Variation in management of lymph node positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy within a statewide quality improvement consortium.

BACKGROUND: Patients with lymph node positive (pN+) disease found at the time of radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer (CaP) are at high risk of disease persistence and progression. Contemporary management trends of pN+ CaP are not well described. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) with clinically localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2012 and 2023 with cN0/pN+ disease were identified. The primary outcome was to evaluate patient and practice-level factors associated with time to secondary post-RP treatment. Secondary outcomes included practice-level variation in management of pN+ CaP and rates of secondary treatment modality. To assess factors associated with secondary treatment, a Cox proportional hazards model of a 60-day landmark analysis was performed. RESULTS: We identified 666 patients with pN+ disease. Overall, 66% underwent secondary treatment within 12 months post-RP. About 19% of patients with detectable post-RP PSA did not receive treatment. Of patients receiving secondary treatment after 60-days post-RP, 34% received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, 27% received radiation (RT) alone, 36% received combination, and 4% received other systemic therapies. In the multivariable model, pathologic grade group (GG)3 (HR 1.5; 95%CI: 1.05-2.14), GG4-5 (HR 1.65; 95%CI: 1.16-2.34), positive margins (HR 1.46; 95%CI: 1.13-1.88), and detectable postoperative PSA ≥0.1 ng/ml (HR 3.46; 95%CI: 2.61-4.59) were significantly associated with secondary post-RP treatment. There was wide variation in adjusted practice-level 12-month secondary treatment utilization (28%-79%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority pN+ patients receive treatment within 12 months post-RP which was associated with high-risk pathological features and post-RP PSA. Variation in management of pN+ disease highlights the uncertainty regarding the optimal management. Understanding which patients will benefit from secondary treatment, and which type, will be critical to minimize variation in care.

The 340B Program and oral specialty drugs for advanced prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Expensive oral specialty drugs for advanced prostate cancer can be associated with treatment disparities. The 340B program allows hospitals to purchase medications at discounts, generating savings that can improve care of the socioeconomically disadvantaged. This study assessed the effect of hospital 340B participation on advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with advanced prostate cancer from 2012 to 2019. The primary outcome was use of an oral specialty drug. Secondary outcomes included monthly out-of-pocket costs and treatment adherence. We evaluated the effects of 1) hospital 340B participation, 2) a regional measure vulnerability, the social vulnerability index (SVI), and 3) the interaction between hospital 340B participation and SVI on outcomes. RESULTS: There were 2237 and 1100 men who received care at 340B and non-340B hospitals. There was no difference in specialty drug use between 340B and non-340B hospitals, whereas specialty drug use decreased with increased SVI (odds ratio, 0.95, p = .038). However, the interaction between hospital 340B participation and SVI on specialty drug use was not significant. Neither 340B participation, SVI, or their interaction were associated with out-of-pocket costs. Although hospital 340B participation and SVI were not associated with treatment adherence, their interaction was significant (p = .020). This demonstrated that 340B was associated with better adherence among socially vulnerable men. CONCLUSIONS: The 340B program was not associated with specialty drug use in men with advanced prostate cancer. However, among those who were started on therapy, 340B was associated with increased treatment adherence in more socially vulnerable men.

National Long-term Survival Estimates After Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine survival and disease control outcomes, including metastasis-related survival outcomes, in a large contemporary cohort of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of men with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy from 2005 to 2015 with follow-up through 2019 in the Veterans Health Administration. We defined biochemical recurrence (BCR) as a prostate-specific antigen ≥0.2 ng/mL. We used a validated natural language processing encoded dataset to identify incident metastatic prostate cancer. We estimated overall survival from time of surgery, time of BCR, and time of first metastasis using the Kaplan-Meier method. We then estimated time from surgery to BCR, BCR to metastatic disease, and prostate-cancer-specific survival from various time points using cumulative incidence considering competing risk of death. RESULTS: Of 21,992 men undergoing radical prostatectomy, we identified 5951 (27%) who developed BCR. Of men with BCR, 677 (11%) developed metastases. We estimated the 10-year cumulative incidence of BCR and metastases after BCR were 28% and 20%, respectively. Median overall survival after BCR was 14years, with 10-year survival of 70%. From the time of metastasis, median overall survival approached 7years, with 10-year overall survival of 34%. Prostate cancer-specific survival for the entire cohort at 10years was 94%. CONCLUSION: In this large contemporary national cohort, survival for men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer is longer than historical cohorts. When counseling patients and designing clinical studies, these updated estimates may serve as more reliable reflections of current outcomes.

