Patterns of multispecialty care for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer in the use of active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary models of care have been advocated for prostate cancer (PC) to promote shared decision-making and facilitate quality care. Yet, how this model applies to low-risk disease where the preferred management is expectant remains unclear. Accordingly, we examined recent practice patterns in specialty visits for low/intermediate-risk PC and resultant use of active surveillance (AS). METHODS: Using SEER-Medicare, we ascertained whether patients saw urology and radiation oncology (i.e., multispecialty care) versus urology alone, based on self-designated specialty codes, for newly diagnosed PC from 2010 to 2017. We also examined the association with AS, defined as the absence of treatment within 12 months of diagnosis. Time trends were analyzed using Cochran-Armitage test. Chi-squared and logistic regression analyses were applied to compare sociodemographic and clinicopathologic characteristics between these models of care. RESULTS: The proportion of patients seeing both specialists was 35.5% and 46.5% for low- and intermediate-risk patients respectively. Trend analysis showed a decline in multispecialty care in low-risk patients (44.1% to 25.3% years 2010-2017; P < 0.001). Between 2010 and 2017, the use of AS increased 40.9% to 68.6% (P < 0.001) and 13.1% to 24.6% (P < 0.001) for patients seeing urology and those seeing both specialists respectively. Age, urban residence, higher education, SEER region, co-morbidities, frailty, Gleason score, predicted receipt of multispecialty care (all P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of AS among men with low-risk PC has occurred primarily under the purview of urologists. While selection is certainly at play, these data suggest that multispecialty care may not be required to promote the utilization of AS for men with low-risk PC.

Use of expectant management based on prostate cancer risk and health status: How far are we from a risk-adapted approach?

OBJECTIVES: While active surveillance, a form of expectant management (EM), is preferred for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), some favor a more risk-adapted approach that recognizes patient preferences and condition-specific factors. However, previous research has shown non-patient-related factors often drive PCa treatment. In this context, we characterized trends in AS with respect to disease risk and health status. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using SEER-Medicare data, we identified men 66 years and older diagnosed with localized low- and intermediate-risk PCa from 2008 to 2017 and examined receipt of EM, defined as the absence of treatment (i.e., surgery, cryotherapy, radiation, chemotherapy, and androgen deprivation therapies) within 1 year of diagnosis. We performed bivariable analysis to compare trends in use for EM vs. treatment, stratified by disease risk (i.e., Gleason 3+3, 3+4, 4+3; PSA<10, 10-20) and health status (i.e., NCI Comorbidity Index (NCI), frailty, life expectancy). We then ran a multivariable logistic regression model to examine determinants of EM. RESULTS: Within this cohort, 26,364 (38%) were categorized as low-risk (i.e., Gleason 3+3 and PSA<10) and 43,520 (62%) as intermediate-risk (i.e., all others). Over the study period, use of EM significantly increased across all risk groups, except for Gleason 4+3 (P = 0.662), as well across all health status groups. However, linear trends did not differ significantly between frail vs. nonfrail patients for both those categorized as low-risk (P = 0.446) and intermediate-risk (P = 0.208). Trends also did not differ between NCI 0 vs. 1 vs. >1 for low-risk PCa (P = 0.395). In the multivariable models, EM was associated with increasing age and being frail for men with both low- and intermediate risk disease. Conversely, EM selection was negatively associated with higher comorbidity score. CONCLUSIONS: EM increased significantly over time for patients with low- and favorable intermediate-risk disease, with the most notable differences based on age and Gleason score. In contrast, trends in uptake of EM did not differ substantively by health status, suggesting that physicians may not be effectively incorporating patient health into PCa treatment decisions. Additional work is needed to develop interventions that recognize health status as an essential component of a risk-adapted approach.

National trends and disparities of minimally invasive surgery for localized renal cancer, 2010 to 2015.

PURPOSE: To investigate national utilization trends of minimally-invasive partial nephrectomy (PN) and minimally-invasive radical nephrectomy (RN), and to identify disparities in the usage of these techniques across different sociodemographic subgroups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing partial or RN for cT1N0M0 renal cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2015. Main outcomes of interest were the utilizations of minimally-invasive (robotic and laparoscopic) PN and RN. RESULTS: A total of 46,346 and 37,712 subjects who underwent PN and RN, respectively, were analyzed. During the study interval, increased utilization of robotic surgery paralleled the decreased utilization of open surgery. Robotic PN increased from 35.2% to 63.7% and robotic RN increased from 10.3% to 26.3%. The utilization of laparoscopic surgery was decreasing for PN but stable for RN through the study period. In the PN cohort, multivariable logistic regression showed non-Hispanic black (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90 [95% CI, 0.84-0.96]) and Hispanic (OR = 0.91 [0.84-0.99]) subjects were associated with less utilization of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (vs. non-Hispanic white). Younger (18-64 years) Medicare (OR = 0.83 [0.77-0.90]), Medicaid (OR = 0.80 [0.74-0.87]), and uninsured (OR = 0.55 [0.49-0.62]) were also associated with less utilization of MIS (vs. private insurance). Compared with low socioeconomic status (SES), upper middle (OR = 1.14 [1.07-1.21]) and high (OR = 1.24 [1.16-1.33]) SES were associated with higher utilization of MIS. Similar demographic, insurance, and SES-related disparities were identified in the RN cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of MIS for localized renal cancer has increased significantly and was mainly attributed to increased usage of robotic surgery. Racial/ethnic, insurance, and SES related disparities in MIS utilization were identified. Our findings demonstrate a targetable subgroup of patients who do not have the same access to advances in surgical technology.