Utilization, health care expenditures, and patient costs of definitive treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer in the United States

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Cancer Pub Date : 2025-03-04 DOI:10.1002/cncr.35795
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,&nbsp;Dattatraya Patil MBBS, MPH,&nbsp;Pretesh R. Patel MD,&nbsp;Ashesh B. Jani MD,&nbsp;Bruce W. Hershatter MD,&nbsp;Vishal R. Dhere MD,&nbsp;Karen D. Godette MD,&nbsp;C. Adam Lorentz MD,&nbsp;Aaron D. Weiss MD,&nbsp;Shreyas S. Joshi MD,&nbsp;Martin G. Sanda MD,&nbsp;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 &lt; .001), SBRT increased from 0.4% to 0.5% (<i>p</i> &lt; .001), BT decreased from 3.1% to 1.0% (<i>p</i> &lt; .001), and EBRT + BT decreased from 14.8% to 6.8% (<i>p</i> &lt; 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> &lt; .001), SBRT increased from 0.1% to 0.8% (<i>p</i> &lt; .001), BT decreased from 2.5% to 0.7% (<i>p</i> &lt; .001), and EBRT + BT decreased from 10.6% to 7.4% (<i>p</i> &lt; .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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国局限性前列腺癌明确治疗方式的使用、医疗保健支出和患者费用
背景:根治性前列腺切除术(RP)和放射治疗(RT)是局部前列腺癌的标准治疗方法。作者利用Merative MarketScan Medicare (Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits [MDCR])和Commercial Claims and encounter (CCAE)数据库,研究了RP和RT在美国的使用情况、总医疗保健和患者发生的成本。方法选取2009年至2022年间接受RP、外束放疗(EBRT)、近距离放疗(BT)、EBRT联合BT (EBRT + BT)、立体定向体放疗(SBRT)或质子束治疗(PBT)的非转移性前列腺癌患者。采用Kendall Tau-b检验比较各年治疗利用率。使用Kruskal-Wallis检验比较12个月内的平均总医疗保健费用和患者自付费用。结果在MDCR数据库中,确定了44,937例接受RP (n = 12,879)、EBRT (n = 26,193)、BT (n = 926)、EBRT + BT (n = 4706)、PBT (n = 57)或SBRT (n = 176)治疗的患者。2009年至2021年间,EBRT的使用率从52.5%增加到62.2% (p为趋势<;.001), SBRT从0.4%增加到0.5% (p <;.001), BT从3.1%下降到1.0% (p <;.001), EBRT + BT从14.8%下降到6.8% (p <;0.001);而RP的使用保持相似(从29.1%到29.4%;p = .82)和PBT(从0.1%到0.1%;p = .93)。在CCAE数据库中,75,626例患者接受了RP (n = 50,278)、EBRT (n = 16,985)、BT (n = 1243)、EBRT + BT (n = 6811)、PBT (n = 92)或SBRT (n = 217)的治疗。EBRT的使用率从20.0%增加到24.9% (p <;.001), SBRT从0.1%增加到0.8% (p <;.001), BT从2.5%降至0.7% (p <;.001), EBRT + BT从10.6%降至7.4% (p <;措施);而RP的使用保持相似(从66.8%到66.1%;p表示趋势= .82),PBT(从0.1%到0.1%;P代表趋势= 0.76)。在MDCR和CCAE数据库中,PBT的总成本最高,BT的总成本最低。2009年至2021年间,EBRT和SBRT的使用有所增加,而RP的使用保持稳定。虽然BT是成本最低的,但其作为单一疗法和与EBRT联合使用的使用率有所下降。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Cancer
Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
3.20%
发文量
480
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
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
期刊最新文献
Shifting toward chronicity: The new reality of chronic treatments and health conditions among adolescent and young adult patients with cancer. Efficacy of a sexual quality of life intervention for couples facing metastatic breast cancer: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Consensus recommendations in the management of jaw (gnathic) osteosarcoma Evaluating the feasibility and efficacy of exercise interventions for older survivors of cancer Neoadjuvant therapy for patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer: Not as easy in the real world
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1