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, 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","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 < .001), SBRT increased from 0.4% to 0.5% (<i>p</i> < .001), BT decreased from 3.1% to 1.0% (<i>p</i> < .001), and EBRT + BT decreased from 14.8% to 6.8% (<i>p</i> < 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> < .001), SBRT increased from 0.1% to 0.8% (<i>p</i> < .001), BT decreased from 2.5% to 0.7% (<i>p</i> < .001), and EBRT + BT decreased from 10.6% to 7.4% (<i>p</i> < .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":5.1000,"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://acsjournals.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.
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