Improvement Science and Implementation Science in Cancer Care: Identifying Areas of Synergy and Opportunities for Further Integration.

Efforts to improve cancer care primarily come from two fields: improvement science and implementation science. The two fields have developed independently, yet they have potential for synergy. Leveraging that synergy to enhance alignment could both reduce duplication and, more importantly, enhance the potential of both fields to improve care. To better understand potential for alignment, we examined 20 highly cited cancer-related improvement science and implementation science studies published in the past 5 years, characterizing and comparing their objectives, methods, and approaches to practice change. We categorized studies as improvement science or implementation science based on authors' descriptions when possible; otherwise, we categorized studies as improvement science if they evaluated efforts to improve the quality, value, or safety of care, or implementation science if they evaluated efforts to promote the implementation of evidence-based interventions into practice. All implementation studies (10/10) and most improvement science studies (6/10) sought to improve uptake of evidence-based interventions. Improvement science and implementation science studies employed similar approaches to change practice. For example, training was employed in 8/10 implementation science studies and 4/10 improvement science studies. However, improvement science and implementation science studies used different terminology to describe similar concepts and emphasized different methodological aspects in reporting. Only 4/20 studies (2 from each category) described using a formal theory or conceptual framework to guide program development. Most studies were multi-site (10/10 implementation science and 6/10 improvement science) and a minority (2 from each category) used a randomized design. Based on our review, cancer-related improvement science and implementation science studies use different terminology and emphasize different methodological aspects in reporting but share similarities in purpose, scope, and methods, and are at similar levels of scientific development. The fields are well-positioned for alignment. We propose that next steps include harmonizing language and cross-fertilizing methods of program development and evaluation.

Posttraumatic stress disorder and suicide among veterans with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a preexisting posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis on suicide and non-suicide mortalities among men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, and examine potential mediating factors for the relationship between PTSD and suicide. METHODS: We used patient-level data from Veterans Health Administration electronic medical records to identify men (age ≥40 years) diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2014. We used Fine and Gray regression model to estimate the risk for competing mortality outcomes (suicide, non-suicide, and alive). We used structural equation models to evaluate the mediating factors. RESULTS: Our cohort comprised 214,649 men with prostate cancer, of whom 12,208 (5.7%) had a preexisting PTSD diagnosis. Patients with PTSD compared to those without utilized more healthcare services and had lower risk cancer at diagnosis. Additionally, they experienced more suicide deaths (N = 26, 0.21% vs. N = 269, 0.13%) and fewer non-suicide deaths (N = 1399, 11.5% vs. N = 45,625, 22.5%). On multivariable analysis, PTSD was an independent suicide risk factor (HR = 2.35; 95% CI: 1.16, 4.78). Depression, substance use disorder, and any definitive prostate cancer treatment were partial mediators. However, PTSD was associated with lower non-suicide mortality risk (HR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.77, 0.96). CONCLUSION: Patients with PTSD experienced greater suicide risk even after adjusting for important mediators. They may have experienced lower non-suicide mortality risk due to favorable physical health resulting from greater healthcare service use and early diagnosis of lower risk cancer. Our findings highlight the importance of considering psychiatric illnesses when treating patients with prostate cancer and the need for interventions to ameliorate suicide risk.

