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 ......
Original Investigation |

Physician Variation in Management of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer A Population-Based Cohort Study FREE

Karen E. Hoffman, MD, MHSc, MPH1; Jiangong Niu, PhD2; Yu Shen, PhD3; Jing Jiang, PhD3; John W. Davis, MD4; Jeri Kim, MD5; Deborah A. Kuban, MD1; George H. Perkins, MD1; Jay B. Shah, MD3; Grace L. Smith, MD, PhD, MPH1; Robert J. Volk, PhD6; Thomas A. Buchholz, MD1; Sharon H. Giordano, MD, MPH2; Benjamin D. Smith, MD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
2Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
3Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
4Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
5Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
6Department of General Internal Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(9):1450-1459. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3021.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance  Up-front treatment of older men with low-risk prostate cancer can cause morbidity without clear survival benefit; however, most such patients receive treatment instead of observation. The impact of physicians on the management approach is uncertain.

Objective  To determine the impact of physicians on the management of low-risk prostate cancer with up-front treatment vs observation.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Retrospective cohort of men 66 years and older with low-risk prostate cancer diagnosed from 2006 through 2009. Patient and tumor characteristics were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries. The diagnosing urologist, consulting radiation oncologist, cancer-directed therapy, and comorbid medical conditions were determined from linked Medicare claims. Physician characteristics were obtained from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. Mixed-effects models were used to evaluate management variation and factors associated with observation.

Main Outcomes and Measures  No cancer-directed therapy within 12 months of diagnosis (observation).

Results  A total of 2145 urologists diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer in 12 068 men, of whom 80.1% received treatment and 19.9% were observed. The case-adjusted rate of observation varied widely across urologists, ranging from 4.5% to 64.2% of patients. The diagnosing urologist accounted for 16.1% of the variation in up-front treatment vs observation, whereas patient and tumor characteristics accounted for 7.9% of this variation. After adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics, urologists who treat non–low-risk prostate cancer (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.55-0.92]; P = .01) and graduated in earlier decades (P = .004) were less likely to manage low-risk disease with observation. Treated patients were more likely to undergo prostatectomy (aOR, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.45-2.01]; P < .001), cryotherapy (aOR, 28.2 [95% CI, 19.5-40.9]; P < .001), brachytherapy (aOR, 3.41 [95% CI, 2.96-3.93]; P < .001), or external-beam radiotherapy (aOR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.08-1.58]; P = .005) if their urologist billed for that treatment. Case-adjusted rates of observation also varied across consulting radiation oncologists, ranging from 2.2% to 46.8% of patients.

Conclusions and Relevance  Rates of management of low-risk prostate cancer with observation varied widely across urologists and radiation oncologists. Patients whose diagnosis was made by urologists who treated prostate cancer were more likely to receive up-front treatment and, when treated, more likely to receive a treatment that their urologist performed. Public reporting of physicians’ cancer management profiles would enable informed selection of physicians to diagnose and manage prostate cancer.

Figures in this Article

Low-risk prostate cancer (clinical tumor [cT] category, T1-T2a; Gleason score, ≤6; and serum prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level, <10 ng/mL [to convert to micrograms per liter, multiply by 1.0]) is unlikely to cause symptoms or affect survival if left untreated. However, most men with a diagnosis of low-risk prostate cancer in the United States receive up-front treatment with prostatectomy or radiotherapy and are thus exposed to the risk of treatment-induced urinary dysfunction, rectal bleeding, and impotence.13 Observation is an alternative to up-front treatment for low-risk prostate cancer and is endorsed by numerous professional societies.46 Randomized trials demonstrate that in older men with low-risk prostate cancer, observation yields similar survival and decreased morbidity compared with up-front treatment.7,8 Nevertheless, few eligible men opt for observation.1

Prior studies suggest that the choice of up-front treatment vs observation for early-stage prostate cancer is influenced by patient factors, including age and severity of comorbid conditions.2,9 It is not known, however, whether management approach is influenced by physician factors, including characteristics of the diagnosing urologist, who conveys the diagnosis and discusses disease severity and management. Primary care physicians who refer patients to urologists for prostate biopsy may assume that patients will receive similar management recommendations regardless of the urologist they see. We sought to determine whether this is indeed the case. In a population-based cohort of older men with low-risk prostate cancer, we sought to (1) determine the relative impact of the diagnosing urologist and patient factors on choice of observation vs up-front treatment, (2) quantify the rate of observation vs up-front treatment for individual urologists, and (3) identify urologist and patient factors associated with selection of observation. Because many older men with prostate cancer also meet with a radiation oncologist, we similarly evaluated the impact of the consulting radiation oncologist on the management approach.

