Practice-Level Adoption of Conservative Management for Prostate Cancer.

Q1 Nursing
Parth K. Modi, S. Kaufman, L. Herrel, J. Dupree, A. Luckenbaugh, T. Skolarus, B. Hollenbeck, V. Shahinian
{"title":"Practice-Level Adoption of Conservative Management for Prostate Cancer.","authors":"Parth K. Modi, S. Kaufman, L. Herrel, J. Dupree, A. Luckenbaugh, T. Skolarus, B. Hollenbeck, V. Shahinian","doi":"10.1200/JOP.19.00088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE\nWe describe the longitudinal adoption of conservative management (ie, the absence of treatment) for prostate cancer among urology group practices in the United States and identify group practice features that influence this adoption.\n\n\nMETHODS\nUsing a 20% sample of Medicare claims, we identified men with incident prostate cancer from 2010 through 2014 and assigned each to his predominant urologist. We linked each urologist to a practice and characterized the practice's organization (eg, solo, single specialty, multispecialty) and ownership of intensity-modulated radiation therapy. For each group, we determined the rate of conservative management within 1 year of diagnosis. We then fit mixed-effects logistic regression models to assess relationships between practice organization and the adoption of conservative management over time, adjusted for patient characteristics.\n\n\nRESULTS\nWe identified 22,178 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer managed by 350 practices. Practices that increased use the most over time also used conservative management the most in 2010, whereas those that increased use the least used conservative management the least in 2010. Thus, the difference in average use of conservative management between highest- and lowest-use practices widened between 2010 and 2014. Urology groups increased their use of conservative management more rapidly than multispecialty groups. There was no difference in the rate of increase between intensity-modulated radiation therapy owning and nonowning groups.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nThere is increasing variation among group practices in the use of conservative management for prostate cancer. This underscores the need for a better understanding of practice-level factors that influence prostate cancer management.","PeriodicalId":54273,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oncology Practice","volume":"1 1","pages":"JOP1900088"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1200/JOP.19.00088","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Oncology Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.19.00088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

PURPOSE We describe the longitudinal adoption of conservative management (ie, the absence of treatment) for prostate cancer among urology group practices in the United States and identify group practice features that influence this adoption. METHODS Using a 20% sample of Medicare claims, we identified men with incident prostate cancer from 2010 through 2014 and assigned each to his predominant urologist. We linked each urologist to a practice and characterized the practice's organization (eg, solo, single specialty, multispecialty) and ownership of intensity-modulated radiation therapy. For each group, we determined the rate of conservative management within 1 year of diagnosis. We then fit mixed-effects logistic regression models to assess relationships between practice organization and the adoption of conservative management over time, adjusted for patient characteristics. RESULTS We identified 22,178 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer managed by 350 practices. Practices that increased use the most over time also used conservative management the most in 2010, whereas those that increased use the least used conservative management the least in 2010. Thus, the difference in average use of conservative management between highest- and lowest-use practices widened between 2010 and 2014. Urology groups increased their use of conservative management more rapidly than multispecialty groups. There was no difference in the rate of increase between intensity-modulated radiation therapy owning and nonowning groups. CONCLUSION There is increasing variation among group practices in the use of conservative management for prostate cancer. This underscores the need for a better understanding of practice-level factors that influence prostate cancer management.
前列腺癌保守治疗的实践水平。
目的:我们描述了美国泌尿外科团体对前列腺癌保守治疗(即不治疗)的纵向采用情况,并确定了影响这种采用的团体实践特征。方法使用20%的医疗保险索赔样本,我们确定了2010年至2014年期间发生前列腺癌的男性,并将其分配给其主要的泌尿科医生。我们将每个泌尿科医生与一个实践联系起来,并描述了实践的组织(例如,单独,单一专业,多专业)和强度调节放射治疗的所有权。对于每一组,我们确定了诊断后1年内的保守治疗率。然后,我们拟合混合效应逻辑回归模型来评估实践组织与采用保守管理之间的关系,并根据患者特征进行调整。结果:我们确定了22178名新诊断前列腺癌的男性,由350家诊所管理。随着时间的推移,使用最多的实践在2010年也使用保守管理最多,而使用最少的实践在2010年使用保守管理最少。因此,2010年至2014年间,最高和最低使用实践之间保守管理的平均使用差异扩大了。泌尿外科组比多专科组增加保守治疗的速度更快。在拥有调强放疗和不拥有调强放疗的两组之间,发病率的增加没有差异。结论前列腺癌保守治疗的分组差异越来越大。这强调需要更好地了解影响前列腺癌管理的实践水平因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Oncology Practice
Journal of Oncology Practice Nursing-Oncology (nursing)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Journal of Oncology Practice (JOP) provides necessary information and insights to keep oncology practice current on changes and challenges inherent in delivering quality oncology care. All content dealing with understanding the provision of care—the mechanics of practice—is the purview of JOP. JOP also addresses an expressed need of practicing physicians to have compressed, expert opinion addressing common clinical problems.
×
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