The impact of frequent cystoscopy on surgical care and cancer outcomes among patients with low-risk, non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance recommendations for patients with low-risk, non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) are based on limited evidence. The objective of this study was to add to the evidence by assessing outcomes after frequent versus recommended cystoscopic surveillance. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with low-risk (low-grade Ta (AJCC)) NMIBC from 2005 to 2011 with follow-up through 2014 from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Patients were classified as having undergone frequent versus recommended cystoscopic surveillance (>3 vs 1-3 cystoscopies in the first 2 years after diagnosis). By using propensity score-adjusted models, the authors estimated the impact of frequent cystoscopy on the number of transurethral resections, the number of resections without cancer in the specimen, and the risk of progression to muscle-invasive cancer or bladder cancer death. RESULTS: Among 1042 patients, 798 (77%) had more frequent cystoscopy than recommended. In adjusted analyses, the frequent cystoscopy group had twice as many transurethral resections (55 vs 26 per 100 person-years; P < .001) and more than 3 times as many resections without cancer in the specimen (5.7 vs 1.6 per 100 person-years; P < .001). Frequent cystoscopy was not associated with time to progression or bladder cancer death (3% at 5 years in both groups; P = .990). CONCLUSIONS: Frequent cystoscopy among patients with low-risk NMIBC was associated with twice as many transurethral resections and did not decrease the risk for bladder cancer progression or death, supporting current guidelines.

The early adoption of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and stereotactic body radiation treatment among older Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Several new prostate cancer treatments have emerged since 2000, including 2 radiotherapies with similar efficacy at the time of their introduction: intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The objectives of this study were to compare their early adoption patterns and identify factors associated with their use. METHODS: By using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, patients who received radiation therapy during the 5 years after IMRT introduction (2001-2005) and the 5 years after SBRT introduction (2007-2011) were identified. The outcome of interest was the receipt of new radiation therapy (ie, IMRT or SBRT) compared with the existing standard radiation therapies at that time. The authors fit a series of multivariable, hierarchical logistic regression models accounting for patients nested within health service areas to examine the factors associated with the receipt of new radiation therapy. RESULTS: During 2001 to 2005, 5680 men (21%) received IMRT compared with standard radiation (n = 21,555). Men who received IMRT were older, had higher grade tumors, and lived in more populated areas (P < .05). During 2007 through 2011, 595 men (2%) received SBRT compared with standard radiation (n = 28,255). Men who received ng SBRT were more likely to be white, had lower grade tumors, lived in more populated areas, and were more likely to live in the Northeast (P < .05). Adjusting for cohort demographic and clinical factors, the early adoption rate for IMRT was substantially higher than that for SBRT (44% vs 4%; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: There is a stark contrast in the adoption rates of IMRT and SBRT at the time of their introduction. Further investigation of the nonclinical factors associated with this difference is warranted. Cancer 2017;123:2945-54. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Health Care Integration and Quality among Men with Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The delivery of high quality prostate cancer care is increasingly important for health systems, physicians and patients. Integrated delivery systems may have the greatest ability to deliver high quality, efficient care. We sought to understand the association between health care integration and quality of prostate cancer care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used SEER-Medicare data to perform a retrospective cohort study of men older than age 65 with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2007 and 2011. We defined integration within a health care market based on the number of discharges from a top 100 integrated delivery system, and compared rates of adherence to well accepted prostate cancer quality measures in markets with no integration vs full integration (greater than 90% of discharges from an integrated system). RESULTS: The average man treated in a fully integrated market was more likely to receive pretreatment counseling by a urologist and radiation oncologist (62.6% vs 60.3%, p=0.03), avoid inappropriate imaging (72.2% avoided vs 60.6%, p <0.001), avoid treatment when life expectancy was less than 10 years (23.7% vs 17.3%, p <0.001) and avoid multiple hospitalizations in the last 30 days of life (50.2% vs 43.6%, p=0.001) than when treated in markets with no integration. Additionally, patients treated in fully integrated markets were more likely to have complete adherence to all eligible quality measures (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.27-1.50). CONCLUSIONS: Integrated systems are associated with improved adherence to several prostate cancer quality measures. Expansion of the integrated health care model may facilitate greater delivery of high quality prostate cancer care.