Study Participants

Study participants were selected from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Under the supervision of the National Cancer Institute, records from the SEER database have been linked to Medicare claims. The study was granted exemption by our institution’s institutional review board, and informed consent was waived because the medical records were part of a publicly available, anonymized database.

The study cohort comprised men 66 years and older with low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed during 2006 through 2009 (Figure 1). Men with cT2NOS disease likely had low-risk disease because categorization into a non–low-risk group is usually driven by Gleason score of greater than 6 or PSA level of at least 10 ng/mL. However, men with cT2NOS disease were excluded in sensitivity analyses. We chose the period 2006 through 2009 because this was after publication of the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SPCG-4), which showed that among men 65 years and older with clinically localized prostate cancer, watchful waiting and up-front prostatectomy produced similar survival outcomes.10 Throughout the period covered by our study, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommended observation as a treatment option for men with low-risk prostate cancer.11,12 Men without continuous fee-for-service Medicare coverage during the 12 months before and after diagnosis were excluded because their claims would not be sufficient to determine comorbidity and treatment.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Cohort Selection Criteria

cT Indicates clinical tumor, and PSA, prostate-specific antigen.aThis step excluded patients whose diagnosis was made by transurethral resection of the prostate alone; patients who received a diagnosis in the Veterans Affairs or military medical system, in which claims are not submitted; and patients whose diagnostic biopsy was performed by a nonurologist. There were no clinically meaningful differences between men who were and were not matched to a diagnosing urologist.bThese men were used to determine urologist diagnosis volume and radiation oncologist treatment volume.cThese men who did not have low-risk prostate cancer were used to determine whether or not the urologist treated non–low-risk prostate cancer. dBecause men with cT2NOS disease could have higher-volume disease, men with cT2 disease were excluded from sensitivity analyses.

Graphic Jump Location
Outcome

The primary outcome was receipt of prostate cancer treatment within 12 months of diagnosis. Patients were considered to have received up-front treatment if codes for prostatectomy, radiotherapy, cryotherapy, or androgen deprivation therapy were present in either registry or claims data within 12 months of the registry date of diagnosis (eTable 1 in the Supplement). Patients not receiving treatment were classified as undergoing observation.

Covariates

Patient-level covariates were age, race and ethnicity, comorbidity, Medicaid coverage, cT category, diagnosis year, and registry. Comorbidity score was calculated from claims submitted during the period from 12 months to 1 month before diagnosis using the adaptation of the Charlson comorbidity index by Klabunde and colleagues.13

The diagnosing urologist was identified from Medicare claims (eTable 1 in the Supplement) as the urologist who performed the first diagnostic prostate biopsy within 4 months of diagnosis. The consulting radiation oncologist was identified from Medicare claims as the radiation oncologist who delivered radiotherapy or, if the patient did not receive radiotherapy, the first radiation oncologist whom the patient saw. Physician-level covariates, determined via linkage to the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, included sex, decade of medical school graduation, medical degree, training location, and board certification. Urologist diagnosis volume and radiation oncologist treatment volume were defined in men with node-negative, nonmetastatic cancer and divided into tertiles. A urologist was classified as treating non–low-risk prostate cancer if he or she submitted claims for prostatectomy, cryotherapy, brachytherapy, external-beam radiotherapy, or androgen deprivation therapy for patients with non–low-risk disease (Figure 1).

Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize characteristics of urologists, radiation oncologists, and patients. Hierarchical mixed-effects models were used to evaluate the odds of observation with patients nested within physicians and to estimate the proportion of variation in the rate of observation attributable to physician-level and patient-level covariates.14,15 The unit of analysis in the logistic regression was the patient. This multilevel logistic regression model assumes a physician-level random effect, which explicitly considers the interdependencies among patients treated by the same physician. Variance of the random intercept describes heterogeneity in observation rate among physicians after patient-level covariates are accounted for. To measure the impacts of the physician-level and patient-level effects on use of observation, we used the threshold method to estimate the proportion of outcome variance attributable to physician-level or patient-level effects in accordance with published methods.16,17(pp302-307) Given prior literature,2,9 we included patient age, race and ethnicity, comorbidity, cT category, and PSA level as fixed patient-level covariates in the mixed-effects models. Backward selection with a P value cutoff of .10 was used to identify additional patient and physician factors for inclusion in the regression model. Physicians who diagnosed prostate cancer in at least 1 patient in the study cohort were included in the main analyses, and patients and physicians with unknown covariate values were excluded from the final model.

Using the hierarchical model adjusted for patient-level covariates, we calculated the case-adjusted rate of observation and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each physician who diagnosed prostate cancer in or consulted with 10 or more patients (patients with unknown covariate values were excluded). Physicians were ranked from lowest to highest rate of observation, and predicted observation rates were graphed relative to the adjusted mean rate.16 All analyses were conducted using SAS for Windows, version 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc).

A total of 12 068 patients with low-risk prostate cancer met the selection criteria (Table 1). Most patients were non-Hispanic white (79.7%), had cT1 disease (73.4%), and were seen by a radiation oncologist (67.8%). The median age was 72 years. These patients’ cancers were diagnosed by 2145 urologists. Most urologists (88.2%) treated non–low-risk prostate cancer (Table 2).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Characteristics of Patients With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Characteristics of the Diagnosing Urologists
Urologist and Patient Factors Associated With Observation

Most patients (80.1%) received up-front treatment; 19.9% were observed (Table 1). In multivariable analysis adjusted for patient-level and urologist-level characteristics, urologists who graduated from medical school more recently were more likely to manage low-risk disease with observation (P = .004), whereas urologists with a DO degree (P = .04) and urologists who treated non–low-risk prostate cancer (P = .01) were less likely to manage low-risk disease with observation (Table 3). Management with observation was not associated with urologist diagnosis volume (P > .10, not selected for inclusion in the multivariable model). Older men (P < .001) and men who received diagnoses more recently (P < .001) were more likely to undergo observation. However, 55.1% of men older than 80 years received up-front treatment (eTable 2 in the Supplement).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.  Diagnosing Urologist and Patient Characteristics Associated With Observationa

Men seen by urologists only were more likely to undergo observation (1703 of 3890 [43.8%]) than men seen by a radiation oncologist and a urologist (700 of 8178 [8.6%]) (P < .001). Overall, 70.8% (1703 of 2403) of men who underwent observation saw only a urologist.

In sensitivity analyses, the frequency of observation changed by less than 2% when the definition of up-front treatment was changed to treatment within 6 months of diagnosis or within 18 months of diagnosis. Most (86.6%) men with observation underwent subsequent PSA evaluation or prostate biopsy, indicating that their disease was managed with surveillance.

Multilevel analyses estimating the relative contributions of the diagnosing urologist and patient-level fixed effects to the variance in the rate of observation are summarized in eTable 3 in the Supplement. The diagnosing urologist was the most influential measured factor, responsible for 16.1% of the variance in management choice; just 7.9% of the variance was attributable to measured patient characteristics. The diagnosing urologist remained the most influential factor in sensitivity analyses limited to patients with cT1 disease or patients who did not undergo prostatectomy.

Urologist Case-Adjusted Frequency of Observation

Because patient factors affect the likelihood of observation, case-adjusted frequency of observation was estimated for urologists with the characteristics of their patients taken into account. The analysis was limited to 391 physicians who diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer in at least 10 study participants to enable calculation of CIs. The mean case-adjusted rate of observation was 19.7%. The case-adjusted rate of observation varied widely across urologists, from 4.5% to 64.2% (Figure 2A). Forty urologists (10.2%) had rates significantly different from the mean (P < .05). Similar variation was seen in sensitivity analysis of 955 physicians who diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer in at least 5 study participants.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Case-Adjusted Frequency of Management of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer With Observation for Individual Urologists and Radiation Oncologists