Association Between Urologist Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Performance and Quality of Prostate Cancer Care.

INTRODUCTION: We performed a study to evaluate the association between urologist performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), and quality and spending for prostate cancer care. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2017 and 2019 were assigned to their primary urologist. Associated MIPS scores were identified and categorized based on thresholds for payment adjustment as low (worst), moderate, and high (best). Multivariable mixed effects models were used to measure the association between MIPS performance and adherence to quality measures and price standardized spending for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Adherence to quality measures did not vary across MIPS performance groups for pretreatment counselling by both a urologist and radiation oncologist (low-76%, [95% CI 73%-80%], moderate-77% [95% CI 74%-79%], and high-75% [95% CI 74%-76%]) and avoiding treatment in men with a high risk of noncancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis (low-40% [95% CI 35%-45%], moderate-39% [95% CI 36%-43%], high-38% [95% CI 36%-39%]). Men on active surveillance managed by high performers more likely received a confirmatory test (44% [95% CI 43%-46%]) compared to those managed by moderate (38% [95% CI 33%-42%]) performers, but not low performers (36% [95% CI 29%-44%]). There was no difference in adjusted spending across MIPS performance groups. CONCLUSIONS: Better performance in MIPS is associated with a higher rate of confirmatory testing in men initiating active surveillance for prostate cancer. However, performance was not associated with other dimensions of quality nor spending.

Determinants of Bone-Modifying Agent Prescribing for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in a National Health Care Delivery System.

PURPOSE: Despite guidelines recommending bone-modifying agents (BMAs) to decrease skeletal-related events (SREs) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), BMAs are underutilized. In this retrospective cohort study, we report the factors associated with BMA use in a national health care delivery system. METHODS: We used the Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse to identify men with mCRPC between 2010 and 2017. BMA prescribing frequency was evaluated, and the association between patient- and disease-specific factors with BMA use was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 3,980 men identified with mCRPC (mean age 73.5 years, 29% Black), 47% received a BMA; median time to BMA from start of mCRPC treatment was 102 days. Factors associated with BMA use included previous BMA use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 7.81 [95% CI, 6.48 to 9.47]), diagnosis code for bone metastases (aOR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.08 to 1.46]), and concomitant corticosteroid use (aOR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.29 to 1.82]). Decreased BMA use was associated with advancing age (aOR, 0.85 per 10 years [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.92]), Charlson comorbidity index ≥2 (aOR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.93]), Black race (aOR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.98]), and decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; aOR, 0.19 [95% CI, 0.11 to 0.32] for eGFR 0-29 mL/minutes; aOR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.91] for 30-59 mL/minutes). CONCLUSION: Patients who are older, Black, or have more comorbidities are less likely to receive guideline concordant care to prevent SREs. These observations highlight the unique challenges of caring for patients with mCRPC and the need for future studies to increase BMA use in these populations.

Urologist practice divestment from radiation vault ownership and treatment patterns for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Urologists practicing in single-specialty groups with ownership in radiation vaults are more likely to treat men with prostate cancer. The effect of divestment of vault ownership on treatment patterns is unclear. METHODS: A 20% sample of national Medicare claims was used to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2019. Urology practices were categorized by radiation vault ownership as nonowners, continuous owners, and divested owners. The primary outcome was use of local treatment, and the secondary outcome was use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). A difference-in-differences framework was used to measure the effect of divestment on outcomes compared to continuous owners. Subgroup analyses assessed outcomes by noncancer mortality risk (high [>50%] vs. low [≤50%]). RESULTS: Among 72 urology practices that owned radiation vaults, six divested during the study. Divestment led to a decrease in treatment compared with those managed at continuously owning practices (difference-in-differences estimate, -13%; p = .03). The use of IMRT decreased, but this was not statistically significant (difference-in-differences estimate, -10%; p = .13). In men with a high noncancer mortality risk, treatment (difference-in-differences estimate, -28%; p < .001) and use of IMRT (difference-in-differences estimate, -27%; p < .001) decreased after divestment. CONCLUSIONS: Urology group divestment from radiation vault ownership led to a decrease in prostate cancer treatment. This decrease was most pronounced in men who had a high noncancer mortality risk. This has important implications for health care reform by suggesting that payment programs that encourage constraints on utilization, when appropriate, may be effective in reducing overtreatment.