Assembling and validating data from multiple sources to study care for Veterans with bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of bladder cancer, research on optimal bladder cancer care is limited. One way to advance observational research on care is to use linked data from multiple sources. Such big data research can provide real-world details of care and outcomes across a large number of patients. We assembled and validated such data including (1) administrative data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), (2) Medicare claims, (3) data abstracted by tumor registrars, (4) data abstracted via chart review from the national electronic health record, and (5) full text pathology reports. METHODS: Based on these combined data, we used administrative data to identify patients with newly diagnosed bladder cancer who received care in the VA. To validate these data, we first compared the diagnosis date from the administrative data to that from the tumor registry. Second, we measured accuracy of identifying bladder cancer care in VA administrative data, using a random chart review (n = 100) as gold standard. Lastly, we compared the proportion of patients who received bladder cancer care among those who did versus did not have full text bladder pathology reports available, expecting that those with reports are significantly more likely to receive care in VA. RESULTS: Out of 26,675 patients, 11,323 (42%) had tumor registry data available. 90% of these patients had a difference of 90 days or less between the diagnosis dates from administrative and registry data. Among 100 patients selected for chart review, 59 received bladder cancer care in VA, 58 of which were correctly identified using administrative data (sensitivity 98%, specificity 90%). Receipt of bladder cancer care was substantially more common among those who did versus did not have bladder pathology available (96% vs. 43%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Merging administrative with electronic health record and pathology data offers new possibilities to validate the use of administrative data in bladder cancer research.

Receipt of best care according to current quality of care measures and outcomes in men with prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We evaluated whether patients with prostate cancer who received best care according to a set of 5 nationally endorsed quality measures had decreased treatment related morbidity and improved cancer control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study we included 38,055 men from the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare database treated for localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2010. We determined whether each patient received best care, defined as care adherent to all applicable measures. We measured associations of best care with the need for interventions, addressing treatment related morbidity, and with the need for secondary cancer therapy using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Only 3,412 men (9.0%) received best care. Five years after treatment these men and men who did not receive best care had a similar likelihood of undergoing procedures for urinary morbidity (prostatectomy subset 10.7% vs 12.9%, p = 0.338) and secondary cancer therapy (prostatectomy for high risk prostate cancer subset 40.9% vs 37.3%, p = 0.522). However, they were more likely to be treated with a procedure for sexual morbidity (prostatectomy 17.3% vs 10.8%, p <0.001). Similar trends were observed in men treated with radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall men who received best care did not fare better in regard to treatment related morbidity or cancer control. Collectively our findings suggest that the current process of care measures are not tightly linked to outcomes and further research is needed to identify better measures that are meaningful and important to patients.

Understanding hospital readmission intensity after radical cystectomy.

PURPOSE: Hospital readmissions after radical cystectomy vary with respect to intensity in terms of impact on patients and health care systems. Therefore, we conducted a population based study to examine factors associated with increasing readmission intensity after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare data we identified 1,782 patients who underwent radical cystectomy from 2003 to 2009. We defined readmission intensity in terms of length of stay (days) divided into quartiles of less than 3 (lowest), 3 to 4, 5 to 7 and more than 7 (highest). We used logistic regression to examine factors associated with readmission intensity. RESULTS: More than half of the patients with the highest intensity readmissions were readmitted within the first week and 77% were readmitted within 2 weeks of discharge. Patients with the highest intensity readmissions were similar in age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, pathological stage, comorbidity, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use and urinary diversion type compared to patients with the lowest intensity readmissions. After multivariable adjustment, complications during the index cystectomy admission (p <0.001), readmission week (p=0.04), and the interaction between index length of stay and discharge to a skilled nursing facility (p=0.04) were associated with the highest readmission intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Readmission intensity differs widely after discharge following radical cystectomy. As postoperative efforts to minimize the readmission burden increase, a better understanding of the factors that contribute to the highest intensity readmissions will help direct limited resources (eg telephone calls, office visits) toward high yield areas.

