NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Early Detection provide recommendations for individuals with a prostate who opt to participate in an early detection program after receiving the appropriate counseling on the pros and cons. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines with regard to the testing protocol, use of multiparametric MRI, and management of negative biopsy results to optimize the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and minimize the detection of indolent disease.

Should Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Be the Standard of Care?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of transperineal prostate biopsy (TP-bx) to evaluate its potential role as the standard of care for prostate biopsy. RECENT FINDINGS: Studies have suggested no difference in prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate between TP-bx and transrectal biopsy (TR-bx) but have suggested potentially increased detection of anterior prostate tumors. Advances in anesthetic technique have obviated the need for sedation thus allowing TP-bx to become an office-based procedure, which in turn can decrease the overall cost of TP-bx. Furthermore, given the low rate of infectious complications after TP-bx, some have foregone peri-procedural antibiotics without a change in the rate of infectious complications. Recent procedural advances have made TP-bx a tolerable, office-based procedure. Given the similar diagnostic performance and the benefits for the patient and community, TP-bx should become the standard of care for prostate biopsy for most patients. Future efforts should address the barriers for more universal adoption.

Understanding the Costs Associated With Surgical Care Delivery in the Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Surgical care has been largely untargeted by Medicare payment reforms because episode costs associated with its delivery are not currently well understood. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the costs of inpatient and outpatient surgery in the Medicare population. METHODS: We analyzed claims data from a 20% national sample of Medicare beneficiaries (2008-2014). For a given study year, we identified all inpatient and outpatient procedures and constructed claims windows around them to define surgical episodes. After summing payments for services rendered during each episode, we totaled all inpatient and outpatient episode payments by surgical specialty. For inpatient episodes, we determined component payments related to the index hospitalization, readmissions, physician services, and postacute care. For outpatient episodes, we differentiated by the site of care (hospital outpatient department versus physician office versus ambulatory surgery center). We used linear regression to evaluate temporal trends in inpatient and outpatient surgical spending. Finally, we estimated the contribution of surgical care to overall Medicare expenditures. RESULTS: Total Medicare payments for surgical care are substantial, representing 51% of Program spending in 2014. They declined modestly over the study period, from $133.1 billion in 2008 to $124.9 billion in 2014 (-6.2%, P = 0.085 for the temporal trend). While spending on inpatient surgery contributed the most to total surgical payments (69.4% in 2014), it declined over the study period, driven by decreases in index hospitalization (-16.7%, P = 0.002) and readmissions payments (-27.0%, P = 0.003). In contrast, spending on outpatient surgery increased by $8.5 billion (28.7%, P < 0.001). This increase was realized across all sites of care (hospital outpatient department: 36.6%, P < 0.001; physician office: 22.1%, P < 0.001; ambulatory surgery center: 36.6%, P < 0.001). Ophthalmology and hand surgery witnessed the greatest growth in surgical spending over the study period. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Surgical care accounts for half of all Medicare spending. Our findings not only highlight the magnitude of spending on surgery, but also the areas of greatest growth, which could be targeted by future payment reforms.

Confirmatory Magnetic Resonance Imaging with or without Biopsy Impacts Decision Making in Newly Diagnosed Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We investigated how magnetic resonance imaging and post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy impact decision making in men considering active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of men in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative with newly diagnosed favorable risk prostate cancer. Following diagnostic biopsy the men were classified into 3 groups, including group 1-no magnetic resonance imaging, group 2-magnetic resonance imaging only and group 3-magnetic resonance imaging/post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy. For the purposes of counseling and shared decision making magnetic resonance imaging results were deemed reassuring (PI-RADS™ [Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System] 3 or less) or nonreassuring (PI-RADS 4 or greater). Similarly, if the diagnostic biopsy was GG (Grade Group) 1, post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy results were deemed nonreassuring if there was any amount of GG 2 or greater. If the diagnostic biopsy was GG 2, post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy results were deemed nonreassuring if more than 3 cores were GG 2, or there was more than 50% GG 2 in any individual core or any volume of GG 3 or greater. RESULTS: Of 1,461 men with favorable risk prostate cancer 1,223 (84%) did not undergo magnetic resonance imaging, 157 (11%) underwent magnetic resonance imaging alone and 81 (6%) underwent magnetic resonance imaging and post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy. Of the men who underwent magnetic resonance imaging alone more with reassuring findings elected active surveillance than men with nonreassuring or magnetic resonance imaging findings (74% vs 35% and 42%, respectively). The highest rate of active surveillance was noted in men with reassuring post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy regardless of whether magnetic resonance imaging was reassuring or nonreassuring (93% and 96%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging and post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy drive decision making in men with newly diagnosed, favorable risk prostate cancer. Post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy is a stronger driver of decision making than magnetic resonance imaging alone. This was demonstrated by the more than 90% of men with reassuring post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsies who elected active surveillance regardless of magnetic resonance imaging results.

