Contemporary patterns of local ablative therapies for prostate cancer at United States cancer centers: results from a national registry.

PURPOSE: To describe the national-level patterns of care for local ablative therapy among men with PCa and identify patient- and hospital-level factors associated with the receipt of these techniques. METHODS: We retrospectively interrogated the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for men with clinically localized PCa between 2010 and 2017. The main outcome was receipt of local tumor ablation with either cryo- or laser-ablation, and "other method of local tumor destruction including high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU)". Patient level, hospital level, and demographic variables were collected. Mixed effect logistic regression models were fitted to identify separately patient- and hospital-level predictors of receipt of local ablative therapy. RESULTS: Overall, 11,278 patients received ablative therapy, of whom 78.8% had cryotherapy, 15.6% had laser, and 5.7% had another method including HIFU. At the patient level, men with intermediate-risk PCa were more likely to be treated with local ablative therapy (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00-1.11; p = 0.05), as were men with Charlson Comorbidity Index > 1 (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.29-1.43; p < 0.01), men between 71 and 80 years (OR 3.70; 95% CI 3.43-3.99; p < 0.01), men with Medicare insurance (OR 1.38; 95% 1.31-1.46; p < 0.01), and an income < $47,999 (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.06-1.21; p < 0.01). At the hospital-level, local ablative therapy was less likely to be performed in academic/research facilities (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.32-0.64; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Local ablative therapy for PCa treatment is more commonly offered among older and comorbid patients. Future studies should investigate the uptake of these technologies in non-hospital-based settings and in light of recent changes in insurance coverage.

Less is More: Fulfillment of Opioid Prescriptions Before and After Implementation of a Modifier 22 Based Quality Incentive for Opioid-Free Vasectomies.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the percentage of patients who filled peri-procedural opioid prescriptions before and after Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) launched a modifier 22 payment incentive for opioid-sparing vasectomies in Michigan on July 1, 2019. METHODS: We evaluated BCBSM administrative claims data from February 1, 2018 - November 16, 2020 for men 20 - 64 years old who underwent vasectomy or a control office-based urologic procedure (cystourethroscopy, prostate biopsy, circumcision, and transurethral destruction of prostate tissue.) The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who filled opioid prescriptions 30 days before to 3 days after their procedure. We performed an interrupted time series analysis to estimate changes in the percentage of patients who filled opioid prescriptions in the vasectomy and control group before and after July 1, 1019. RESULTS: Our cohort included 4,559 men who had a vasectomy and 4,679 men who had a control procedure. Within each group, demographics and clinical factors were similar before and after July 1, 2019. Before implementation of the modifier 22 policy, 32.5% of men who had a vasectomy filled an opioid prescription whereas only 12.6% of men filled an opioid prescription after July 1, 2019 -a 19.9% absolute reduction and 61.0% relative reduction (P < .001). In the control group, there was no significant change in the percentage of patients who filled opioid prescriptions before and after July 1, 2019 (0.8% absolute increase, P = .671). CONCLUSION: Implementation of modifier 22 based financial incentive for opioid-sparing vasectomies was associated with decrease in the percentage of men who filled opioid prescriptions after vasectomy.

Current beliefs and practice patterns among urologists regarding prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-targeted biopsy.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance (MR) -targeted biopsy have a growing role in the screening and evaluation of prostate cancer. We aim to evaluate the current knowledge, attitude, and practice patterns of urologists regarding this new technique. METHODS: An anonymous online questionnaire was designed to collect information on urologists' beliefs and use of prostate multiparametric MRI and MR-targeted biopsy. The survey was sent to members of the Society of Urologic Oncology, the Endourological Society, and European Association of Urology. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictors for use of prostate MRI and MR-targeted biopsy. RESULTS: A total of 302 responses were received (Endourological Society: 175, European Association of Urology: 23, and Society of Urologic Oncology: 104). Most respondents (83.6%) believe MR-targeted biopsy to be moderately to extremely beneficial in the evaluation of prostate cancer. Overall, 85.7% of responders use prostate MRI in their practice, and 63.0% use MR-targeted biopsy. The 2 most common settings for use of MR-targeted biopsy include patients with history of prior negative biopsy result (96.3%) and monitoring patients on active surveillance (72.5%). In those who do not use MR-targeted biopsy, the principal reasons were lack of necessary infrastructure (64.1%) and prohibitive costs (48.1%). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, practice in an academic setting (1.86 [1.02-3.40], P = 0.043) and performing greater than 25 radical prostatectomies per year (2.32 [1.18-4.56], P = 0.015) remained independent predictors for using MR-targeted biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents of our survey look favorably on use of prostate MRI and MR-targeted biopsy in clinical practice. Over time, reduction in fixed costs and easier access to equipment may lead to further dissemination of this novel and potentially transformative technology.