Variation in use of active surveillance among men undergoing expectant treatment for early stage prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We examined variation in active surveillance use in Medicare eligible men undergoing expectant treatment for early stage prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results) and Medicare data we identified 49,192 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from 2004 through 2007. Of 7,347 patients who did not receive treatment (ie expectant management) within 12 months of diagnosis we assessed the prevalence of active surveillance (ie repeat prostate biopsy and prostate specific antigen measurement) vs watchful waiting across health care markets. We fit multivariable logistic regression models to examine associations of active surveillance with patient demographics, cancer severity and health care market characteristics. RESULTS: During the study interval use of active surveillance vs watchful waiting increased significantly in patients treated expectantly from 9.7% in 2004 to 15.3% in 2007 (p <0.001). Active surveillance was less common in older patients, those with high risk tumors and those with more comorbidities (each p <0.001). Patients who were white and had higher socioeconomic status were more likely to receive active surveillance (each p <0.05). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics significant differences in the predicted probability of active surveillance persisted across health care markets (range 2.4% to 30.1%). No significant variation in active surveillance use was associated with specific health care market characteristics, including intensity of end of life care, Medicare reimbursement or provider density. CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance has been relatively uncommon in Medicare beneficiaries with localized prostate cancer. Its use relative to watchful waiting varies based on patient demographics, tumor severity and geographic location.

Regional variation in quality of prostate cancer care.

PURPOSE: Despite the endorsement of several quality measures for prostate cancer by the National Quality Forum and the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement, how consistently physicians adhere to these measures has not been examined. We evaluated regional variation in adherence to these quality measures to identify targets for future quality improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study we used SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare data for 2001 to 2007 to identify 53,614 patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Patients were assigned to 661 regions (Hospital Service Areas). Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to examine reliability adjusted regional adherence to the endorsed quality measures. RESULTS: Adherence at the patient level was highly variable, ranging from 33% for treatment by a high volume provider to 76% for receipt of adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy while undergoing radiotherapy for high risk cancer. In addition, there was considerable regional variation in adherence to several measures, including pretreatment counseling by a urologist and radiation oncologist (range 9% to 89%, p <0.001), avoiding overuse of bone scans in low risk cancer (range 16% to 96%, p <0.001), treatment by a high volume provider (range 1% to 90%, p <0.001) and followup with radiation oncologists (range 14% to 86%, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found low adherence rates for most established prostate cancer quality of care measures. Within most measures regional variation in adherence was pronounced. Measures with low adherence and a large amount of regional variation may be important low hanging targets for quality improvement.

Adherence to performance measures and outcomes among men treated for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We assessed the relationship between health care system performance on nationally endorsed prostate cancer quality of care measures and prostate cancer treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 48,050 men from SEER-Medicare linked data diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009, and followed through 2010. Based on a composite quality measure we categorized the health care systems in which these men were treated into 1-star (bottom 20%), 2-star (middle 60%) and 3-star (top 20%) systems. We then examined the association of health care system level quality of care with outcomes using multivariable logistic and Cox regression. RESULTS: Patients who underwent prostatectomy in 3-star vs 1-star health care systems were at lower risk for perioperative complications (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-1.00). However, they were more likely to undergo a procedure addressing treatment related morbidity, eg for sexual morbidity (11.3% vs 7.8%, p = 0.043). In patients who received radiotherapy star ranking was not associated with treatment related morbidity. In all patients star ranking was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84-1.15) or secondary cancer therapy (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: We found no consistent association between health care system quality and outcomes, which questions how meaningful these measures ultimately are for patients. Thus, future studies should focus on developing more discriminative quality measures.