Frequency of observation is adjusted for patient age, race and ethnicity, comorbidity, Medicaid coverage, clinical tumor category, and serum prostate-specific antigen level. Red dotted line indicates mean case-adjusted frequency of observation, and black bars, physicians who had rates significantly different from the mean (P < .05). The 95% confidence interval bars take into account variability of the calculated rate based on the size of the patient panel. A, Frequency by rank, from lowest (4.5%) to highest (64.2%), for 391 urologists who diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer in at least 10 men in the study cohort (blue line). Mean case-adjusted frequency was 19.7%; 40 urologists had rates significantly different from the mean. B, Frequency by rank, from lowest (2.2%) to highest (46.8%), for 226 radiation oncologists who saw at least 10 men with low-risk prostate cancer in the study cohort (blue line). Mean case-adjusted frequency of observation was 8.5%; 20 radiation oncologists had rates significantly different from the mean.

Graphic Jump Location
Impact of Type of Treatment Performed by Diagnosing Urologist

For the patients who received up-front treatment, we evaluated whether the type of treatment performed by the diagnosing urologist affected the type of treatment that the patient received. Men were more likely to undergo prostatectomy (23.8% vs 12.4%; P < .001), cryotherapy (22.0% vs 1.0%; P < .001), and brachytherapy (47.5% vs 21.0%; P < .001) if their urologist performed that treatment for non–low-risk disease (Table 4). Similarly, men whose cancers were diagnosed by urologists who billed for external-beam radiotherapy were more likely to receive external-beam radiotherapy (52.7% vs 42.9%; P = .005). Most patients who underwent prostatectomy (1449 of 1855 [78.1%]) had prostatectomy performed by the diagnosing urologist.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4.  Association Between Type of Prostate Cancer Treatment Performed or Billed by Diagnosing Urologist and Type of Treatment Received by Patients Who Underwent Up-Front Treatment
Impact of Radiation Oncologist Factors

Characteristics of the 870 radiation oncologists who met with study participants and the 7554 study participants who met with radiation oncologists are summarized in eTable 4 in the Supplement. Of the men who met with a radiation oncologist, 91.5% received up-front treatment and 8.5% were observed (eTable 4 in the Supplement). In multivariable analysis, radiation oncologists with a DO degree were less likely to manage disease with observation (P = .02) (eTable 5 in the Supplement). There was no association between observation and physician treatment volume or decade of graduation (P > .10, not selected for inclusion in the multivariable model).

In multilevel analyses (eTable 6 in the Supplement), 19.0% of the variance in management choice was attributable to the radiation oncologist and just 3.2% to measured patient characteristics. For radiation oncologists who treated at least 10 men with low-risk prostate cancer, case-adjusted rates of observation varied widely, from 2.2% to 46.8% (Figure 2B).

In this group of older Medicare patients eligible for observation because they had low-risk prostate cancer, 80.1% received up-front treatment. Case-adjusted rates of observation varied widely across both urologists (from 4.5% to 64.2%) and radiation oncologists (from 2.2% to 46.8%). The variance in treatment selection attributable to physicians was at least double the variance attributable to measured patient-level characteristics such as age, comorbidity, cT category, and PSA level. Patients who received their diagnoses from urologists who treated non–low-risk prostate cancer were more likely to receive up-front treatment and, when treated, more likely to receive a treatment that their diagnosing urologist used for men with non–low-risk disease. These findings strongly suggest that physicians substantially influence not only decision making regarding up-front treatment vs observation but also the type of up-front treatment when treatment is selected.

Our findings have implications for policymakers, primary care physicians, and patients. At least two-thirds of men in this cohort had cancer detected by PSA screening (cT1c disease). The US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended against PSA screening, stating that “the balance of benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening is heavily influenced by . . . overtreatment”18(p126) and its associated morbidity. Our finding of meaningful physician-level variation in management of low-risk prostate cancer implies that the risk of overtreatment varies by physician. Public reporting of physicians’ rates of observation would empower primary care physicians and patients to seek out urologists and radiation oncologists who choose observation for suitable patients (see eAppendix in the Supplement).19,20