Pathological upgrading at radical prostatectomy for patients with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: implications of confirmatory testing for patients considering active surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk, number of positive biopsy cores, age, and early confirmatory test results on pathological upgrading at radical prostatectomy (RP), in order to better understand whether early confirmatory testing and better risk stratification are necessary for all men with Grade Group (GG) 1 cancers who are considering active surveillance (AS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified men in Michigan initially diagnosed with GG1 prostate cancer, from January 2012 to November 2017, who had a RP within 1 year of diagnosis. Our endpoints were: (i) ≥GG2 cancer at RP and (ii) adverse pathology (≥GG3 and/or ≥pT3a). We compared upgrading according to NCCN risk, number of positive biopsy cores, and age. Last, we examined if confirmatory test results were associated with upgrading or adverse pathology at RP. RESULTS: Amongst 1966 patients with GG1 cancer at diagnosis, the rates of upgrading to ≥GG2 and adverse pathology were 40% and 59% (P < 0.001), and 10% and 17% (P = 0.003) for patients with very-low- and low-risk cancers, respectively. Upgrading by volume ranged from 49% to 67% for ≥GG2, and 16% to 23% for adverse pathology. Generally, more patients aged ≥70 vs <70 years had adverse pathology. Unreassuring confirmatory test results had a higher likelihood of adverse pathology than reassuring tests (35% vs 18%, P = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Upgrading and adverse pathology are common amongst patients initially diagnosed with GG1 prostate cancer. Early use of confirmatory testing may facilitate the identification of patients with more aggressive disease ensuring improved risk classification and safer selection of patients for AS.

Variation in Physician-Specific Episode Payments for Major Cancer Surgery and Implications for the Merit-Based Incentive Program.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 1.5 million clinicians in the United States will be affected by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) new payment program, the Merit-based Incentive Program (MIPS), where clinicians will be penalized or rewarded based on the health care expenditures of their patients. We therefore examined expenditures for major cancer surgery to understand physician-specific variation in episode payments. METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data to identify patients aged 66-99 y who underwent a prostatectomy, nephrectomy, lung, or colorectal resection for cancer from 2008 to 2012. We calculated 90-d episode payments, attributed each episode to a physician, and evaluated physician-level payment variation. Next, we determined which component (index admission, readmission, physician services, postacute care, hospice) drove differences in payments. Finally, we evaluated payments by geographic region, number of comorbidities, and cancer stage. RESULTS: We identified 39,109 patients who underwent surgery by 1 of 7182 providers. There was wide variation in payments for each procedure (prostatectomy: $7046-$40,687; nephrectomy: $8855-$82,489; lung resection: $11,167-$223,467; colorectal resection: $9711-$199,480). The largest component difference in episode payments varied by condition: physician payments for prostatectomy (29%), postacute care for nephrectomy (38%) and colorectal resections (38%), and index hospital admission for lung resections (43%) but were fairly stable across region, comorbidity number, and cancer stage. CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing major cancer surgery, 90-d episode payments vary widely across surgeons. The components driving such variation differ by condition but remain stable across region, number of comorbidities, and cancer stage. These data suggest that programs to reduce specific component payments may have advantages over those targeting individual physicians for decreasing health care expenditures.

