CURE Poster Presentation_V8
-
Upload
hawa-barry -
Category
Documents
-
view
16 -
download
0
Transcript of CURE Poster Presentation_V8
Results Conclusions• Active surveillance rates to
be as low as 14% in eligible patients with low-risk prostate cancer
• The variation in receipt of AS was attributable to facility related factors such as facility type, facility volume, and the institution
• Additionally, policy makers need to address the variation in care at Commission on Cancer facilities
• Reports on the use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer have been conflicting
• There is a growing need for studies that identify sources of non-clinical variation across all clinical settings and specialties
Purpose & Hypothesis• Goal: To evaluate the contemporary use of
active surveillance for men with low-risk prostate cancer
• Hypothesis: A wide variation exists in institutional practices and the use of active surveillance in the community remains unfortunately low
Patients & Methods• N=40,215 low risk prostate cancer patients
from 2012 to 2013 retrieved from the National Cancer Data Base
• Chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney test were used to compare baseline variables
• Logistic regression model was fitted to predict the odds of receiving active surveillance
• A mixed-effects logistic regression was performed to assess association of patient and hospital variable with active surveillance
AcknowledgementsThank you to…• Björn Löppenberg, MD; • Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD; • Emily McMains Ph.D; • Karen Burns White; • Stephania Libreros, Ph.D;• Danielle Cook, Ph.D;• Continuing Umbrella of Research
Experience Program;• Funding support from:
• Biogen Foundation• National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support Grant;
• Dana-Farber Harvard Cancer Center;• Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Variation in the Use of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate CancerHawa Barry1,2; Björn Löppenberg, MD2; Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD1,2
1. Dana-Farber Harvard Cancer Center 2. Brigham and Women’s Hospital Center for Surgery and Public Health, Division of Urologic Surgery
Figure 1: Receipt of active surveillance ranged from 0 to 100% over facilities with 14% of eligible men, receiving active surveillance
Figure 2: Very high volume facilities are 2.6 times more like likely to use active surveillance (95% CI 2.34-2.90; p<0.001)
Figure 3: Community Cancer Programs and Academic facilities are 2.1 times and 1.76 times more likely to utilize active surveillance (95% CI 1.85-2.38; and 1.63-1.91; with p<0.001, respectively)
Table 1: The single facility accounted for 35% of unexplained association with the use of active surveillance
Background
Variation in the Use of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate CancerHawa Barry1,2; Björn Löppenberg, MD2; Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD1,2
1. Dana-Farber Harvard Cancer Center 2. Brigham and Women’s Hospital Center for Surgery and Public Health, Division of Urologic Surgery
Variation in the Use of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer
Hawa Barry1,2; Björn Löppenberg, MD2; Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD1,2
1. Dana-Farber Harvard Cancer Center 2. Brigham and Women’s Hospital Center for Surgery and Public Health, Division of Urologic Surgery
Variation in the Use of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate CancerHawa Barry1,2; Björn Löppenberg, MD2; Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD1,2
1. Dana-Farber Harvard Cancer Center 2. Brigham and Women’s Hospital Center for Surgery and Public Health, Division of Urologic Surgery
Variation in the Use of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate CancerHawa Barry1,2; Björn Löppenberg, MD2; Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD1,2
1. Dana-Farber Harvard Cancer Center 2. Brigham and Women’s Hospital Center for Surgery and Public Health, Division of Urologic Surgery