Search

Background: This study assessed the use of active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer and evaluated institutional factors associated with the receipt of active surveillance., Methods: A retrospective, hospital-based cohort of 115,208 men with low-risk prostate cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 was used. Multivariate and mixed effects models were used to examine variation and factors associated with active surveillance., Results: During the study period, the use of active surveillance increased from 6.8% in 2010 to 19.9% in 2014 (estimated annual percentage change, +28.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], + 19.6% to + 38.7%; P = .002). The adjusted probability of active-surveillance receipt by institution was highly variable. Compared with patients treated at comprehensive community cancer centers, patients treated at community cancer programs (odds ratio [OR], 2.00; 95% CI, 1.50-2.67; P < .001) and academic institutions (OR, 2.47; 95%, CI, 1.81-3.37; P < .001) had higher odds of receiving active surveillance. Compared with patients treated at very low-volume facilities, patients treated at very high-volume facilities had higher odds of receiving active surveillance (OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.94-6.55; P < .001). Patient and hospital characteristics accounted for 60.2% of the overall variation, whereas the treating institution accounted for 91.5% of the unexplained variability., Conclusions: Within this hospital-based cohort, the use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer increased significantly over time. Significant variation was found in the use of active surveillance. Most of the variation was attributable to facility-related factors such as the facility type, facility volume, and institution. Policies to achieve consistent and higher rates of active surveillance, when appropriate, should be a priority of professional societies and patient advocacy groups. Cancer 2018;124:55-64. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)

Background: The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of travel distance to the treating facility on the risk of overall mortality (OM) among US patients with prostate cancer (PCa)., Methods: In total, 775,999 patients who had PCa in all stages and received treatment with different strategies (radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, observation, androgen-deprivation therapy, multimodal treatment, and chemotherapy) were drawn from the National Cancer Data Base from 2004 through 2012. Independent predictors of travel distance (intermediate [12.5-49.9 miles] and long [49.9-249.9 miles] vs short[<12.5 miles]) and its effect on OM were calculated using multivariable regression analyses. Additional analyses evaluated the distance effect on OM in selected subgroups., Results: In total, 54.5%, 33.4%, and 12.1% of patients traveled short, intermediate, and long distances, respectively. Residency in rural areas and the receipt of treatment at academic/high-volume centers independently predicted long travel distance. Non-Hispanic black men and Medicaid-insured men were less likely to travel long distances (all P < .001). Overall, traveling a long distance (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.92; P < .001) was associated with lower OM risk compared with traveling a short distance. This held true among non-Hispanic white men; privately insured and Medicare-insured men; those who underwent radical prostatectomy, received radiation therapy, and received multimodal strategies; and those who received treatment at academic/high-volume centers (P < .01), but not among non-Hispanic black men (P = .3). Long travel distance was associated with an increased OM in Medicaid-insured patients (P < .001)., Conclusions: An OM benefit was observed among men who traveled long distances for PCa treatment, which is likely to be a reflection of centralization of care and more favorable patient-level characteristics in those travelers. Furthermore, the survival benefit mediated by long travel distances appears to be influenced by baseline socioeconomic, treatment, and facility-level factors. Cancer 2017;123:3241-52. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)