Costs of Cancer Care Across the Disease Continuum.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to estimate Medicare payments for cancer care during the initial, continuing, and end-of-life phases of care for 10 malignancies and to examine variation in expenditures according to patient characteristics and cancer severity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data to identify patients aged 66-99 years who were diagnosed with one of the following 10 cancers: prostate, bladder, esophageal, pancreatic, lung, liver, kidney, colorectal, breast, or ovarian, from 2007 through 2012. We attributed payments for each patient to a phase of care (i.e., initial, continuing, or end of life), based on time from diagnosis until death or end of study interval. We summed payments for all claims attributable to the primary cancer diagnosis and analyzed the overall and phase-based costs and then by differing demographics, cancer stage, geographic region, and year of diagnosis. RESULTS: We identified 428,300 patients diagnosed with one of the 10 malignancies. Annual payments were generally highest during the initial phase. Mean expenditures across cancers were $14,381 during the initial phase, $2,471 for continuing, and $13,458 at end of life. Payments decreased with increasing age. Black patients had higher payments for four of five cancers with statistically significant differences. Stage III cancers posed the greatest annual cost burden for four cancer types. Overall payments were stable across geographic region and year. CONCLUSION: Considerable differences exist in expenditures across phases of cancer care. By understanding the drivers of such payment variations across patient and tumor characteristics, we can inform efforts to decrease payments and increase quality, thereby reducing the burden of cancer care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Considerable differences exist in expenditures across phases of cancer care. There are further differences by varying patient characteristics. Understanding the drivers of such payment variations across patient and tumor characteristics can inform efforts to decrease costs and increase quality, thereby reducing the burden of cancer care.

Association of Delivery System Integration and Outcomes for Major Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Integrated delivery systems (IDSs) are postulated to reduce spending and improve outcomes through successful coordination of care across multiple providers. Nonetheless, the actual impact of IDSs on outcomes for complex multidisciplinary care such as major cancer surgery is largely unknown. METHODS: Using 2011-2013 Medicare data, this study identified patients who underwent surgical resection for prostate, bladder, esophageal, pancreatic, lung, liver, kidney, colorectal, or ovarian cancer. Rates of readmission, 30-day mortality, surgical complications, failure to rescue, and prolonged hospital stay for cancer surgery were compared between patients receiving care at IDS hospitals and those receiving care at non-IDS hospitals. Generalized estimating equations were used to adjust results by cancer type and patient- and hospital-level characteristics while accounting for clustering of patients within hospitals. RESULTS: The study identified 380,053 patients who underwent major resection of cancer, with 38% receiving care at an IDS. Outcomes did not differ between IDS and non-IDS hospitals regarding readmission and surgical complication rates, whereas only minor differences were observed for 30-day mortality (3.5% vs 3.2% for IDS; p < 0.001) and prolonged hospital stay (9.9% vs 9.2% for IDS; p < 0.001). However, after adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics, the frequencies of adverse perioperative outcomes were not significantly associated with IDS status. CONCLUSIONS: The collective findings suggest that local delivery system integration alone does not necessarily have an impact on perioperative outcomes in surgical oncology. Moving forward, stakeholders may need to focus on surgical and oncology-specific methods of care coordination and quality improvement initiatives to improve outcomes for patients undergoing cancer surgery.