Value-based payment models and management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of urologist participation in value-based payment models on the initial management of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2017 and 2019, with 1 year of follow-up, were assigned to their primary urologist, each of whom was then aligned to a value-based payment model (the merit-based incentive payment system [MIPS], accountable care organization [ACO] without financial risk, and ACO with risk). Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was used to measure the association between payment model participation and treatment of prostate cancer. Additional models estimated the effects of payment model participation on use of treatment in men with very high risk (i.e., >75%) of non-cancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis (i.e., a group of men for whom treatment is generally not recommended) and price-standardized prostate cancer spending in the 12 months after diagnosis. RESULTS: Treatment did not vary by payment model, both overall (MIPS-67% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs without risk-66% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs with risk-66% [95% CI 64%-68%]). Similarly, treatment did not vary among men with very high risk of non-cancer mortality by payment model (MIPS-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs without risk-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs with risk-51% [95% CI 45%-56%]). Adjusted spending was similar across payment models (MIPS-$16,501 [95% CI $16,222-$16,780], ACOs without risk-$16,140 [95% CI $15,852-$16,429], ACOs with risk-$16,117 [95% CI $15,585-$16,649]). CONCLUSIONS: How urologists participate in value-based payment models is not associated with treatment, potential overtreatment, and prostate cancer spending in men with newly diagnosed disease.

The immediate effects of private equity acquisition of urology practices on the management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Some worry that physician practices acquired by private equity may increase the use of services to maximize revenue. We assessed the effects of private equity acquisition on spending, use of treatment, and diagnostic testing in men with prostate cancer. METHODS: We used a 20% sample of national Medicare claims to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with prostate cancer diagnosed from 2014 through 2019. The primary outcome was prostate cancer spending in the first 12 months after diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included the use of treatment and a composite measure of diagnostic testing (e.g., imaging, genomics) in the first 12 months after diagnosis. Multilevel modeling was used to adjust for differences in patient and market characteristics. The effect of practice acquisition on each outcome was assessed using a difference-in-differences design. RESULTS: There were 409 and 4021 men with prostate cancer managed by urologists in acquired and nonacquired practices, respectively. After acquisition, prostate cancer spending was comparable between acquired and nonacquired practices (difference-in-differences estimate $1182, p = 0.36). Acquisition did not affect the use of treatment (difference-in-differences estimate 3.7%, p = 0.30) or the use of diagnostic testing in men who were treated (difference-in-differences -5.5%, p = 0.12) and those managed conservatively (difference-in-differences -2.0%, p = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: In the year following acquisition of urology practices, private equity did not increase prostate cancer spending, the use of treatment or diagnostic testing in men with prostate cancer. Future work should evaluate the effects of private equity acquisition on practice patterns and quality over a longer time horizon.

Acquisition of Urology Practices by Private Equity Firms and Performance in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System.

INTRODUCTION: Private equity is increasingly engaged in the acquisition of urology practices. The implications of strategies to enhance practice value deployed by these firms for patients are unclear. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of urologist performance in the MIPS (Merit-based Incentive Payment System) program for 2017 to 2020 using national Medicare data from the Quality Payment Program file. The primary outcome was the overall MIPS score. Secondary outcomes included MIPS component scores (ie, quality, interoperability, improvement activities, cost) and the percentage of urologists receiving a bonus payment. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the relationship between private equity acquisition and outcomes using a difference-in-differences framework. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2020, 181 urologists were in a urology practice acquired by private equity with MIPS data available the year before and after acquisition. Compared to urologists in practices not acquired by private equity, those in acquired practices had worse overall MIPS performance after acquisition (difference-in-differences estimate, -14 points, P = .04). The decrease in the overall score was driven by worse performance in the quality score (difference-in-differences estimate, -28 points, P < .001). Finally, acquisition resulted in a decrease in the percentage of urologists receiving bonus payments (difference-in-differences estimate, -43%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Private equity acquisition of urology practices was associated with significantly lower MIPS performance. As private equity acquisition of urology practices becomes more prevalent, key stakeholders should ensure that the quality of patient care is maintained and that the involvement of for-profit entities in health care is being made transparent to patients.

In-office dispensing of oral targeted agents by urology practices in men with advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Management of men with advanced prostate cancer has evolved to include urologists, made possible by oral targeted agents (eg, abiraterone or enzalutamide) that can be dispensed directly to patients in the office. We sought to investigate whether this increasingly common model improves access to these agents, especially for Black men who are historically undertreated. METHODS: We used 20% national Medicare data to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with advanced prostate cancer from 2011 through 2019, managed by urology practices with and without in-office dispensing. Using a difference-in-difference framework, generalized estimating equations were used to measure the effect of in-office dispensing on prescriptions for abiraterone and/or enzalutamide, adjusting for differences between patients, including race. RESULTS: New prescription fills for oral targeted agents increased after the adoption of in-office dispensing (+4.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.4% to 5.4%) relative to that for men managed by practices without dispensing (+2.4%, 95% CI = 1.4% to 3.4%). The increase in the postintervention period (difference-in-difference estimate) was 2% higher (95% CI = 0.6% to 3.4%) for men managed by practices adopting dispensing relative to men managed by practices without dispensing. The effect was strongest for practices adopting dispensing in 2015 (difference-in-difference estimate: +4.2%, 95% CI = 2.3% to 6.2%). The effect of dispensing adoption did not differ by race. CONCLUSION: Adoption of in-office dispensing by urology practices increased prescription fills for oral targeted agents in men with advanced prostate cancer. This model of delivery may improve access to this important class of medications.

Health care delivery system contributions to management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite clinical guidelines advocating for use of conservative management in specific clinical scenarios for men with prostate cancer, there continues to be tremendous variation in its uptake. This variation may be amplified among men with competing health risks, for whom treatment decisions are not straightforward. The degree to which characteristics of the health care delivery system explain this variation remains unclear. METHODS: Using national Medicare data, men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer between 2014 and 2019 were identified. Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to assess the association between use of treatment and health care delivery system determinants operating at the practice level, which included measures of financial incentives (i.e., radiation vault ownership), practice organization (i.e., single specialty vs. multispecialty groups), and the health care market (i.e., competition). Variance was partitioned to estimate the relative influence of patient and practice characteristics on the variation in use of treatment within strata of noncancer mortality risk groups. RESULTS: Among 62,507 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, the largest variation in the use of treatment between practices was observed for men with high and very high-risk of noncancer mortality (range of practice-level rates of treatment for high: 57%-71% and very high: 41%-61%). Addition of health care delivery system determinants measured at the practice level explained 13% and 15% of the variation in use of treatment among men with low and intermediate risk of noncancer mortality in 10 years, respectively. Conversely, these characteristics explained a larger share of the variation in use of treatment among men with high and very high-risk of noncancer mortality (26% and 40%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Variation among urology practices in use of treatment was highest for men with high and very high-risk noncancer mortality. Practice characteristics explained a large share of this variation.

