0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letters |

Proton Beam Therapy and Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer: If You Build It, They Will Come FREE

David S. Aaronson, MD; Anobel Y. Odisho, MD; Nancy Hills, PhD; Rosemary Cress, DrPH; Peter R. Carroll, MD, MPH; R. Adams Dudley, MD, MBA; Matthew R. Cooperberg, MD, MPH
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Urology, The Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, Oakland, California (Dr Aaronson); Department of Urology (Drs Aaronson, Odisho, Hills, Carroll, and Cooperberg) and Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies (Dr Dudley), University of California, San Francisco; California Cancer Registry, Public Health Institute, Sacramento (Dr Cress); and Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis (Dr Cress).


Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(3):280-283. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.711.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

The number of treatment options for localized prostate cancer continues to expand, amidst growing concern regarding overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-risk disease.13 Treatment patterns, however, may be driven by availability of novel technologies rather than by clinical indications. We aimed to examine regional treatment choices of men diagnosed as having localized prostate cancer living inside or outside of a defined hospital referral region containing a proton beam cyclotron in California.

We performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of men with prostate cancer identified through the California Cancer Registry from 2003 to 2006. Inclusion criteria were low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer, defined by clinical stage (≤T2c) and well- to moderately differentiated histology (Gleason score ≤7). Patients were grouped according to their hospital referral region (HRR) at time of diagnosis, as defined by the Dartmouth Atlas group (http://www.dartmouthatlas.org).4 In brief, HRRs represent regional health care markets for tertiary medical care. Four HRRs extending into neighboring states were excluded.

Our primary predictor was a binary variable signifying whether a man was living in the HRR for San Bernardino, California (SBHRR), where the proton beam facility resides at Loma Linda University. The primary dichotomous outcome was prostate cancer treatment by proton beam therapy vs treatment by other modalities (including active surveillance). Prostate cancer treatment patterns were analyzed by HRR using logistic regression models. All candidate predictors were included in a multivariable model, including age, tumor grade, stage of cancer, race/ethnicity, year of diagnosis, and residence in the SBHRR. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS v9.2 software (SAS Institute Inc). The institutional review board at the University of California, San Francisco, approved the study.

A total of 19 816 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age and tumor stage were similar for those living in or outside the SBHRR. The SBHRR had the highest rate of proton beam therapy compared with the rest of California (8.5% vs 1.7%; Figure). Mean (SD) proton beam therapy rate was 2.3% (1.4%), and the range of patients treated by HRR was 0 to 142 for this period. Redding HRR showed the next highest rate of proton beam therapy; however, 184 patients were from that HRR, so this rate is based on only 13 patients receiving this treatment.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure. Rates of proton beam therapy in California by hospital referral region (HRR).

Patients living in the SBHRR were more likely to be treated with the proton beam therapy than if they lived outside of the SBHRR in univariate analysis (odds ratio [OR], 5.3; 95% CI, 4.3-6.5 [P < .001]). In multivariate analysis controlling for tumor stage, grade, race, year of diagnosis, and age, residence within the SBHRR remained independently predictive of receiving treatment with a proton beam compared with those outside the HRR (OR, 5.5; 95% CI, 4.5-6.8 [P < .001]). Patient age and non-Hispanic white ethnicity remained significantly independently associated with either a lower (age: OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99 [P < .001]) or a higher (non-Hispanic white: OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.7-2.7 [P < .001]) likelihood of receiving proton beam therapy.

No prostate cancer treatment has been proven superior to the others.5 There are, however, substantial differences in cost, which are becoming more important to society and are a focus of health care reform in the United States.6,7 While there are theoretical advantages to proton beam therapy from a radiation physics standpoint, no study yet has demonstrated its superiority to modern photon-based therapy in terms of either oncologic or quality of life outcomes.8,9 To our knowledge, we show for the first time that the availability of a technology, in this instance a proton beam facility, in one's HRR is associated with a higher likelihood of receiving proton beam therapy compared with those living in an HRR where this technology is not available. A single physician might explain the higher-than-expected rate of proton beam therapy in the Redding, California, HRR, since there are relatively low numbers of overall patients from this area. Interestingly, self-description as non-Hispanic white was also associated significantly with increased odds of receiving proton therapy—hinting at a possible racial disparity requiring further investigation.

There were several limitations: (1) Our prostate cancer risk stratification does not include prostate-specific antigen levels or Gleason scores because these are not included in the CCR. (2) Unmeasured confounding may exist, but the association of living in the SBHRR and receiving proton beam therapy is large. (3) Registry data are limited in clinical detail and may be biased through underreporting. However, there should not be systematic bias as the unreported cases are likely to have the same treatment distribution as the reported cases.

