Publication:


abstract

PURPOSE:

According to guidelines most men with incident prostate cancer do not require staging imaging. We determined the population level prevalence and correlates of appropriate and inappropriate imaging in this cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

We performed a cross-sectional study of men 66 to 85 years old who were diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2004 and 2005 from the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-medicare database. Low risk (no prostate specific antigen greater than 10 ng/ml, Gleason score greater than 7 or clinical stage greater than T2) and high risk (1 or more of those features) groups were formed. Inappropriate imaging was defined as any imaging for men at low risk and appropriate imaging was defined as bone scan for men at high risk as well as pelvic imaging as appropriate. Logistic regression modeled imaging in each group.

RESULTS:

Of 18,491 men at low risk 45% received inappropriate imaging while only 66% of 10,562 at high risk received appropriate imaging. For patients at low risk inappropriate imaging was associated with increasing clinical stage (T2 vs T1 OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.27-1.44), higher Gleason score (7 vs less than 7 OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.69-1.92), increasing age and comorbidity as well as decreasing education. Appropriate imaging for men at high risk was associated with lower stage (T4, T3 and T2 vs T1 OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48-0.82, OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.60-0.80 and OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.86) and with higher Gleason score (greater than 8 and 7 vs less than 7 OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.92-2.48 and 1.51, 95% CI 1.35-1.70, respectively) as well as with younger age, white race, higher income, lower stage and more comorbidity.

CONCLUSIONS:

We found poor adherence to imaging guidelines for men with incident prostate cancer. Understanding the patterns by which clinicians use imaging for prostate cancer should guide educational efforts as well as research to suggest evidence-based guideline improvements.

Copyright © 2012 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Inappropriate utilization of radiographic imaging in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in the United States.
Cancer. 2012
Inappropriate utilization of radiographic imaging in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in the United States.
Prasad SM, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Nguyen PL, Hu JC. Cancer. 2012 Mar 1; 118(5):1260-7. Epub 2011 Aug 5.
Final Report on Carcinogens Background Document for Formaldehyde.
Rep Carcinog Backgr Doc. 2010
Final Report on Carcinogens Background Document for Formaldehyde.
National Toxicology Program. Rep Carcinog Backgr Doc. 2010 Jan; (10-5981):i-512.
Prostate-specific antigen surveillance among men with clinically localized prostate cancer who do not receive initial treatment.
Urology. 2011
Prostate-specific antigen surveillance among men with clinically localized prostate cancer who do not receive initial treatment.
Yeboa DN, Guzzo T, Mitra N, Christodouleas JP, Haas NB, Vapiwala N, Armstrong K, Bekelman JE. Urology. 2011 Nov; 78(5):1107-13. Epub 2011 Sep 23.
Decrease in racial disparities in the staging evaluation for prostate cancer after publication of staging guidelines.
J Urol. 2007
Decrease in racial disparities in the staging evaluation for prostate cancer after publication of staging guidelines.
Abraham N, Wan F, Montagnet C, Wong YN, Armstrong K. J Urol. 2007 Jul; 178(1):82-7; discussion 87. Epub 2007 May 11.
Review Neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate cancer.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006
Review Neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate cancer.
Kumar S, Shelley M, Harrison C, Coles B, Wilt TJ, Mason MD. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18; (4):CD006019. Epub 2006 Oct 18.