude any determination of the appropriateness of EM utilization. Nonetheless, further study is needed to identify factors influencing EM adoption to ensure its proper use in the future.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
First course treatment utilization for prostate cancer by diagnosis year.
Fig. 2a.
Fig. 2a.
Expectant management utilization for prostate cancer by hospital type and diagnosis year.
Fig. 2b.
Fig. 2b.
Radical prostatectomy utilization for prostate cancer by hospital type and diagnosis year.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, et al. Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: Importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:374–83. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp001. 2009 . - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jacobs BL, Zhang Y, Schroeck FR, et al. Use of advanced treatment technologies among men at low risk of dying from prostate cancer. JAMA. 2013;309:2587–95. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.6882. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:203–13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113162. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sandhu GS, Andriole GL. Overdiagnosis of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012:146–51. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgs031. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:436–45. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1209978. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources