Shahinian Vahakn B, Kuo Yong-fang, Freeman Jean L, Orihuela Eduardo, Goodwin James S
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0725, USA.
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Dec 1;25(34):5359-65. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.9580.
We previously have reported wide variations among urologists in the use of androgen deprivation for prostate cancer. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database, we examined how individual urologist characteristics influenced the use of androgen deprivation therapy.
Participants included 82,375 men with prostate cancer who were diagnosed from January 1, 1992, through December 31, 2002, and the 2,080 urologists who provided care to them. Multilevel analyses were used to estimate the likelihood of androgen deprivation use within 6 months of diagnosis in the overall cohort, in a subgroup in which use would be of uncertain benefit (primary therapy for localized prostate cancer), and in a subgroup in which use would be evidence-based (adjuvant therapy with radiation for locally advanced disease).
In the overall cohort of patients, a multilevel model adjusted for patient characteristics, tumor characteristics, and urologist characteristics (eg, board certification, academic affiliation, patient panel size, years since medical school graduation) showed that the likelihood of androgen deprivation use was significantly greater for patients who saw urologists without an academic affiliation. This pattern also was noted when the analysis was limited to settings in which androgen deprivation would have been of uncertain benefit. Odds ratios for use in that context were 1.66 (95% CI, 1.27 to 2.16) for urologists with no academic affiliation and 1.45 (95% CI, 1.13 to 1.85) for urologists with minor versus major academic affiliations.
Use of androgen deprivation for prostate cancer varies by the characteristics of the urologist. Patients of non-academically affiliated urologists were significantly more likely to receive primary androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer, a setting in which the benefits are uncertain.
我们之前报道过,泌尿外科医生在前列腺癌雄激素剥夺治疗的使用上存在很大差异。利用监测、流行病学和最终结果-医疗保险链接数据库,我们研究了泌尿外科医生的个体特征如何影响雄激素剥夺治疗的使用。
参与者包括1992年1月1日至2002年12月31日期间被诊断为前列腺癌的82375名男性,以及为他们提供治疗的2080名泌尿外科医生。采用多水平分析来估计在整个队列、使用获益不确定的亚组(局限性前列腺癌的初始治疗)以及使用有循证依据的亚组(局部晚期疾病的放疗辅助治疗)中,诊断后6个月内使用雄激素剥夺治疗的可能性。
在整个患者队列中,一个根据患者特征、肿瘤特征和泌尿外科医生特征(如委员会认证、学术隶属关系、患者组规模、医学院毕业年限)进行调整的多水平模型显示,就诊于无学术隶属关系泌尿外科医生的患者使用雄激素剥夺治疗的可能性显著更高。当分析仅限于雄激素剥夺治疗获益不确定的情况时,也发现了这种模式。在这种情况下,无学术隶属关系的泌尿外科医生的使用比值比为1.66(95%可信区间,1.27至2.16),学术隶属关系较弱与较强的泌尿外科医生的使用比值比分别为1.45(95%可信区间,1.13至1.85)相对1.45(95%可信区间,1.13至1.85)。
前列腺癌雄激素剥夺治疗的使用因泌尿外科医生的特征而异。无学术隶属关系的泌尿外科医生的患者更有可能接受局限性前列腺癌的初始雄激素剥夺治疗,而在这种情况下获益并不确定。