Practice-Level Adoption of Conservative Management for Prostate Cancer
- PMID: 31509481
- PMCID: PMC7846062
- DOI: 10.1200/JOP.19.00088
Practice-Level Adoption of Conservative Management for Prostate Cancer
Abstract
Purpose: We describe the longitudinal adoption of conservative management (ie, the absence of treatment) for prostate cancer among urology group practices in the United States and identify group practice features that influence this adoption.
Methods: Using a 20% sample of Medicare claims, we identified men with incident prostate cancer from 2010 through 2014 and assigned each to his predominant urologist. We linked each urologist to a practice and characterized the practice's organization (eg, solo, single specialty, multispecialty) and ownership of intensity-modulated radiation therapy. For each group, we determined the rate of conservative management within 1 year of diagnosis. We then fit mixed-effects logistic regression models to assess relationships between practice organization and the adoption of conservative management over time, adjusted for patient characteristics.
Results: We identified 22,178 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer managed by 350 practices. Practices that increased use the most over time also used conservative management the most in 2010, whereas those that increased use the least used conservative management the least in 2010. Thus, the difference in average use of conservative management between highest- and lowest-use practices widened between 2010 and 2014. Urology groups increased their use of conservative management more rapidly than multispecialty groups. There was no difference in the rate of increase between intensity-modulated radiation therapy owning and nonowning groups.
Conclusion: There is increasing variation among group practices in the use of conservative management for prostate cancer. This underscores the need for a better understanding of practice-level factors that influence prostate cancer management.
Conflict of interest statement
Practice-Level Adoption of Conservative Management for Prostate Cancer
The following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to
James M. Dupree
Ted A. Skolarus
Brent K. Hollenbeck
No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.
Figures



Similar articles
-
Urologist Practice Structure and Spending for Prostate Cancer Care.Urology. 2019 Aug;130:65-71. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.03.029. Epub 2019 Apr 25. Urology. 2019. PMID: 31029672 Free PMC article.
-
Health care delivery system contributions to management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer.Cancer Med. 2023 Aug;12(16):17346-17355. doi: 10.1002/cam4.6349. Epub 2023 Jul 20. Cancer Med. 2023. PMID: 37475511 Free PMC article.
-
Urology Workforce Changes and Implications for Prostate Cancer Care Among Medicare Enrollees.Urology. 2021 Sep;155:77-82. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.12.051. Epub 2021 Feb 19. Urology. 2021. PMID: 33610652 Free PMC article.
-
Clarifying uncertainty regarding detection and treatment of early-stage prostate cancer.Semin Urol Oncol. 2002 Feb;20(1):10-7. doi: 10.1053/suro.2002.30393. Semin Urol Oncol. 2002. PMID: 11828353 Review.
-
Detection and treatment of prostate cancer: perspective of the urologist.J Urol. 1994 Nov;152(5 Pt 2):1695-9. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)32364-9. J Urol. 1994. PMID: 7933229 Review.
Cited by
-
Understanding the Role of Urology Practice Organization and Racial Composition in Prostate Cancer Treatment Disparities.JCO Oncol Pract. 2023 May;19(5):e763-e772. doi: 10.1200/OP.22.00147. Epub 2023 Jan 19. JCO Oncol Pract. 2023. PMID: 36657098 Free PMC article.
-
Integration of Advanced Practice Providers into Independent Surgical Groups.J Am Coll Surg. 2025 Aug 1:10.1097/XCS.0000000000001542. doi: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000001542. Online ahead of print. J Am Coll Surg. 2025. PMID: 40747891
-
Impact of Advanced Practice Provider Integration into Multispecialty Group Practices on Outcomes Following Major Surgery.Surg Innov. 2022 Feb;29(1):111-117. doi: 10.1177/15533506211013150. Epub 2021 Apr 24. Surg Innov. 2022. PMID: 33896274 Free PMC article.
-
Implications of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System for Urology Practices.Urology. 2022 Nov;169:84-91. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.05.052. Epub 2022 Aug 3. Urology. 2022. PMID: 35932872 Free PMC article.
-
Urologist practice divestment from radiation vault ownership and treatment patterns for prostate cancer.Cancer. 2024 May 1;130(9):1609-1617. doi: 10.1002/cncr.35168. Epub 2023 Dec 26. Cancer. 2024. PMID: 38146764 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 69:7-342019 - PubMed
-
- Drazer MW, Huo D, Eggener SE: National prostate cancer screening rates after the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation discouraging prostate-specific antigen-based screening. J Clin Oncol 33:2416-24232015 - PubMed
-
- Jemal A, Fedewa SA, Ma J, et al. : Prostate cancer incidence and PSA testing patterns in relation to USPSTF screening recommendations. JAMA 314:2054-20612015 - PubMed
-
- Weiner AB, Matulewicz RS, Eggener SE, et al. : Increasing incidence of metastatic prostate cancer in the United States (2004-2013). Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 19:395-3972016 - PubMed
-
- Löppenberg B, Friedlander DF, Krasnova A, et al. : Variation in the use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Cancer 124:55-642018 - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical