Utilization, health care expenditures, and patient costs of definitive treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer in the United States

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Cancer Pub Date : 2025-03-04 DOI:10.1002/cncr.35795
Nikhil T. Sebastian MD, Dattatraya Patil MBBS, MPH, Pretesh R. Patel MD, Ashesh B. Jani MD, Bruce W. Hershatter MD, Vishal R. Dhere MD, Karen D. Godette MD, C. Adam Lorentz MD, Aaron D. Weiss MD, Shreyas S. Joshi MD, Martin G. Sanda MD, Sagar A. Patel MD
{"title":"Utilization, health care expenditures, and patient costs of definitive treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer in the United States","authors":"Nikhil T. Sebastian MD,&nbsp;Dattatraya Patil MBBS, MPH,&nbsp;Pretesh R. Patel MD,&nbsp;Ashesh B. Jani MD,&nbsp;Bruce W. Hershatter MD,&nbsp;Vishal R. Dhere MD,&nbsp;Karen D. Godette MD,&nbsp;C. Adam Lorentz MD,&nbsp;Aaron D. Weiss MD,&nbsp;Shreyas S. Joshi MD,&nbsp;Martin G. Sanda MD,&nbsp;Sagar A. Patel MD","doi":"10.1002/cncr.35795","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) are standard-of-care treatments for localized prostate cancer. The authors studied the utilization and total health care and patient-incurred costs of RP and RT in the United States using the Merative MarketScan Medicare (Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits [MDCR]) and Commercial (Commercial Claims and Encounters [CCAE]) databases.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Men were identified who had nonmetastatic prostate cancer treated with RP, external-beam RT (EBRT), brachytherapy (BT), EBRT combined with BT (EBRT + BT), stereotactic body RT (SBRT), or proton-beam therapy (PBT) between 2009 and 2022. Year-to-year treatment utilization was compared using the Kendall Tau-b test. Mean total health care and patient out-of-pocket costs within 12 months of treatment were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In the MDCR database, 44,937 patients were identified who received treatment with RP (<i>n</i> = 12,879), EBRT (<i>n</i> = 26,193), BT (<i>n</i> = 926), EBRT + BT (<i>n</i> = 4706), PBT (<i>n</i> = 57), or SBRT (<i>n</i> = 176). Between 2009 and 2021, EBRT use increased from 52.5% to 62.2% (<i>p</i> for trend &lt; .001), SBRT increased from 0.4% to 0.5% (<i>p</i> &lt; .001), BT decreased from 3.1% to 1.0% (<i>p</i> &lt; .001), and EBRT + BT decreased from 14.8% to 6.8% (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001); whereas use remained similar for RP (from 29.1% to 29.4%; <i>p</i> = .82) and PBT (from 0.1% to 0.1%; <i>p</i> = .93). In the CCAE database, 75,626 patients were identified who received treatment with RP (<i>n</i> = 50,278), EBRT (<i>n</i> = 16,985), BT (<i>n</i> = 1243), EBRT + BT (<i>n</i> = 6811), PBT (<i>n</i> = 92), or SBRT (<i>n</i> = 217). EBRT use increased from 20.0% to 24.9% (<i>p</i> &lt; .001), SBRT increased from 0.1% to 0.8% (<i>p</i> &lt; .001), BT decreased from 2.5% to 0.7% (<i>p</i> &lt; .001), and EBRT + BT decreased from 10.6% to 7.4% (<i>p</i> &lt; .001); whereas use remained similar for RP (from 66.8% to 66.1%; <i>p</i> for trend = .82), and PBT (from 0.1% to 0.1%; <i>p</i> for trend = .76). In the MDCR and CCAE databases, PBT had the highest total cost, whereas BT had the lowest.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Between 2009 and 2021, there was increasing use of EBRT and SBRT, whereas use of RP remained stable. Although BT was the least costly, its utilization as monotherapy and combined with EBRT declined.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":138,"journal":{"name":"Cancer","volume":"131 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.35795","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) are standard-of-care treatments for localized prostate cancer. The authors studied the utilization and total health care and patient-incurred costs of RP and RT in the United States using the Merative MarketScan Medicare (Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits [MDCR]) and Commercial (Commercial Claims and Encounters [CCAE]) databases.

Methods

Men were identified who had nonmetastatic prostate cancer treated with RP, external-beam RT (EBRT), brachytherapy (BT), EBRT combined with BT (EBRT + BT), stereotactic body RT (SBRT), or proton-beam therapy (PBT) between 2009 and 2022. Year-to-year treatment utilization was compared using the Kendall Tau-b test. Mean total health care and patient out-of-pocket costs within 12 months of treatment were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test.

Results

In the MDCR database, 44,937 patients were identified who received treatment with RP (n = 12,879), EBRT (n = 26,193), BT (n = 926), EBRT + BT (n = 4706), PBT (n = 57), or SBRT (n = 176). Between 2009 and 2021, EBRT use increased from 52.5% to 62.2% (p for trend < .001), SBRT increased from 0.4% to 0.5% (p < .001), BT decreased from 3.1% to 1.0% (p < .001), and EBRT + BT decreased from 14.8% to 6.8% (p < 0.001); whereas use remained similar for RP (from 29.1% to 29.4%; p = .82) and PBT (from 0.1% to 0.1%; p = .93). In the CCAE database, 75,626 patients were identified who received treatment with RP (n = 50,278), EBRT (n = 16,985), BT (n = 1243), EBRT + BT (n = 6811), PBT (n = 92), or SBRT (n = 217). EBRT use increased from 20.0% to 24.9% (p < .001), SBRT increased from 0.1% to 0.8% (p < .001), BT decreased from 2.5% to 0.7% (p < .001), and EBRT + BT decreased from 10.6% to 7.4% (p < .001); whereas use remained similar for RP (from 66.8% to 66.1%; p for trend = .82), and PBT (from 0.1% to 0.1%; p for trend = .76). In the MDCR and CCAE databases, PBT had the highest total cost, whereas BT had the lowest.

Conclusions

Between 2009 and 2021, there was increasing use of EBRT and SBRT, whereas use of RP remained stable. Although BT was the least costly, its utilization as monotherapy and combined with EBRT declined.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cancer
Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
3.20%
发文量
480
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: The CANCER site is a full-text, electronic implementation of CANCER, an Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society, and CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY, a Journal of the American Cancer Society. CANCER publishes interdisciplinary oncologic information according to, but not limited to, the following disease sites and disciplines: blood/bone marrow; breast disease; endocrine disorders; epidemiology; gastrointestinal tract; genitourinary disease; gynecologic oncology; head and neck disease; hepatobiliary tract; integrated medicine; lung disease; medical oncology; neuro-oncology; pathology radiation oncology; translational research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信