We postulate that the diagnosing urologist plays an important role in treatment selection because he or she is the first to convey the diagnosis to the patient and discuss disease severity and management options. Physician description of prostate cancer is known to affect patient perception of the seriousness of the condition and to affect treatment choice.21 In addition, patients report that physician recommendation is the most important reason that they select a prostate cancer treatment.2124 We could not determine which management options were offered to patients or the tone of the recommendations, but other studies have demonstrated that some men with low-risk prostate cancer are not offered observation.23,25 Diagnosing urologists also refer patients to other physicians for second opinions and radiotherapy. Prostate cancer physician referral networks are relatively stable.26 Because diagnosing urologists refer patients to other physicians, the management selected may also reflect discussions between the patient and the physicians to whom the patient was referred. However, prior literature indicates that fewer management options are discussed at second consultations than at the primary consultation and that most men who seek a second opinion accept the first management recommendation.24,27 In addition, more than two-thirds of the men in our study who underwent observation saw only a urologist and did not meet with a radiation oncologist, suggesting that urologists play a key role in the selection of observation.

Urologists who treated men with non–low-risk prostate cancer were more likely to manage low-risk disease with up-front treatment rather than observation. A possible explanation is that urologists have witnessed the morbidity of late-stage, aggressive prostate cancer. Financial incentives may also influence management because up-front treatment generates more revenue than observation.28 Concern has been raised that urologists’ financial interest in radiation equipment may increase the use of external-beam radiotherapy.29 We could not determine whether individual urologists had ownership interest in radiation equipment. However, patients whose cancers were diagnosed by urologists who billed for external-beam radiotherapy were more likely to receive external-beam radiotherapy, a finding consistent with the recent Government Accountability Office30 report that urologists with financial interest in radiation services are more likely to treat men with intensity-modulated external-beam radiotherapy.

As seen in other studies, we found that most older men who received up-front treatment underwent radiotherapy. Patients referred for radiation oncology consultation are presumably preselected on the basis of perceived need, interest in radiotherapy, or operative risk. However, case-adjusted rates of observation varied across radiation oncologists, indicating that individual radiation oncologists can influence treatment selection. These findings underscore the importance of the American Society for Radiation Oncology’s recently published recommendations that radiation oncologists and patients not “initiate management of low-risk prostate cancer without discussing active surveillance.”31 Future research will be needed to evaluate whether these recommendations increase rates of observation and lessen interphysician variation.

Although up-front treatment of older men with low-risk prostate cancer can cause morbidity32,33 without clear survival benefit, only 19.9% of the men in our cohort underwent observation. Prospective observational studies of men with low-risk prostate cancer managed with observation with active surveillance (serial PSA testing, digital rectal examination, and repeated biopsy with selective delayed intervention for histologic or PSA progression) report low rates of prostate cancer mortality.34 Furthermore, randomized trials demonstrate that observation does not compromise survival in appropriately selected older men. Men 65 years and older with clinically localized prostate cancer managed with watchful waiting in the SPCG-4 had prostate cancer metastasis and survival outcomes similar to those in men who underwent prostatectomy.7,10 Likewise, in the Prostate Cancer Intervention vs Observation Randomized Trial (PIVOT), observation did not increase prostate cancer or all-cause mortality compared with prostatectomy for men with clinically localized prostate cancer in the PSA-screening era.8

Our study and others demonstrate that older men with low-risk prostate cancer are more likely to undergo observation than are younger men.2,9,35 However, in our cohort, 70.0% of men aged 76 to 80 years and 55.1% of men older than 80 years still received up-front treatment. The high treatment rate in the oldest men is striking because average life expectancy for men 77 years and older in the United States is less than 10 years.36 Older men, especially those with multiple medical conditions, are not thought to gain a survival benefit from treatment of low-risk prostate cancer. Because potential harms outweigh benefits for men with limited life expectancy, current NCCN guidelines recommend observation as the only management option for men with low-risk prostate cancer and a life expectancy of less than 10 years.4

