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
. 2019 Oct;15(10):e863-e869.
doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00088. Epub 2019 Sep 11.

Practice-Level Adoption of Conservative Management for Prostate Cancer

Parth K Modi  1 , Samuel R Kaufman  1 , Lindsey A Herrel  1 , James M Dupree  1 , Amy N Luckenbaugh  1 , Ted A Skolarus  1 , Brent K Hollenbeck  1 , Vahakn B Shahinian  1
Affiliations

Practice-Level Adoption of Conservative Management for Prostate Cancer

Parth K Modi et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Oct.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

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 www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jop/site/ifc/journal-policies.html.

James M. Dupree

Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Lipocine

Other Relationship: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

Ted A. Skolarus

Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UpToDate royalties for prostate cancer survivorship chapter

Brent K. Hollenbeck

Other Relationship: Elsevier

No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Figures

Fig 1.
Fig 1.
Variation in the rate of increase in use of men undergoing conservative management from 2010 through 2014 among all urology group practices.
Fig 2.
Fig 2.
Use of conservative management among men with incident prostate cancer among different group practice types, over time. Data derived from models adjusted for patient age, race, comorbidity, socioeconomic status, and place of residence.
Fig 3.
Fig 3.
Use of conservative management among men with incident prostate cancer stratified by group intensity-modulated radiation therapy ownership, over time. Data derived from models adjusted for patient age, race, comorbidity, socioeconomic status, and place of residence.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 69:7-342019 - PubMed
    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. 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