Understanding the relationship between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Hospital Compare star rating, surgical case volume, and short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Hospital Compare star rating and surgical case volume have been publicized as metrics that can help patients to identify high-quality hospitals for complex care such as cancer surgery. The current study evaluates the relationship between the CMS' star rating, surgical volume, and short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery. METHODS: National Medicare data were used to evaluate the relationship between hospital star ratings and cancer surgery volume quintiles. Then, multilevel logistic regression models were fit to examine the association between cancer surgery outcomes and both star rankings and surgical volumes. Lastly, a graphical approach was used to compare how well star ratings and surgical volume predicted cancer surgery outcomes. RESULTS: This study identified 365,752 patients undergoing major cancer surgery for 1 of 9 cancer types at 2,550 hospitals. Star rating was not associated with surgical volume (P < .001). However, both the star rating and surgical volume were correlated with 4 short-term cancer surgery outcomes (mortality, complication rate, readmissions, and prolonged length of stay). The adjusted predicted probabilities for 5- and 1-star hospitals were 2.3% and 4.5% for mortality, 39% and 48% for complications, 10% and 15% for readmissions, and 8% and 16% for a prolonged length of stay, respectively. The adjusted predicted probabilities for hospitals with the highest and lowest quintile cancer surgery volumes were 2.7% and 5.8% for mortality, 41% and 55% for complications, 12.2% and 11.6% for readmissions, and 9.4% and 13% for a prolonged length of stay, respectively. Furthermore, surgical volume and the star rating were similarly associated with mortality and complications, whereas the star rating was more highly associated with readmissions and prolonged length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of other information, these findings suggest that the star rating may be useful to patients when they are selecting a hospital for major cancer surgery. However, more research is needed before these ratings can supplant surgical volume as a measure of surgical quality. Cancer 2017;123:4259-4267. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Association Between Patient Satisfaction and Short-Term Outcomes After Major Cancer Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether patient satisfaction, as measured by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, is associated with short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We first used national Medicare claims to identify patients who underwent a major extirpative cancer surgery from 2011 to 2013. Next, we used Hospital Compare data to assign the HCAHPS score to the hospital where the patient underwent surgery. We then performed univariate statistical analyses and fit multilevel logistic regression models to evaluate the relationship between excellent patient satisfaction and short-term cancer surgery outcomes for all surgery types combined and then by each individual surgery type. RESULTS: We identified 373,692 patients who underwent major cancer surgery for one of nine cancers at 2617 hospitals. In both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, hospitals with higher proportions of patients reporting excellent satisfaction had lower complication rates (p < 0.001), readmissions (p < 0.001), mortality (p < 0.001), and prolonged length of stay (p < 0.001) than hospitals with lower proportions of satisfied patients, but with modest differences. This finding held true broadly across individual cancer types for complications, mortality, and prolonged length of stay, but less so for readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-wide excellent patient satisfaction scores are associated with short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery overall, but are modest in magnitude.

Alternative payment models and urology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) is a historic bill that was recently passed that establishes how quality measurement and practice patterns will affect physician reimbursement. Alternative payment models (APMs) are an essential component of MACRA and Medicare's vision of paying for high-value care. This review describes APMs in the context of MACRA and their impact on urology. RECENT FINDINGS: The majority of urologists will be affected by MACRA. Both APMs and bundled payments are considered APMs under MACRA. Although most urologists do not currently participate in Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and Bundled Payments, both models are considered APMs under MACRA and are likely going to gain increasing attention in the coming years. SUMMARY: APMs will likely become more relevant to urologists' practices in the future, as both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and private payers are transitioning away from fee-for-service towards value-based payment.

Robotic ultrasound and needle guidance for prostate cancer management: review of the contemporary literature.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To present the recent advances in needle guidance and robotic ultrasound technology which are used for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis and management. RECENT FINDINGS: Prostate biopsy technology has remained relatively unchanged. Improved needle localization and precision would allow for better management of this common disease. Robotic ultrasound and needle guidance is one strategy to improve needle localization and diagnostic accuracy of PCa. This review focuses on the recent advances in robotic ultrasound and needle guidance technologies, and their potential impact on PCa diagnosis and management. SUMMARY: The use of robotic ultrasound and robotic-assisted needle guidance has the potential to improve PCa diagnosis and management.

Characterizing the real-world economic burden of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer in the United States.