National Trends in Management of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Deciding whether to treat or conservatively manage patients with prostate cancer is challenging. Recent changes in guidelines, advances in treatment technologies, and policy can influence decision making surrounding management, particularly for those for whom the decision to treat is discretionary. Contemporary trends in management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer are unclear. METHODS: Using national Medicare data, men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were identified between 2014 and 2019. Patients were classified by 5- and 10-year noncancer mortality risk. Multinomial logistic regression models were fit to assess adjusted trends in management over time. The primary outcome was management of prostate cancer: local treatment (inclusive of surgery, radiation, brachytherapy, or cryotherapy), hormone therapy, or observation. RESULTS: Local treatment was the most common form of management and stable across years (68%). Use of observation increased (21%-23%, P < .001) and use of hormone therapy decreased (11%-8%, P < 0.001). After stratifying by 10-year non-cancer mortality risk, observation increased among men with low (22.3%-26.1%, P < .001) and moderate (19.9%-23.5%, P < .001) mortality risk. Conversely, use of treatment increased among those with high (62.8%-68.0%, P = .004) and very high (45.5%-54.1%, P < .001) risk of noncancer mortality. These trends were similar across groups when stratified by 5-year noncancer mortality risk. CONCLUSION: Nationally, use of local treatment remains common and was stable throughout the study period. However, while local treatment declined among men with a lower risk of noncancer mortality, it increased among men with a higher risk of non-cancer mortality.

Outcomes after definitive radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer in a national health care delivery system.

PURPOSE: Accurate information regarding real-world outcomes after contemporary radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer is important for shared decision-making. Clinically relevant end points at 10 years among men treated within a national health care delivery system were examined. METHODS: National administrative, cancer registry, and electronic health record data were used for patients undergoing definitive radiation therapy with or without concurrent androgen deprivation therapy within the Veterans Health Administration from 2005 to 2015. National Death Index data were used through 2019 for overall and prostate cancer-specific survival and identified date of incident metastatic prostate cancer using a validated natural language processing algorithm. Metastasis-free, prostate cancer-specific, and overall survival using Kaplan-Meier methods were estimated. RESULTS: Among 41,735 men treated with definitive radiation therapy, the median age at diagnosis was 65 years and median follow-up was 8.7 years. Most had intermediate (42%) and high-risk (33%) disease, with 40% receiving androgen deprivation therapy as part of initial therapy. Unadjusted 10-year metastasis-free survival was 96%, 92%, and 80% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease. Similarly, unadjusted 10-year prostate cancer-specific survival was 98%, 97%, and 90% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease. The unadjusted overall survival was lower across increasing disease risk categories at 77%, 71%, and 62% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide population-based 10-year benchmarks for clinically relevant end points, including metastasis-free survival, among patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radiation therapy using contemporary techniques. The survival rates for high-risk disease in particular suggest that outcomes have recently improved.

Mental health care utilization among men with castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving abiraterone or enzalutamide.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone and enzalutamide are castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) therapies with potentially distinct associations with mental health symptoms given their differing antiandrogen targets. METHODS: We used national Veterans Health Administration data to identify patients with CRPC who received first-line abiraterone or enzalutamide from 2010 to 2017. Using Poisson regression, we compared outpatient mental health encounters per 100 patient-months on drug between the abiraterone and enzalutamide cohorts adjusting for patient factors (e.g., age). We compared mental health encounters in the year before versus after starting therapy using the McNemar test. RESULTS: We identified 2902 CRPC patients who received abiraterone (n = 1992) or enzalutamide (n = 910). We found no difference in outpatient mental health encounters between the two groups (adjusted incident rate ratio [aIRR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.15). However, men with preexisting mental health diagnoses received 81.3% of the outpatient mental health encounters and had higher rates of these encounters with enzalutamide (aIRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.09-1.34). Among patients with ≥1 year of enrollment before and after starting abiraterone (n = 1139) or enzalutamide (n = 446), there was no difference in mental health care utilization before versus after starting treatment (17.0% of patients vs. 17.6%, p = 0.60, abiraterone; 16.4% vs. 18.4%, p = 0.26, enzalutamide). CONCLUSION: We found no overall differences in mental health care utilization between CRPC patients who received first-line abiraterone versus enzalutamide. However, men with preexisting mental health diagnoses received the majority of mental health care and had more mental health visits with enzalutamide.