Proton beam therapy has not been shown to be superior to other treatments for prostate cancer and is substantially more expensive.7 Caution should be taken when considering implementation of this technology in additional regions, which may lead to greater use of this technology.

Correspondence: Dr Aaronson, Department of Urology, The Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, 280 W MacArthur Blvd, Oakland, CA 94611 (David.S.Aaronson@kp.org).

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Aaronson, Odisho, Carroll, Dudley, and Cooperberg. Acquisition of data: Aaronson and Cress. Analysis and interpretation of data: Aaronson, Odisho, Hills, Carroll, Dudley, and Cooperberg. Drafting of the manuscript: Aaronson, Hills, and Dudley. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Odisho, Cress, Carroll, Dudley, and Cooperberg. Statistical analysis: Odisho and Hills. Obtained funding: Aaronson. Administrative, technical, and material support: Carroll and Dudley. Study supervision: Cress, Carroll, Dudley, and Cooperberg.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was funded by a University of California, San Francisco, Clinical & Translational Science Resident Research Grant and was additionally supported by grant 1R01HS019356-01 from the National Institutes of Health. The collection of cancer incidence data used in this study was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885. From the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, funding was awarded to the Northern California Cancer Center contract N01-PC-35136, to the University of Southern California under contract N01-PC-35139, and to the Public Health Institute under contract N01-PC-54404. From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Program of Cancer Registries, funding was awarded to the Public Health Institute under agreement 1U58DP00807-01.

Disclaimer: The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and endorsement by the State of California, Department of Public Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or their contractors and subcontractors is not intended nor should be inferred.

Previous Presentation: This study was presented at the American Urological Association meeting; May 15, 2011; Washington, DC.

Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL III,  et al; PLCO Project Team.  Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial.  N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1310-1319
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Walter LC, Bertenthal D, Lindquist K, Konety BR. PSA screening among elderly men with limited life expectancies.  JAMA. 2006;296(19):2336-2342
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer.  JAMA. 2005;293(17):2095-2101
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wennberg JE, ed, Cooper MM, edThe Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care in the United States. Hanover, NH: Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences at Dartmouth Medical School, American Hospital Publishing Inc; 1999
Wilt TJ, MacDonald R, Rutks I, Shamliyan TA, Taylor BC, Kane RL. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer.  Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(6):435-448
PubMed
Weinstein MC, Skinner JA. Comparative effectiveness and health care spending—implications for reform.  N Engl J Med. 2010;362(5):460-465
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Konski A, Speier W, Hanlon A, Beck JR, Pollack A. Is proton beam therapy cost effective in the treatment of adenocarcinoma of the prostate?  J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(24):3603-3608
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brada M, Pijls-Johannesma M, De Ruysscher D. Current clinical evidence for proton therapy.  Cancer J. 2009;15(4):319-324
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bannuru RR, Dvorak T, Obadan N,  et al.  Comparative evaluation of radiation treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer: an updated systematic review.  Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(3):171-178
PubMed

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure. Rates of proton beam therapy in California by hospital referral region (HRR).

Tables

References

Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL III,  et al; PLCO Project Team.  Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial.  N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1310-1319
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Walter LC, Bertenthal D, Lindquist K, Konety BR. PSA screening among elderly men with limited life expectancies.  JAMA. 2006;296(19):2336-2342
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer.  JAMA. 2005;293(17):2095-2101
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wennberg JE, ed, Cooper MM, edThe Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care in the United States. Hanover, NH: Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences at Dartmouth Medical School, American Hospital Publishing Inc; 1999
Wilt TJ, MacDonald R, Rutks I, Shamliyan TA, Taylor BC, Kane RL. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer.  Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(6):435-448
PubMed
Weinstein MC, Skinner JA. Comparative effectiveness and health care spending—implications for reform.  N Engl J Med. 2010;362(5):460-465
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Konski A, Speier W, Hanlon A, Beck JR, Pollack A. Is proton beam therapy cost effective in the treatment of adenocarcinoma of the prostate?  J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(24):3603-3608
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brada M, Pijls-Johannesma M, De Ruysscher D. Current clinical evidence for proton therapy.  Cancer J. 2009;15(4):319-324
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bannuru RR, Dvorak T, Obadan N,  et al.  Comparative evaluation of radiation treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer: an updated systematic review.  Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(3):171-178
PubMed

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 3

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections