RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Recruitment of a diverse and representative study population is critical to the external validity of oncology clinical trials. The primary objective of this study was to characterize the factors associated with clinical trial participation for patients with renal cell carcinoma and the secondary objective was to examine differences in survival outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a matched case-control design by querying the National Cancer Database for patients with renal cell carcinoma who were coded as having enrolled in a clinical trial. Trial patients were matched in a 1:5 ratio to the control cohort based on clinical stage and then sociodemographic variables were compared between the 2 groups. Multivariable conditional logistic regression models evaluated factors associated with clinical trial participation. The trial patient cohort was then matched again in a 1:10 ratio based on age, clinical stage, and comorbidities. Log-rank test was used to compare overall survival (OS) between these groups. RESULTS: From 2004 to 2014, 681 patients enrolled in clinical trials were identified. Clinical trial patients were significantly younger and had a lower Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score. On multivariate analysis, male patients and white patients were more likely to participate compared to their Black counterparts. Having Medicaid or Medicare negatively associated with trial participation. Median OS was greater among clinical trial participants. CONCLUSION: Patient sociodemographic factors remain significantly associated with clinical trial participation and trial participants experienced superior OS to their matched counterparts.
Assuntos
Carcinoma de Células Renais , Neoplasias Renais , Idoso , Humanos , Masculino , Modelos Logísticos , Medicaid , Medicare , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos , Estudos de Casos e ControlesRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To determine the morbidity, mortality, and costs associated with having concurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) at the time of surgical resection of a renal mass. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 108,430 patients undergoing elective partial or radical nephrectomy for a renal mass from 2013 to 2017 using the Premier Healthcare database. The association of VTE with 90-day complication rates, mortality, ICU admission, readmission, and direct hospital costs (2019 US dollars) was determined with multivariable logistic regression and quantile regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 108,430 patients who underwent elective partial or radical nephrectomy, 1.2% (n = 1301) of patients were diagnosed with a preoperative VTE. Patients with preoperative VTE have higher rates of minor (odds ratio [OR] 1.47, 95% confidence inteval [CI] 1.34-1.62, P < .0001) and major complications (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.23-2.86, P < .0001), mortality (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.6-2.57, P < .0001), and readmissions (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.57-1.90, P < .0001) compared to patients without preoperative VTE at the time of nephrectomy. Notably, the predicted probability for a major complication was significantly higher among patients with preoperative VTE who underwent either partial or radical nephrectomy, irrespective of the surgical approach utilized. Furthermore, rates of all types of complications except endocrine and soft tissue were significantly increased in patients undergoing nephrectomy with preoperative VTE compared to those without VTE. CONCLUSION: VTE at the time of nephrectomy is associated with significantly higher rates of major complications, increased mortality, and higher overall costs. Taken together, these findings have important implications for the counseling and management of renal masses in presence of VTE.
Assuntos
Tromboembolia Venosa , Humanos , Tromboembolia Venosa/etiologia , Tromboembolia Venosa/complicações , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Nefrectomia/efeitos adversos , Custos Hospitalares , Morbidade , Fatores de Risco , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The 2 primary therapeutic interventions for localized prostate cancer are delivered by different types of physicians, urologists, and radiation oncologists. We evaluated how visits to specialists and primary care physicians (PCPs) by men with localized prostate cancer are related to treatment choice. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database, we identified 85 088 men with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed at age 65 years or older, between 1994 and 2002. Men were categorized by primary treatment received within 9 months of diagnosis: radical prostatectomy (n = 18 201 [21%]), radiotherapy (n = 35 925 [42%]), androgen deprivation (n = 14 021 [17%]), or expectant management (n = 16 941 [20%]). Visits to specialists and PCPs were analyzed by patient characteristics and primary therapies received and were identified using Medicare claims and the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. RESULTS: Overall, 42 309 men (50%) were seen exclusively by urologists, 37 540 (44%) by urologists and radiation oncologists, 2329 (3%) by urologists and medical oncologists, and 2910 (3%) by all 3 specialists. There was a strong association between the type of specialist seen and primary therapy received. Visits to PCPs were infrequent between diagnosis and receipt of therapy (22% of patients visited any PCP and 17% visited an established PCP) and were not associated with a greater likelihood of specialist visits. Irrespective of age, comorbidity status, or specialist visits, men seen by PCPs were more likely to be treated expectantly. CONCLUSIONS: Specialist visits relate strongly to prostate cancer treatment choices. In light of these findings, prior evidence that specialists prefer the modality they themselves deliver and the lack of conclusive comparative studies demonstrating superiority of one modality over another, it is essential to ensure that men have access to balanced information before choosing a particular therapy for prostate cancer.