AIMS: To describe healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs of patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). METHODS: Linked data from Flatiron Metastatic PC Core Registry and Komodo's Healthcare Map were evaluated (01/2016-12/2021). Patients with chart-confirmed diagnoses for metastatic PC without confirmed castration resistance in Flatiron who initiated androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) monotherapy or advanced therapy for mCSPC in 2017 or later (index date) with a corresponding pharmacy or medical claim in Komodo Health were included. Advanced therapies considered were androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors, chemotherapies, estrogens, immunotherapies, poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors, and radiopharmaceuticals. Patients with <12 months of continuous insurance eligibility before index were excluded. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause and PC-related HRU and costs (medical and pharmacy; from a payer's perspective in 2022 $USD) were described in the 12-month baseline period and follow-up period (from the index date to castration resistance, end of continuous insurance eligibility, end of data availability, or death). RESULTS: Of 871 patients included (mean age: 70.6 years), 52% initiated ADT monotherapy as their index treatment without documented advanced therapy use. During baseline, 31% of patients had a PC-related inpatient admission and 94% had a PC-related outpatient visit; mean all-cause costs were $2551 PPPM and PC-related costs were $839 PPPM with $787 PPPM attributable to medical costs. Patients had a mean follow-up of 15 months, during which 38% had a PC-related inpatient admission and 98% had a PC-related outpatient visit; mean all-cause costs were $5950 PPPM with PC-related total costs of $4363 PPPM, including medical costs of $2012 PPPM. LIMITATIONS: All analyses were descriptive; statistical testing was not performed. Treatment effectiveness and clinical outcomes were not assessed. CONCLUSION: This real-world study demonstrated a significant economic burden in mCSPC patients, and a propensity to use ADT monotherapy in clinical practice despite the availability and guideline recommendations of advanced life-prolonging therapies.

Real-world economic burden associated with disease progression from metastatic castration-sensitive to castration-resistant prostate cancer on treatment in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The advent of next-generation imaging will likely reduce nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PC) prevalence and increase identification of metastatic prostate cancer cases, resulting in two predominant advanced stages in the metastatic setting. There is a need to characterize changes in health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs when metastatic castration-sensitive PC (mCSPC) progresses to metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) to identify value drivers from current and new treatments. OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment patterns, HRU, and total health care costs among patients with mCSPC, before and after progression to mCRPC. METHODS: Clinical data from the Flatiron Metastatic PC Core Registry (January 1, 2013, to December 1, 2021) and linked claims from Komodo Health (January 1, 2014, to December 1, 2021) were used to identify patients with progression from mCSPC to mCRPC (date of progression was the index date) and subsequently initiated first-line mCRPC therapy on/after January 1, 2017. Treatment patterns and all-cause/PC-related HRU and health care costs were described per-patient-per-month (PPPM), separately for no more than 12 months pre-index (mCSPC disease state) and post-index (mCRPC disease state). Costs (payer's perspective) included those for services/procedures from medical claims and costs from pharmacy claims. Continuous HRU and costs were compared between the mCSPC and mCRPC disease states using Wilcoxon signed rank tests. RESULTS: Among 296 patients with mCSPC progressing to mCRPC (median age 69.0 years, 60.5% White, 15.9% Black), use of systemic therapies with androgen deprivation therapy increased dramatically from 35.1% in the mCSPC disease state to 92.9% in the mCRPC disease state, and use of androgen deprivation therapy monotherapy decreased from 25.7% to 2.4%, respectively. Although 39.2% received none of these therapies in the mCSPC disease state, this proportion decreased to 4.7% after transition to mCRPC. The mean number of days with PC-related outpatient visits increased from 1.57 to 2.16 PPPM in the mCSPC and mCRPC disease states (P < 0.001). From the mCSPC to mCRPC disease states, mean all-cause total health care costs PPPM increased from $4,424 (medical costs: $2,846) to $9,717 (medical costs: $4,654), and mean PC-related total health care costs PPPM increased from $2,859 (medical costs: $1,626) to $8,012 (medical costs: $3,285; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study of patients with disease progression from mCSPC to mCRPC in US clinical practice, nearly 2-in-3 patients did not receive treatment with additional systemic therapies before progression to castration resistance. Post-progression, mean PC-related total costs increased nearly 3-fold, with a more than 2-fold increase in PC-related medical costs. Use of additional systemic therapies may delay the time and cost associated with disease progression to castration resistance.

Real-world economic burden of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer before and after first-line therapy initiation.

