scholarly journals Longitudinal Comparison of Patient-Level Outcomes and Costs Across Prostate Cancer Treatments With Urinary Problems

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 155798831983532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Tang ◽  
Lixian Zhong ◽  
Carly Paoli ◽  
Alan Paciorek ◽  
Peter Carroll ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Watchful Waiting ◽  
Estimating Equation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Costs ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Annual Treatment ◽  
Urinary Problems

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the leading cancer in men in the United States. This study evaluated direct costs of treating urinary problems after PCa treatments and determined predictors of long-term costs for urinary problems. Data from the Cancer of Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor registry was analyzed for this study. Annual treatment costs for urinary problems for up to 14 years were compared among different primary PCa treatments, which included radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, brachytherapy, and watchful waiting. A multivariate generalized estimating equation (GEE) model with bootstrapping was estimated to identify the predictors associated with treatment costs for urinary problems. A total of 3,062 eligible patients were identified with a mean age of 65 years at diagnosis. Mean annual treatment cost for urinary problems across all patients with PCa was $118/patient. Those greater than 74 years old had the highest cost ($238/patient). Mean annual cost for urinary problems among only those with urinary problems was $432. Multivariate regression showed patients undergoing radical prostatectomy had significantly lower (−63%, p = .01) costs for urinary problems than those treated with watchful waiting. This study helps to understand the importance of treating urinary problems associated with different PCa treatments and highlights their medical care costs. The pattern of treatment costs for urinary problems across all PCa treatments suggests that clinicians need to offer treatment for urinary problems to all PCa patients over longer time periods, even to those choosing watchful waiting.

Variations in treatment modality use for the definitive management of prostate cancer in the United States.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 174-174
Author(s):  
Jay P. Ciezki ◽  
Chandana A. Reddy ◽  
James Ulchaker ◽  
Kenneth Angermeier ◽  
Kevin L. Stephans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Treatment Modality ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
The United States ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Choice Of Treatment ◽  
To Receive

174 Background: No prospective, randomized comparative efficacy trial exists to guide treatment of definitively managed prostate cancer patients. Despite this, treatment selection varies nationally and we attempt to assess these patterns of use. Methods: The SEER database was queried to identify cases of prostate cancer diagnosed between 1998-2008. The modalities identified were brachytherapy (brachy), combination of brachytherapy and external beam radiation (CombRT), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy (RP+RT), and radical prostatectomy (RP). The number of cases by year, patient age and SEER region was computed. Results: There were 361,135 men in this analysis: 12.4% brachy, 6.8% CombRT, 27.5% EBRT, 3.1% RP+RT, and 50.3% RP. As expected, treatment modality varied by age with younger men more likely to receive RP and older man more likely to receive EBRT or brachy. There was some variation in choice of treatment modality over time: 6.6% for brachy; 4.2% for CombRT; 1.9% for EBRT; 2.0% for RP+RT; and 7.8% for RP. The variation in treatment modality by region was surprisingly wide (table): 14.4% for brachy; 25.5% for CombRT; 28.5% for EBRT; 3.8% for RP+RT; and 26.8% for RP. Conclusions: Choice of prostate cancer treatment modality varies by age, year of treatment, and most notably geographical region. Surprisingly the changes in reimbursement rates over the study period seem to have had minimal impact on choice of treatment modality. The regional variation implies that affiliations among healthcare providers significantly impact treatment. [Table: see text]

Calculated prostate cancer volume greater than 4.0 cm3 identifies patients with localized prostate cancer who have a poor prognosis following radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. 3094-3100 ◽  
Author(s):  
A V D'Amico ◽  
R Whittington ◽  
S B Malkowicz ◽  
D Schultz ◽  
I Kaplan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
External Beam Radiation Therapy ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Clinical Staging ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Psa Failure ◽  
The Impact

PURPOSE Patients with palpable extraprostatic disease (T3) have a poor prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure-free (bNED) survival rate after radical prostatectomy (RP) or external-beam radiation therapy (RT). This study was performed to validate or refute the prognostic value of the previously defined calculated prostate cancer volume (cV(Ca)). PATIENTS AND METHODS For patients with clinically localized disease (T1c,2), a Cox regression multivariable analysis was used to assess the ability of the cV(Ca) value to predict time to posttherapy PSA failure following RP or RT. RESULTS The cV(Ca) value was a significant predictor (P < or = .0005) of time to posttherapy PSA failure in both an RP and RT data set independent of the one used to derive the cV(Ca)-based clinical staging system. In both RP- and RT-managed patients, estimates of 3-year bNED survival were not statistically different for patients with either T1c,2 disease and a cV(Ca) greater than 4.0 cm3 (RP, 27%; RT, 18%) or T3 disease (RP, 37%; RT, 34%). Despite pathologic T2 disease, the 3-year estimate of bNED survival was at most 51% in RP-managed patients with T1c,2 disease and cV(Ca) greater than 4.0 cm3. CONCLUSION A cV(Ca) greater than 4.0 cm3 identified patients with T1c.2 disease whose bNED survival was poor after RT or RP despite pathologic T2 disease that suggests the presence of occult micrometastatic disease in many of these patients. Prospective randomized trials to evaluate the impact on survival of adjuvant systemic therapy in these high-risk patients are justified.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document