Local coverage determination policy and the use of stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Local coverage determinations (LCDs) are local decisions that regulate healthcare coverage. We evaluated the impact of LCDs as well as patient, tumor, and market characteristics on the adoption of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare, we identified men treated with SBRT, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and robotic prostatectomy. We compared demographics, clinical characteristics, and market factors among these three treatments. Our primary exposure was LCD policy; using the Medicare Coverage Database, we categorized LCDs as favorable (SBRT covered), neutral (SBRT covered in the context of a clinical trial or registry), unfavorable (SBRT not covered), or absent (i.e., SBRT not governed by an LCD at the time of treatment). We fit a multivariable multinomial logistic regression model and generated predicted probabilities to examine the relation between LCDs and SBRT. RESULTS: During this early period of SBRT adoption, IMRT was the most common of the three treatments followed by robotic prostatectomy and then SBRT. SBRT use was high when governed by favorable and neutral LCDs and lowest when governed by unfavorable LCDs. Compared with favorable LCDs, areas where LCDs were absent were associated with higher SBRT use compared with IMRT (odds ratio [OR] 1.56; 95%CI, 1.07-2.25) and robotic prostatectomy (OR 1.84; 95%CI, 1.25-2.69). CONCLUSIONS: When present, LCDs appear to regulate early SBRT adoption, but, when absent, are associated with increased SBRT use. Although SBRT use was uncommon, it varied across a wide range of patient, tumor, and market characteristics.

Low rates of adjuvant radiation in patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer with high-risk pathologic features.

BACKGROUND: The 2013 American Urological Association/American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guidelines recommend offering adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk pathologic features for recurrence. In the current study, the authors examined practice patterns of adjuvant RT use in patients with elevated pathologic risk factors over a time period spanning the publication of supporting randomized evidence. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base, a total of 130,681 patients were identified who underwent surgical resection for prostate cancer between 2004 and 2011 with at least 1 of the following pathologic risk factors for early biochemical failure: pT3a disease or higher, positive surgical margins and/or lymph node-positive disease. Using multivariable logistic regression, the authors examined factors associated with adjuvant RT use including patient, clinical, demographic, and temporal characteristics. RESULTS: Adjuvant RT was administered to 9.9% of the patients with at least 1 pathologic risk factor. Use of adjuvant RT did not change over the study period (P = .23). On multivariable analysis, we found that patients treated at high-volume surgical facilities were less likely to receive adjuvant RT (15.9% vs 7.8%; odds ratio, 0.58 [95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.65]; P < .0001). Older age, comorbidities, black race, lower income, and lower population density were also associated with lower rates of adjuvant RT. CONCLUSIONS: Use of adjuvant RT is uncommon and remained unchanged between 2004 and 2011. Patients treated at high-volume surgical facilities are less likely to receive adjuvant RT, irrespective of margin status.

Outcomes after intensity-modulated versus conformal radiotherapy in older men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: There is little evidence comparing complications after intensity-modulated (IMRT) vs. three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (CRT) for prostate cancer. The study objective was to test the hypothesis that IMRT, compared with CRT, is associated with a reduction in bowel, urinary, and erectile complications in elderly men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We undertook an observational cohort study using registry and administrative claims data from the SEER-Medicare database. We identified men aged 65 years or older diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer in the United States between 2002 and 2004 who received IMRT (n = 5,845) or CRT (n = 6,753). The primary outcome was a composite measure of bowel complications. Secondary outcomes were composite measures of urinary and erectile complications. We also examined specific subsets of bowel (proctitis/hemorrhage) and urinary (cystitis/hematuria) events within the composite complication measures. RESULTS: IMRT was associated with reductions in composite bowel complications (24-month cumulative incidence 18.8% vs. 22.5%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.93) and proctitis/hemorrhage (HR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95). IMRT was not associated with rates of composite urinary complications (HR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.04) or cystitis/hematuria (HR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-1.07). The incidence of erectile complications involving invasive procedures was low and did not differ significantly between groups, although IMRT was associated with an increase in new diagnoses of impotence (HR 1.27, 95% CI, 1.14-1.42). CONCLUSION: IMRT is associated with a small reduction in composite bowel complications and proctitis/hemorrhage compared with CRT in elderly men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.