AIMS: To describe healthcare costs of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) initiating first-line (1 L) therapies from a US payer perspective. METHODS: Patients initiating a Flatiron oncologist-defined 1 L mCRPC therapy (index date) on or after mCRPC diagnosis were identified from linked electronic medical records/claims data from the Flatiron Metastatic Prostate Cancer (PC) Core Registry and Komodo's Healthcare Map. Patients were excluded if they initiated a clinical trial drug in 1 L, had <12 months of insurance eligibility prior to index, or no claims in Komodo's Healthcare Map for the Flatiron oncologist-defined index therapy. All-cause and PC-related total costs per-patient-per-month (PPPM), including costs for services and procedures from medical claims (i.e. medical costs) and costs from pharmacy claims (i.e. pharmacy costs), were described in the 12-month baseline period before 1 L therapy initiation (including the baseline pre- and post- mCRPC progression periods) and during 1 L therapy (follow-up). RESULTS: Among 459 patients with mCRPC (mean age 70 years, 57% White, 16% Black, 45% commercially-insured, 43% Medicare Advantage-insured, and 12% Medicaid-insured), average baseline all-cause total costs (PPPM) were $4,576 ($4,166 pre-mCRPC progression, $8,278 post-mCRPC progression). Average baseline PC-related total costs were $2,935 ($2,537 pre-mCRPC progression, $6,661 post-mCRPC progression). During an average 1 L duration of 8.5 months, mean total costs were $13,746 (all-cause) and $12,061 (PC-related) PPPM. The cost increase following 1 L therapy initiation was driven by higher PC-related outpatient and pharmacy costs. PC-related medical costs PPPM increased from $1,504 during baseline to $5,585 following 1 L mCRPC therapy initiation. LIMITATIONS: All analyses were descriptive; statistical testing was not performed. CONCLUSION: Incremental costs of progression to mCRPC are significant, with the majority of costs driven by higher PC-related costs. Using contemporary data, this study highlights the importance of utilizing effective therapies that slow progression and reduce healthcare resource demands despite the initial investment in treatment costs.

Rural For-Profit Hospitals Are Associated With Higher Commercial Prices for 3 Common Urological Procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Rural patients lack access to urological services, and high local prices may dissuade underinsured patients from surgery. We sought to describe commercially insured prices for 3 urological procedures at rural vs metropolitan and for-profit vs nonprofit hospitals. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of commercially insured prices from the Turquoise Health Transparency data set was performed for ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, and transurethral resection of prostate. Hospital characteristics were linked using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Healthcare Cost Reporting Information System. Linear modeling analyzed median hospital price and its association with hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 1,532 hospitals reported urological prices in Turquoise. Median prices for each procedure were higher at rural for-profits (ureteroscopy $16,522, transurethral resection of bladder tumor $5,393, transurethral resection of prostate $9,999) vs rural nonprofits (ureteroscopy $4,512, transurethral resection of bladder tumor $2,788, transurethral resection of prostate $3,881) and metropolitan for-profits (ureteroscopy $5,411, transurethral resection of bladder tumor $3,420, transurethral resection of prostate $4,874). Rural for-profit status was independently associated with 160% higher price for ureteroscopy (relative cost ratio 2.60, P < .001), 50% higher for transurethral resection of bladder tumor (relative cost ratio 1.50, P = .002), and 113% higher for transurethral resection of prostate (relative cost ratio 2.13, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Prices are higher for 3 common urological surgeries at rural for-profit hospitals. Differential pricing may contribute to disparities for underinsured rural residents who lack access to nonprofit facilities. Interventions that facilitate transportation and price shopping may improve access to affordable urological care.

Medication Payments by Insurers and Patients for the Treatment of Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The implications of high prices for cancer drugs on health care costs and patients' financial burdens are a growing concern. Patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are often candidates for multiple first-line systemic therapies with similar impacts on life expectancy. However, little is known about the gross and out-of-pocket (OOP) payments associated with each of these drugs for patients with employer-sponsored health insurance. We therefore aimed to determine the gross and OOP payments of first-line drugs for mCRPC and how the payments vary across drugs. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 4,298 patients with prostate cancer who initiated therapy with one of six drugs approved for first-line treatment of mCRPC between July 1, 2013, and June 30, 2019. We compared gross and OOP payments during the 6 months after initiation of treatment for mCRPC using private payer claims data across patients using different first-line drugs. RESULTS: Gross payments varied across drugs. Over the 6 months after the index prescription, mean unadjusted gross drug payments were highest for patients receiving sipuleucel-T ($115,525 USD) and lowest for patients using docetaxel ($12,804 USD). OOP payments were lower than gross drug payments; mean 6-month OOP payments were highest for cabazitaxel ($1,044 USD) and lowest for docetaxel ($296 USD). There was a wide distribution of OOP payments within drug types. CONCLUSION: Drugs for mCRPC are expensive with large differences in payments by drug type. OOP payments among patients with employer-sponsored health insurance are much lower than gross drug payments, and they vary both across and within first-line drug types, with some patients making very high OOP payments. Although lowering drug prices would reduce pharmaceutical spending for patients with mCRPC, decreasing patient financial burden requires understanding an individual patient's benefit design.

