scholarly journals MP12-11 RATES AND RISK FACTORS OF LOST TO FOLLOW UP IN PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS MANAGED WITH ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE

2018 ◽  
Vol 199 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Ginsburg ◽  
Gregory Auffenberg ◽  
Ji Qi ◽  
Isaac Powell ◽  
James Montie ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 74 (6) ◽  
pp. 704-707 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin B. Ginsburg ◽  
Gregory B. Auffenberg ◽  
Ji Qi ◽  
Isaac J. Powell ◽  
Susan M. Linsell ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (7) ◽  
pp. 378-383
Author(s):  
G. Fernández-Conejo ◽  
E. de la Peña ◽  
V. Hernández ◽  
E. Pérez-Fernández ◽  
C. Llorente

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 215-215
Author(s):  
M. Mehra ◽  
Y. Wu ◽  
R. Dhawan

215 Background: Docetaxel is standard of care among late-stage prostate cancer patients. We analyzed patterns of health care resource utilization (RU) among patients before and after exposure to docetaxel using a large commercial claims database. Methods: A random sample of patients (N = 336) with a diagnosis of prostate cancer (ICD 9 code: 185.X) and a claim for docetaxel (2003–2009) was identified from the PharMetrics database, a nationally representative, non-payer-owned integrated commercial U.S. claims database. All patients had ≥ 12 months of enrollment prior to initiation of docetaxel. Patients were followed from their first docetaxel claim until lost to follow-up or June 30, 2009 (censored). RU was defined as all-cause hospitalization, ER, physician, and ambulatory visits. Incidence rates were derived. Results: Mean age of patients was 67.9 years (SD 10.6); mean number of docetaxel prescriptions was 9.9 (SD 10.3). Mean time to study end/lost to follow-up was 15.41 (SD 12.49) months from the index date. The table shows health care RU for the 12 months before, and over the follow-up period after docetaxel initiation. Hospitalizations, ER, physician, and ambulatory visits were significantly higher in the follow-up period. The average length of hospital stay was significantly longer after docetaxel treatment (8.2 vs 5.5 days). Prior to docetaxel, two-thirds of the patients were on hormonal therapy; 51% on analgesics, and 31% on bisphosphonates. After docetaxel, the proportions were 62%, 58%, and 54%, respectively. Conclusions: The significantly higher RU with disease progression in prostate cancer patients suggests a need for new treatment options that can effectively manage and improve patient outcomes. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]


2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 136-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika L. Wood ◽  
Steven Canfield

136 Background: The standard of care for managing localized prostate cancer includes offering patients active surveillance. With the 10-year prostate cancer specific survival between 96-100% for both low and low-intermediate risk patients, active surveillance has proven to be a safe and effective option. Most studies have examined cohorts of patients within a tertiary referral center but data is sparse on county hospital patients, where health insurance coverage among other concerns pose barriers for patients to receive consistent medical care. We were interested in how active surveillance was performing amongst a cohort of county hospital based patients. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on fifty patients placed on active surveillance for low and low-intermediate risk prostate cancer (by D’Amico criteria) between July 1, 2007 and August 1, 2013. Overall and cause-specific survival were the main outcome measures. Data was also collected on loss to follow-up rates. Results: In the cohort, the mean age at diagnosis was 62.2, mean body mass index was 28.0, most were African American or Hispanic (50% and 46%, respectively) and the majority had low-risk disease (84%). The median length of follow-up after diagnosis was 22 months. Nearly half of patients stopped active surveillance (44%), the most common reason being reclassification of their disease after second biopsy. All patients who were reclassified received definitive treatment with the exception of one patient who was lost to follow-up. Cause-specific and overall mortality were both 100% in this cohort. Nearly a quarter of patients (22%) were lost to follow-up (either had less than 12 months of surveillance following diagnosis or had not presented to clinic within the last 12 months). Conclusions: High rates of loss to follow-up present a significant challenge to managing localized prostate cancer with active surveillance in a county hospital population. In this small cohort, active surveillance appears to be a safe and effective management option for localized prostate cancer, yet undetected disease progression remains a significant concern.


2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 139-143
Author(s):  
A. Guijarro ◽  
V. Hernández ◽  
B. López ◽  
C. Capitán ◽  
E. Pérez-Fernández ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document