Practice Competition and Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of urology practice market competition on use of treatment in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective national cohort study of 48,067 Medicare beneficiaries with newly diagnosed prostate cancer between 2014 and 2018. The primary exposure was urology practice-level market competition. Markets were established by the flow of patients to a practice using a variable radius approach. Practice level competition was measured annually using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. The primary outcome was use of treatment for prostate cancer (ie, surgery, radiation, or cryotherapy) stratified by 10-year risk of noncancer mortality. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2018, there was a decrease in the total percent of urologists practicing in small single-specialty groups (49%-41%) with an increase in multispecialty practices (38%-47%). After adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, a lower percentage of men underwent treatment in practices with low competition relative to those managed in practices with high competition (70% vs 67.0%, P < .001). Among men with the highest risk of noncancer mortality, those managed in practices in the least competitive markets were less likely to receive treatment relative to men managed by practices in the most competitive markets (48% vs 60%, P-value<.001). CONCLUSION: Reduction in competition between urology practices is not associated with greater use of treatment in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, particularly in those with a high risk of noncancer mortality.

Effects of In-office Dispensing by Single-specialty Urology Practices on Management of Advanced Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We examine changes in the volume of patients with advanced prostate cancer and prescriptions for abiraterone and enzalutamide among urology practices with and without in-office dispensing. METHODS: Using data from the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs, we identified in-office dispensing by single-specialty urology practices from 2011 to 2018. As the greatest growth in implementing dispensing occurred among large groups in 2015, outcomes were measured at the practice level in 2014 (before) and 2016 (after) for dispensing and non-dispensing practices. Outcomes included the volume of men with advanced prostate cancer managed by a practice and prescriptions for abiraterone and/or enzalutamide. Using national Medicare data, generalized linear mixed models were fit to compare the practice-level ratio of each outcome (2016 relative to 2014) adjusting for regional contextual factors. RESULTS: In-office dispensing increased from 1% to 30% of single-specialty urology practices from 2011 to 2018, with 28 practices implementing dispensing in 2015. In 2016 compared to 2014, adjusted changes in the volume of patients with advanced prostate cancer managed by a practice were similar between non-dispensing (0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.94) and dispensing (0.93, 95% CI 0.76-1.09) practices (P = .60). Prescriptions for abiraterone and/or enzalutamide increased in both non-dispensing (2.00, 95% CI 1.58-2.41) and dispensing (8.99, 95% CI 4.51-13.47) practices (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In-office dispensing is increasingly common in urology practices. This emerging model is not associated with changes in patient volume but is associated with increased prescriptions for abiraterone and enzalutamide.

Differential adoption of castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment across facilities in a national healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, abiraterone and enzalutamide have largely replaced ketoconazole as oral treatments for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We investigated the differential adoption of abiraterone and enzalutamide across facilities in a national healthcare system to understand the impact a facility has on the receipt of these novel therapies. METHODS: Using data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we identified a cohort of men with CRPC who received the most common first-line therapies: abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, or ketoconazole between 2010 and 2017. We described variability in the adoption of abiraterone and enzalutamide across facilities by time period (2010-2013 or 2014-2017). We categorized facilities depending on the timing of adoption of abiraterone and enzalutamide relative to other facilities and described facility characteristics associated with early and late adoption. RESULTS: We identified 4998 men treated with ketoconazole, docetaxel, abiraterone, or enzalutamide as first-line CRPC therapy between 2010 and 2017 at 125 national facilities. When limiting the cohort to oral therapies, most patients treated earlier in the study period (2010-2013) received ketoconazole. A dramatic shift was seen by the second half of the study period (2014-2017) with most men treated with first-line abiraterone (61%). Despite this shift and a new standard of care, some facilities persisted in the widespread use of ketoconazole in the later period, so-called late adopting facilities. After multivariable adjustment, patients who received treatment at a late adopting facility were more likely receiving care at a lower complexity, rural facility, with less urology and hematology/oncology workforce (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Many facilities persisted in their use of ketoconazole as first-line CRPC therapy, even when other facilities had adopted the new standard of care abiraterone and enzalutamide. Further work is needed to identify the effect of this late adoption on outcomes important to patients.