We have located links that may give you full text access.
Impact of prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate on cancer detection and treatment patterns.
Urologic Oncology 2018 December 2
PURPOSE: Though superior in clinical trial settings, outcomes following magnetic resonance image (MRI)-guided prostate biopsies have not been reported broadly. We compared prostate cancer detection rates for men who did and did not undergo prebiopsy MRI and evaluated treatment patterns based on biopsy approach, year of biopsy, and proximity to early adopters.
METHODS: Using private insurance claims (2009-2015), we identified men who underwent prostate biopsy using appropriate procedure codes. Exposure was receipt of prebiopsy MRI within 3 months prior to biopsy. Outcomes included new prostate cancer diagnosis, treatment with prostatectomy/radiation, and receipt of adjunct procedures typically used for higher-risk disease (i.e., lymphadenectomy with prostatectomy, androgen deprivation therapy with radiation). Hierarchical mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression predicted probabilities of each outcome.
RESULTS: We identified 77,350 men (mean age 57.5 ± 5.4 years) who underwent biopsy with 12% having had a prior negative biopsy. Use of prebiopsy MRI was more common among men biopsied from 2014 to 2015 (4.4% vs. 1.3% 2012-2013), in metropolitan statistical areas (2.6% vs. 1.1% not), residing close to early adopters (5.5% vs. 1.5% far), and with prior negative biopsy (7.3% vs. 1.7% biopsy-naïve; all P < 0.001). Compared to patients with a prior negative biopsy and no MRI, men were more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer if they had a prior negative biopsy and MRI (24.7% vs. 21.4% prior negative without MRI, odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.51) or an initial biopsy without prior MRI (40.0% vs. 21.4% prior negative without MRI, odds ratio 2.49, 95% confidence interval 2.36-2.64; P < 0.001). Predicted probability of treatment overall and adjunct treatment did not differ based on receipt of pre-biopsy MRI.
CONCLUSIONS: Among privately insured men in the United States, use of prostate MRI prior to prostate biopsy was associated with increased cancer detection among those with prior negative biopsies, but we did not observe significant changes with downstream treatment patterns.
METHODS: Using private insurance claims (2009-2015), we identified men who underwent prostate biopsy using appropriate procedure codes. Exposure was receipt of prebiopsy MRI within 3 months prior to biopsy. Outcomes included new prostate cancer diagnosis, treatment with prostatectomy/radiation, and receipt of adjunct procedures typically used for higher-risk disease (i.e., lymphadenectomy with prostatectomy, androgen deprivation therapy with radiation). Hierarchical mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression predicted probabilities of each outcome.
RESULTS: We identified 77,350 men (mean age 57.5 ± 5.4 years) who underwent biopsy with 12% having had a prior negative biopsy. Use of prebiopsy MRI was more common among men biopsied from 2014 to 2015 (4.4% vs. 1.3% 2012-2013), in metropolitan statistical areas (2.6% vs. 1.1% not), residing close to early adopters (5.5% vs. 1.5% far), and with prior negative biopsy (7.3% vs. 1.7% biopsy-naïve; all P < 0.001). Compared to patients with a prior negative biopsy and no MRI, men were more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer if they had a prior negative biopsy and MRI (24.7% vs. 21.4% prior negative without MRI, odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.51) or an initial biopsy without prior MRI (40.0% vs. 21.4% prior negative without MRI, odds ratio 2.49, 95% confidence interval 2.36-2.64; P < 0.001). Predicted probability of treatment overall and adjunct treatment did not differ based on receipt of pre-biopsy MRI.
CONCLUSIONS: Among privately insured men in the United States, use of prostate MRI prior to prostate biopsy was associated with increased cancer detection among those with prior negative biopsies, but we did not observe significant changes with downstream treatment patterns.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app