Hollenbeck Brent K, Ye Zaojun, Dunn Rodney L, Montie James E, Birkmeyer John D
Division of Oncology, Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Apr 15;101(8):571-80. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp039. Epub 2009 Apr 7.
Bladder cancer is among the most prevalent and expensive to treat cancers in the United States. In the absence of high-level evidence to guide the optimal management of bladder cancer, urologists may vary widely in how aggressively they treat early-stage disease. We examined associations between initial treatment intensity and subsequent outcomes.
We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database to identify patients who were diagnosed with early-stage bladder cancer from January 1, 1992, through December 31, 2002 (n = 20 713), and the physician primarily responsible for providing care to each patient (n = 940). We ranked the providers according to the intensity of treatment they delivered to their patients (as measured by their average bladder cancer expenditures reported to Medicare in the first 2 years after a diagnosis) and then grouped them into quartiles that contained approximately equal numbers of patients. We assessed associations between treatment intensity and outcomes, including survival through December 31, 2005, and the need for subsequent major interventions by using Cox proportional hazards models. All statistical tests were two-sided.
The average Medicare expenditure per patient for providers in the highest quartile of treatment intensity was more than twice that for providers in the lowest quartile of treatment intensity ($7131 vs $2830, respectively). High-treatment intensity providers more commonly performed endoscopic surveillance and used more intravesical therapy and imaging studies than low-treatment intensity providers. However, the intensity of initial treatment was not associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio of death from any cause for patients of low- vs high-treatment intensity providers = 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.09). Initial intensive management did not obviate the need for later interventions. In fact, a higher proportion of patients treated by high-treatment intensity providers than by low-treatment intensity providers subsequently underwent a major medical intervention (11.0% vs 6.4%, P = .02).
Providers vary widely in how aggressively they manage early-stage bladder cancer. Patients treated by high-treatment intensity providers do not appear to benefit in terms of survival or in avoidance of subsequent major medical interventions.
膀胱癌是美国最常见且治疗费用高昂的癌症之一。在缺乏高级别证据来指导膀胱癌最佳管理的情况下,泌尿科医生在治疗早期疾病的积极程度上可能存在很大差异。我们研究了初始治疗强度与后续结果之间的关联。
我们使用监测、流行病学和最终结果 - 医疗保险数据库,识别出1992年1月1日至2002年12月31日期间被诊断为早期膀胱癌的患者(n = 20713),以及主要负责为每位患者提供护理的医生(n = 940)。我们根据医生为患者提供的治疗强度(通过诊断后前两年向医疗保险报告的平均膀胱癌支出衡量)对他们进行排名,然后将他们分为四分位数组,每组包含大致相等数量的患者。我们使用Cox比例风险模型评估治疗强度与结果之间的关联,包括至2005年12月31日的生存率以及后续进行重大干预的必要性。所有统计检验均为双侧检验。
治疗强度最高的四分位数组医生的每位患者平均医疗保险支出是治疗强度最低的四分位数组医生的两倍多(分别为7131美元和2830美元)。与低治疗强度的医生相比,高治疗强度的医生更常进行内镜监测,使用更多的膀胱内治疗和影像学检查。然而,初始治疗强度与较低的死亡风险无关(低治疗强度与高治疗强度医生的患者因任何原因死亡的调整后风险比 = 1.03,95%置信区间0.97至1.09)。初始强化管理并不能消除后期干预的必要性。事实上,高治疗强度医生治疗的患者比低治疗强度医生治疗的患者随后接受重大医疗干预的比例更高(11.0%对6.4%,P = .02)。
医生在管理早期膀胱癌的积极程度上存在很大差异。高治疗强度医生治疗的患者在生存或避免后续重大医疗干预方面似乎没有获益。