Managed care and the dissemination of robotic prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Robotic prostatectomy has rapidly disseminated over the past decade. How managed care, thought by many to be a barrier to new technology, influences the dissemination of robotics is unknown. We sought to better understand the relationship between a market's managed-care penetration and the dissemination of robotic prostatectomy. METHODS: We used SEER-Medicare data from 2003 through 2007 to identify men ≥66 years of age treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. We categorized Health Service Areas (HSAs) according to the degree of managed-care penetration (ie, low vs high). We assessed adoption of robotic prostatectomy and utilization among adopting HSAs using Cox proportional-hazards and Poisson regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Compared with markets with little managed care, highly penetrated markets had more racial diversity (24% vs 15% nonwhite, P < .01), higher population densities (1987 vs 422 people/square mile, P < .01), and higher median incomes ($49 374 vs $36 236, P < .01). Robotic prostatectomy adoption and utilization increased over time in both HSA categories. Compared with low managed-care markets, those with high managed care adopted robotic prostatectomy more rapidly (eg, probability 0.37 [low] vs 0.52 [high] in 2007; P < .01). However, the postadoption utilization of robotic prostatectomy was constrained in these highly penetrated markets (eg, probability 0.66 [low] vs 0.52 [high] in 2007; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: High managed-care penetration was associated with more rapid robotic prostatectomy adoption. However, once adopted, utilization increased more slowly in these markets. Understanding this paradox is important as more technologies are unveiled in an increasingly cost-conscious health care environment.

Clinical Trial Protocol for "Replace Cysto": Replacing Invasive Cystoscopy with Urine Testing for Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer Surveillance-A Multicenter, Randomized, Phase 2 Healthcare Delivery Trial Comparing Quality of Life During Cancer Surveillance with Xpert Bladder Cancer Monitor or Bladder EpiCheck Urine Testing Versus Frequent Cystoscopy.

"Replace Cysto" is a multisite randomized phase 2 trial including 240 participants with low-grade intermediate-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, in which participants will be randomized 1:1:1 to one of two urine marker-based approaches alternating a urine marker test (Xpert Bladder Cancer Monitor or Bladder EpiCheck) with cystoscopy or to frequent scheduled cystoscopy. The primary objective is to determine whether urinary quality of life after surveillance is significantly improved in the urine marker arms. The primary outcome will be the patient-reported urinary quality of life domain score of the validated QLQ-NMIBC24 instrument, measured 1-3 d after surveillance. Exploratory outcomes include discomfort after surveillance, the number of invasive procedures that participants undergo per 1000 person years, complications from these procedures per 1000 person years, nonurinary quality of life, acceptability of surveillance, and bladder cancer recurrence and progression. Comparators include surveillance using (1) the Xpert Bladder Cancer Monitor test, (2) the Bladder EpiCheck urinary marker, or (3) frequent cystoscopy alone. After a negative cystoscopy ≤4 mo following bladder tumor resection, all the participants will undergo surveillance at 6, 12, 18, and 24 mo (with time zero defined as the date of the most recent bladder tumor resection). In the urine marker arms, surveillance at 6 and 18 mo will be performed with the marker. Regardless of the arm, participants will undergo cystoscopy at 12 and 24 mo. End of study for each participant will be their 24-mo cystoscopy. Overall trial duration is estimated at 5 yr from when the study opens to enrollment until completion of data analyses. The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05796375).

Testing for the recurrent HOXB13 G84E germline mutation in men with clinical indications for prostate biopsy.

PURPOSE: The G84E variant of HOXB13 was recently found to be associated with a significantly increased risk of prostate cancer in a case control study. We estimated the prevalence of this mutation in a clinical population of men at risk for prostate cancer who were scheduled to undergo prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively collected clinical information and DNA samples from men who underwent diagnostic prostate biopsy between June 2005 and October 2011. We genotyped samples for HOXB13 G84E using the MassARRAY® system. We determined the prevalence of the G84E variant in the overall cohort, among patients with a positive family history and among men age 55 years or younger. RESULTS: A total of 1,175 subjects underwent biopsy, of whom 948 had a DNA sample for analysis. The G84E variant was detected in 4 patients (prevalence 0.42%, 95% CI 0.12-1.08), of whom 3 had prostate cancer on biopsy. None of 301 patients with a positive family history (prevalence 0.00%, 95% CI 0.00-1.22) and 1 of 226 patients age 55 years or younger tested positive (prevalence 0.44%, 95% CI 0.01-2.44). CONCLUSIONS: The HOXB13 G84E variant is rare in this cohort, even among those with a positive family history. Our findings question the utility of testing for this variant among unselected men presenting for a diagnostic prostate biopsy.

