Stephan M Korn, Zhiyu Qian, Hanna Zurl, Nathaniel Hansen, Klara K Pohl, Daniel Stelzl, Filippo Dagnino, Stuart Lipsitz, Jianyi Zhang, Adam S Kibel, Caroline M Moore, Kerry L Kilbridge, Shahrokh F Shariat, Stacy Loeb, Hebert Alberto Vargas, Quoc-Dien Trinh, Alexander P Cole
{"title":"Geographic variability in contemporary utilization of PET imaging for prostate cancer: a medicare claims cohort study.","authors":"Stephan M Korn, Zhiyu Qian, Hanna Zurl, Nathaniel Hansen, Klara K Pohl, Daniel Stelzl, Filippo Dagnino, Stuart Lipsitz, Jianyi Zhang, Adam S Kibel, Caroline M Moore, Kerry L Kilbridge, Shahrokh F Shariat, Stacy Loeb, Hebert Alberto Vargas, Quoc-Dien Trinh, Alexander P Cole","doi":"10.1186/s40644-025-00898-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Potential rural-urban differences in prostate cancer care are understudied, particularly regarding the utilization of advanced diagnostic tests. Herein we examined variations in Positron Emission Tomography (PET) utilization for prostate cancer care, including diagnosis, staging and treatment planning, across residential regions in the United States.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2019 and 2021 and post-diagnostic PETs were identified using full Medicare claims data. PET use was assessed in all newly diagnosed patients, though indications vary by risk. Patients' counties were categorized as metro, urban, or rural, from most to least urbanized. Regional PET utilization was further examined at the level of hospital referral regions. A multivariable logistic regression model was performed to assess the impact of rurality on PET imaging. A secondary analysis included an interaction term for race to explore the effect of residence on PET imaging by racial group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 495 865 patients were included in the analysis: 393 861 (79.4%) lived in metro, 56 698 (11.4%) in urban and 39 707 (8.0%) in rural counties. Patients in metro counties underwent PET imaging more often (8.4%) than patients in urban (7.3%) or rural counties (7.2%), p < 0.0001. At a level of hospital referral region, PET utilization rates ranged from 2.2 to 20.8%. PET imaging was more commonly performed in White compared to Black or Hispanic patients. Rural patients were less likely to undergo PET imaging compared to metro patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.87, 95% Confidence interval [CI]: 0.82-0.92 p < 0.0001). Rural Black (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.57-0.83, p < 0.0001) and rural White patients (OR 0.89, 95%CI 0.83-0.94 p < 0.0001) were less likely to obtain PET imaging compared to their metro counterparts, p-interaction < 0.0001.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Rural patients were less likely to undergo PET imaging than metro patients. The effect of rurality was most pronounced among Black patients. Our findings underscore the need for strategies to support equitable use of PET imaging.</p>","PeriodicalId":9548,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Imaging","volume":"25 1","pages":"86"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12231898/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-025-00898-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Potential rural-urban differences in prostate cancer care are understudied, particularly regarding the utilization of advanced diagnostic tests. Herein we examined variations in Positron Emission Tomography (PET) utilization for prostate cancer care, including diagnosis, staging and treatment planning, across residential regions in the United States.
Methods: Patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2019 and 2021 and post-diagnostic PETs were identified using full Medicare claims data. PET use was assessed in all newly diagnosed patients, though indications vary by risk. Patients' counties were categorized as metro, urban, or rural, from most to least urbanized. Regional PET utilization was further examined at the level of hospital referral regions. A multivariable logistic regression model was performed to assess the impact of rurality on PET imaging. A secondary analysis included an interaction term for race to explore the effect of residence on PET imaging by racial group.
Results: Overall, 495 865 patients were included in the analysis: 393 861 (79.4%) lived in metro, 56 698 (11.4%) in urban and 39 707 (8.0%) in rural counties. Patients in metro counties underwent PET imaging more often (8.4%) than patients in urban (7.3%) or rural counties (7.2%), p < 0.0001. At a level of hospital referral region, PET utilization rates ranged from 2.2 to 20.8%. PET imaging was more commonly performed in White compared to Black or Hispanic patients. Rural patients were less likely to undergo PET imaging compared to metro patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.87, 95% Confidence interval [CI]: 0.82-0.92 p < 0.0001). Rural Black (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.57-0.83, p < 0.0001) and rural White patients (OR 0.89, 95%CI 0.83-0.94 p < 0.0001) were less likely to obtain PET imaging compared to their metro counterparts, p-interaction < 0.0001.
Conclusion: Rural patients were less likely to undergo PET imaging than metro patients. The effect of rurality was most pronounced among Black patients. Our findings underscore the need for strategies to support equitable use of PET imaging.
Cancer ImagingONCOLOGY-RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
66
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍:
Cancer Imaging is an open access, peer-reviewed journal publishing original articles, reviews and editorials written by expert international radiologists working in oncology.
The journal encompasses CT, MR, PET, ultrasound, radionuclide and multimodal imaging in all kinds of malignant tumours, plus new developments, techniques and innovations. Topics of interest include:
Breast Imaging
Chest
Complications of treatment
Ear, Nose & Throat
Gastrointestinal
Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic
Imaging biomarkers
Interventional
Lymphoma
Measurement of tumour response
Molecular functional imaging
Musculoskeletal
Neuro oncology
Nuclear Medicine
Paediatric.