Appropriateness of Imaging for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer—Real World Data from the Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaboration (PURC)
Authors:
- Raidizon MercedesRMRaidizon Mercedes
- Dennis HeadDHDennis Head
- Elizabeth ZookEZElizabeth Zook
- Eric EidelmanEEEric Eidelman
- Jeffrey TomaszewskiJTJeffrey Tomaszewski
- Serge GinzburgSGSerge Ginzburg
- Robert UzzoRURobert Uzzo
- Marc SmaldoneMSMarc Smaldone
- John DanellaJDJohn Danella
- Thomas J. GuzzoTGThomas J. Guzzo
- Daniel LeeDLDaniel Lee
- Laurence BelkoffLBLaurence Belkoff
Open Access
- 20 August 2024
- journal article
- research article
- Published by MDPI AG in Current Oncology
- Vol. 31 (8) , 4746-4752
Abstract
Imaging for prostate cancer defines the extent of disease. Guidelines recommend against imaging low-risk prostate cancer patients with a computed tomography (CT) scan or bone scan due to the low probability of metastasis. We reviewed imaging performed for men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer across the Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative (PURC), a physician-led data sharing and quality improvement collaborative. The data of 10 practices were queried regarding the imaging performed in men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2015 to 2022. The cohort included 13,122 patients with 3502 (27%) low-risk, 2364 (18%) favorable intermediate-risk, 3585 (27%) unfavorable intermediate-risk, and 3671 (28%) high-risk prostate cancer, based on the AUA guidelines. Amongst the low-risk patients, imaging utilization included pelvic MRI (59.7%), bone scan (17.8%), CT (16.0%), and PET-based imaging (0.5%). Redundant imaging occurred in 1022 patients (29.2%). There was variability among the PURC sites for imaging used in the low-risk patients, and iterative education reduced the need for CT and bone scans. Approximately 15% of low-risk patients had staging imaging performed using either a CT or bone scan, and redundant imaging occurred in almost one-third of men. Such data underscore the need for continued guideline-based education to optimize the stewardship of resources and reduce unnecessary costs to the healthcare system.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Impact of choosing wisely on imaging in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancerUrologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 2022
- Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part I: Introduction, Risk Assessment, Staging, and Risk-Based ManagementJournal of Urology, 2022
- Detection Rate of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT vs. mpMRI Targeted Biopsy for Clinically Significant Prostate CancerAnticancer Research, 2022
- The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: A systematic reviewAnnals of Medicine & Surgery, 2020
- Clinical Predictors and Recommendations for Staging Computed Tomography Scan Among Men With Prostate CancerUrology, 2014
- Toward Better Use of Bone Scans Among Men With Early-stage Prostate CancerUrology, 2014
- Prostate Cancer Imaging Trends After a Nationwide Effort to Discourage Inappropriate Prostate Cancer ImagingJNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2013
- American Society of Clinical Oncology Identifies Five Key Opportunities to Improve Care and Reduce Costs: The Top Five List for OncologyJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2012
- Inappropriate utilization of radiographic imaging in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in the United StatesCancer, 2011
- Updated Nomogram to Predict Pathologic Stage of Prostate Cancer Given Prostate-Specific Antigen Level, Clinical Stage, and Biopsy Gleason Score (Partin Tables) Based on Cases from 2000 to 2005Urology, 2007