Certificate of need legislation and the dissemination of robotic surgery for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The uncertainty about the incremental benefit of robotic prostatectomy and its higher associated costs makes it an ideal target for state based certificate of need laws, which have been enacted in several states. We studied the relationship between certificate of need laws and market level adoption of robotic prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare data from 2003 through 2007 to identify men 66 years old or older treated with prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Using data from the American Health Planning Association, we categorized Health Service Areas according to the stringency of certificate of need regulations (ie low vs high stringency) presiding over that market. We assessed our outcomes (probability of adopting robotic prostatectomy and propensity for robotic prostatectomy use in adopting Health Service Areas) using Cox proportional hazards and Poisson regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Compared to low stringency markets, high stringency markets were more racially diverse (54% vs 15% nonwhite, p <0.01), and had similar population densities (886 vs 861 people per square mile, p = 0.97) and median incomes ($42,344 vs $39,770, p = 0.56). In general, both market types had an increase in the adoption and utilization of robotic prostatectomy. However, the probability of robotic prostatectomy adoption (p = 0.22) did not differ based on a market's certificate of need stringency and use was lower in high stringency markets (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: State based certificate of need regulations were ineffective in constraining robotic surgery adoption. Despite decreased use in high stringency markets, similar adoption rates suggest that other factors impact the diffusion of robotic prostatectomy.

Technology diffusion and diagnostic testing for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: While the dissemination of robotic prostatectomy and intensity modulated radiotherapy may fuel the increased use of prostatectomy and radiotherapy, these new technologies may also have spillover effects related to diagnostic testing for prostate cancer. Therefore, we examined the association of regional technology penetration with the receipt of prostate specific antigen testing and prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study we included 117,857 men 66 years old or older from the 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries living in Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) areas from 2003 to 2007. Regional technology penetration was measured as the number of providers performing robotic prostatectomy or intensity modulated radiotherapy per population in a health care market, ie hospital referral region. We assessed the association of technology penetration with the prostate specific antigen testing rate and prostate biopsy using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: High technology penetration was associated with an increased rate of prostate specific antigen testing (442 vs 425/1,000 person-years, p<0.01) and a similar rate of prostate biopsy (10.1 vs 9.9/1,000 person-years, p=0.69). The impact of technology penetration on prostate specific antigen testing and prostate biopsy was much less than the effect of age, race and comorbidity, eg the prostate specific antigen testing rate per 1,000 person-years was 485 vs 373 for men with only 1 vs 3+ comorbid conditions (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Increased technology penetration is associated with a slightly higher rate of prostate specific antigen testing and no change in the prostate biopsy rate. Collectively, our findings temper concerns that adopting new technology accelerates diagnostic testing for prostate cancer.

The impact of technology diffusion on treatment for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The use of local therapy for prostate cancer may increase because of the perceived advantages of new technologies such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and robotic prostatectomy. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of market-level technological capacity with receipt of local therapy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SUBJECTS: Patients with localized prostate cancer who were diagnosed between 2003 and 2007 (n=59,043) from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database. MEASURES: We measured the capacity for delivering treatment with new technology as the number of providers offering robotic prostatectomy or IMRT per population in a market (hospital referral region). The association of this measure with receipt of prostatectomy, radiotherapy, or observation was examined with multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: For each 1000 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, 174 underwent prostatectomy, 490 radiotherapy, and 336 were observed. Markets with high robotic prostatectomy capacity had higher use of prostatectomy (146 vs. 118 per 1000 men, P=0.008) but a trend toward decreased use of radiotherapy (574 vs. 601 per 1000 men, P=0.068), resulting in a stable rate of local therapy. High versus low IMRT capacity did not significantly impact the use of prostatectomy (129 vs. 129 per 1000 men, P=0.947) and radiotherapy (594 vs. 585 per 1000 men, P=0.579). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was a small shift from radiotherapy to prostatectomy in markets with high robotic prostatectomy capacity, increased capacity for both robotic prostatectomy and IMRT did not change the overall rate of local therapy. Our findings temper concerns that the new technology spurs additional therapy of prostate cancer.

