Disparity between pre-existing management of penile cancer and NCCN guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the locoregional management of penile cancer before the introduction of NCCN guidelines and how much shift in practice patterns is required to meet the guidelines. METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base was queried to identify 6,396 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis diagnosed between 2004 and 2013. The cohort was divided into management groups based on the NCCN guidelines: cTa and cTis (cTa/is), pT1 low grade (T1LG), pT1 high grade (T1HG), and pT2 or greater (T234). These groups were analyzed to determine if management of locoregional disease complies with the 2016 NCCN guidelines and logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with adherence. RESULTS: Nationwide management of the primary tumor closely follows the NCCN guidelines, with 96.9% adherence for cTa/is, 91.4% for T1LG, and 94.2% for T234. Management of regional lymph nodes (LNs) was inadequate with only 62.9% of patients with clinical N1 or N2 disease undergoing regional LN dissection (LND). The percentage of patients with known LN metastases who received regional LND increased over time (46.2% in 2004 to 69.4% in 2013, P = 0.034). Patients treated at community cancer programs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.19-0.35), comprehensive community cancer programs (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.29-0.41), and integrated network cancer programs (OR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.25-0.52) were significantly less likely to receive LND compared with patients treated at academic comprehensive cancer programs. CONCLUSIONS: Before the introduction of NCCN guidelines, national practice patterns for the management of the primary tumor were consistent with the recommendations. However, the management of regional LNs deviated from the guidelines, reflecting an area for improvement.

A hospital-based study of initial observation for low-risk prostate cancer and its predictors in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Initial observation (IO) is a strategy to minimize prostate cancer overtreatment. We sought to evaluate contemporary trends in IO utilization for low-risk prostate cancer in the United States and to identify factors associated with its uptake. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified men with low-risk prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2011. IO utilization was plotted over time. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the influence of diagnosis year and other factors on IO selection. RESULTS: Of the 219 971 men with low-risk prostate cancer, 21 231 (9.7%) underwent IO. Beginning in 2008, IO use increased significantly with time (range: 7.5%-14.3%). Compared to 2004, patients diagnosed in 2011 had 2.5 times the odds of choosing IO (odds ratio [OR] 2.5, confidence interval [CI] 2.3-2.6, p < 0.01). Aside from diagnosis year, age, race, Charlson score, clinical T stage, and PSA level predicted IO use (p < 0.01). Other predictors of IO included hospital type, insurance provider, and household income. Specifically, comprehensive cancer centres, private insurance, and higher income predicted decreased IO usage (OR 0.5, CI 0.5-0.5, p < 0.01; OR 0.4, CI 0.4-0.4, p < 0.01; and OR 0.8, CI 0.8-0.9, p < 0.01, respectively). Less educated men were also less likely to undergo observation (OR 0.8, CI 0.8-0.9, p < 0.01). Treatment within the western United States was significantly, but weakly, associated with increased use of IO (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, low-risk prostate cancer has been increasingly managed with IO, appropriately driven by patient and disease factors. Unexpectedly, observation usage also varies by race, hospital, insurance, income, and geography, suggesting that non-clinical factors may affect treatment selection.

American trends in expectant management utilization for prostate cancer from 2000 to 2009.

INTRODUCTON: The overtreatment of early prostate cancer has become a major public health concern. Expectant management (EM) is a strategy to minimize overtreatment, but little is known about its pattern of use. We sought to examine national EM utilization over the preceding decade. METHODS: We examined prostate cancer treatment utilization from 2000 to 2009 using the National Cancer Database. EM use was analyzed in relation to other treatments and by cancer stage, age group, Charlson score, and hospital practice setting. RESULTS: Overall, 109 997 (8.2%) men were managed initially with EM. EM usage remained stable at 7.6% to 9.5% from 2000 to 2009 with no appreciable increase for low-stage cancers. Usage was only slightly higher in elderly patients and in patients with multiple comorbidities. Veterans Affairs and low-volume hospitals had a much higher and increasing EM rate (range: 18.8%-29.8% and 15.1%-24.2%, respectively), compared to community hospitals, comprehensive cancer centres, and teaching hospitals, which showed no increased adoption. On further analysis, EM use remained high for low-stage cancers at Veterans Affairs and low-volume hospitals (24.0% and 19.1%, respectively), regardless of age or comorbidity, a pattern not shared by other practice settings. CONCLUSIONS: EM utilization remained low and stable last decade, regardless of disease or patient characteristics. Conversely, Veterans Affairs and low-volume hospitals led the trend in national EM adoption, particularly in men with low-stage cancers and limited life expectancies. The limitations of this dataset preclude any determination of the appropriateness of EM utilization. Nonetheless, further study is needed to identify factors influencing EM adoption to ensure its proper use in the future.