Association of Rural Hospital for-Profit Status With Higher Publicly Reported Prices for the Components of Inpatient Hematuria Evaluation Among Commercially Insured Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Rural patients have limited access to urological care and are vulnerable to high local prices. Little is known about price variation for urological conditions. We aimed to compare reported commercial prices for the components of inpatient hematuria evaluation between for-profit vs not-for-profit and rural vs metropolitan hospitals. METHODS: We abstracted commercial prices for the components of intermediate- and high-risk hematuria evaluation from a price transparency data set. We compared hospital characteristics between those that do and do not report prices for a hematuria evaluation using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Healthcare Cost Reporting Information System. Generalized linear modelling evaluated the association between hospital ownership and rural/metropolitan status with prices of intermediate- and high-risk evaluations. RESULTS: Of all hospitals, 17% of for-profits and 22% of not-for-profits report prices for hematuria evaluation. For intermediate-risk, median price at rural for-profit hospitals was $6,393 (interquartile range [IQR] $2,357-$9,295) compared to $1,482 (IQR $906-$2,348) at rural not-for-profits and $2,645 (IQR $1,491-$4,863) at metropolitan for-profits. For high-risk, rural for-profit hospitals' median price was $11,151 (IQR $5,826-$14,366) vs $3,431 (IQR $2,474-$5,156) at rural not-for-profits and $4,188 (IQR $1,973-$8,663) at metropolitan for-profits. Rural for-profit status was associated with an additional higher price for intermediate- (relative cost ratio 1.62, 95% CI 1.16-2.28, P = .005) and high-risk evaluations (relative cost ratio 1.50, 95% CI 1.15-1.97, P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Rural for-profit hospitals report high prices for components of inpatient hematuria evaluation. Patients should be aware of prices at these facilities. These differences may dissuade patients from undergoing evaluation and lead to disparities.

Use of a physical activity monitor to track perioperative activity of radical cystectomy patients. Our first glimpse at what our patients are doing before and after surgery.

PURPOSE: To optimize recovery after radical cystectomy (RC), providers stress the importance of ambulation and adequate rest. However, little is known about the activity and sleep habits of patients undergoing RC. Therefore, we utilized a wearable physical activity monitor (PAM) in the perioperative period to provide the first objective data on physical activity and sleep habits for RC patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively identified patients ≥60 years old with planned RC. Participants completed a 4-week prehabilitation exercise program prior to surgery. They wore a PAM for 7-day intervals: at baseline, after prehabilitation, at postoperative day (POD) 30 and POD90. We tracked physical activity via metabolic equivalents (METs). METs were categorized by intensity: light (MET 1.5-<3), moderate (MET 3-<6), and vigorous (MET ≥6). We calculated daily step totals. We tracked hours slept and number of sleep awakenings. We correlated activity and sleep with self-reported quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: Forty-two patients completed prehabilitation and RC. Moderate intensity exercise decreased at POD30 (61 minutes/d at baseline, 30 minutes/d at POD30, P = 0.005). Physical activity did not significantly differ for light or vigorous activity at any timepoint. RC did not significantly affect sleep. Sleep and physical activity were associated with mental and physical QOL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study utilizing patient-worn monitors in RC to track physical activity and sleep. This study gives patients and providers a better understanding of postcystectomy recovery expectations. With these results in mind, interventions may be implemented to optimize activity and sleep in the perioperative period.