Use of advanced treatment technologies among men at low risk of dying from prostate cancer.

IMPORTANCE: The use of advanced treatment technologies (ie, intensity-modulated radiotherapy [IMRT] and robotic prostatectomy) for prostate cancer is increasing. The extent to which these advanced treatment technologies have disseminated among patients at low risk of dying from prostate cancer is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of advanced treatment technologies, compared with prior standards (ie, traditional external beam radiation treatment [EBRT] and open radical prostatectomy) and observation, among men with a low risk of dying from prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, we identified a retrospective cohort of men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009 who underwent IMRT (n = 23,633), EBRT (n = 3926), robotic prostatectomy (n = 5881), open radical prostatectomy (n = 6123), or observation (n = 16,384). Follow-up data were available through December 31, 2010. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The use of advanced treatment technologies among men unlikely to die from prostate cancer, as assessed by low-risk disease (clinical stage ≤T2a, biopsy Gleason score ≤6, and prostate-specific antigen level ≤10 ng/mL), high risk of noncancer mortality (based on the predicted probability of death within 10 years in the absence of a cancer diagnosis), or both. RESULTS: In our cohort, the use of advanced treatment technologies increased from 32% (95% CI, 30%-33%) to 44% (95% CI, 43%-46%) among men with low-risk disease (P < .001) and from 36% (95% CI, 35%-38%) to 57% (95% CI, 55%-59%) among men with high risk of noncancer mortality (P < .001). The use of these advanced treatment technologies among men with both low-risk disease and high risk of noncancer mortality increased from 25% (95% CI, 23%-28%) to 34% (95% CI, 31%-37%) (P < .001). Among all patients diagnosed in SEER, the use of advanced treatment technologies for men unlikely to die from prostate cancer increased from 13% (95% CI, 12%-14%), or 129.2 per 1000 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, to 24% (95% CI, 24%-25%), or 244.2 per 1000 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (P < .001). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009 who had low-risk disease, high risk of noncancer mortality, or both, the use of advanced treatment technologies has increased.

Accurate Documentation Contributes to Guideline-concordant Surveillance of Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Multisite Department of Veterans Affairs Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if accurate documentation of bladder cancer risk was associated with a clinician surveillance recommendation that is concordant with AUA guidelines among patients with nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). METHODS: We prospectively collected data from cystoscopy encounter notes from four Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites to ascertain whether they included accurate documentation of bladder cancer risk and a recommendation for a guideline-concordant surveillance interval. Accurate documentation was a clinician-recorded risk classification matching a gold standard assigned by the research team. Clinician recommendations were guideline-concordant if the clinician recorded a surveillance interval that was in line with the AUA guideline. RESULTS: Among 296 encounters, 75 were for low-, 98 for intermediate-, and 123 for high-risk NMIBC. 52% of encounters had accurate documentation of NMIBC risk. Accurate documentation of risk was less common among encounters for low-risk bladder cancer (36% vs 52% for intermediate- and 62% for high-risk, P < .05). Guideline-concordant surveillance recommendations were also less common in patients with low-risk bladder cancer (67% vs 89% for intermediate- and 94% for high-risk, P < .05). Accurate documentation was associated with a 29% and 15% increase in guideline-concordant surveillance recommendations for low- and intermediate-risk disease, respectively (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Accurate risk documentation was associated with more guideline-concordant surveillance recommendations among low- and intermediate-risk patients. Implementation strategies facilitating assessment and documentation of risk may be useful to reduce overuse of surveillance in this group and to prevent unnecessary cost, anxiety, and procedural harms.