Because the catchment for this cohort encompassed 26% of the US population, the findings are likely representative of national care patterns and physician variation in the treatment of older men enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare during the study era. Nevertheless, our study has certain limitations. First, we used the most recent available data, but practice patterns may have shifted in subsequent years. Results from the SPCG-4 trial and from expectant-management studies supporting observation were available during the study period, but additional prospective expectant-management studies and the PIVOT trial were published after the study period.8,34,3739 Second, although all men were candidates for observation according to NCCN guidelines, we could not measure certain factors that may affect treatment choice, such as number and extent of biopsy cores involved with cancer, family history of prostate cancer, and patient anxiety. These factors may account for some of the residual patient-level variance. Third, the Gleason score for patients who underwent prostatectomy was based on pathologic examination of the prostatectomy specimen. Therefore, we may have inappropriately excluded men who had biopsy Gleason score upgraded at prostatectomy (thereby overestimating the frequency of observation) or included men who had Gleason score downgraded at prostatectomy (estimated to be <1% of the cohort40). However, findings were stable in sensitivity analyses limited to men who did not undergo prostatectomy. Finally, we evaluated frequency of observation but did not distinguish between watchful waiting, active surveillance, and loss to follow-up. However, most men whom we classified in the observation group had subsequent PSA evaluation or prostate biopsy, suggesting that their disease was managed with surveillance.

There is meaningful physician-level variation in the management of low-risk prostate cancer. Public reporting of physicians’ cancer management profiles would enable primary care physicians and patients to make more informed decisions when selecting a physician to diagnose and manage prostate cancer.

Accepted for Publication: April 13, 2014.

Corresponding Author: Karen E. Hoffman, MD, MHSc, MPH, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1202, Houston, TX 77030 (khoffman1@mdanderson.org).

Published Online: July 14, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3021.

Author Contributions: Drs Hoffman and Niu had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Hoffman, Buchholz, B. D. Smith.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Hoffman, Niu, Shen, Jiang, Davis, Kim, Kuban, Perkins, Shah, G. L. Smith, Volk, Giordano, B. D. Smith.

Drafting of the manuscript: Hoffman, Shen, Jiang, Perkins, B. D. Smith.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Hoffman, Niu, Shen, Davis, Kim, Kuban, Perkins, Shah, G. L. Smith, Volk, Buchholz, Giordano, B. D. Smith.

Statistical analysis: Hoffman, Niu, Shen, Jiang, Perkins, B. D. Smith.

Obtained funding: B. D. Smith.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Davis, Perkins, Giordano, B. D. Smith.

Study supervision: Kim, Kuban, Shah, Buchholz, Giordano, B. D. Smith.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr B. D. Smith receives research support from Varian Medical Systems. Dr Hoffman receives research support from the American Society for Radiation Oncology. No other disclosures are reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by grants from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (RP101207), the National Cancer Institute (T32CA77050, CA 079466), the American Cancer Society (RSGI-09-149-01-CPHPS), the Duncan Family Institute, and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, McCombs Institute, Center for Radiation Oncology Research. It was also supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute under award P30CA016672 and used the Biostatistics Shared Resource.

Role of the Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclaimer: This study used the linked SEER-Medicare database. The interpretation and reporting of these data are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Additional Contributions: The authors acknowledge the efforts of the Applied Research Program, National Cancer Institute; the Office of Research, Development and Information, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; Information Management Services, Inc; and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program tumor registries in the creation of the SEER-Medicare database. Stephanie Deming, BA, MD Anderson Cancer Center, provided editorial expertise during the preparation of the manuscript. She was not compensated for her contribution.

Ganz  PA, Barry  JM, Burke  W,  et al.  National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(8):591-595.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Roberts  CB, Albertsen  PC, Shao  YH,  et al.  Patterns and correlates of prostate cancer treatment in older men. Am J Med. 2011;124(3):235-243.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hamilton  AS, Albertsen  PC, Johnson  TK,  et al.  Trends in the treatment of localized prostate cancer using supplemented cancer registry data. BJU Int. 2011;107(4):576-584.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. Version 2.2014. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf. Accessed May 28, 2014.
American Urologic Association. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. https://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/education/clinical-guidance/Prostate-Cancer.pdf. Accessed May 28, 2014.
Heidenreich  A, Bastian  PJ, Bellmunt  J,  et al. Guidelines on prostate cancer. European Association of Urology website. 2012. http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pockets/english/07_Prostate_Cancer.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2012.
Bill-Axelson  A, Holmberg  L, Filén  F,  et al; Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4.  Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(16):1144-1154.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wilt  TJ, Brawer  MK, Jones  KM,  et al; Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) Study Group.  Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):203-213.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Daskivich  TJ, Chamie  K, Kwan  L,  et al.  Overtreatment of men with low-risk prostate cancer and significant comorbidity. Cancer. 2011;117(10):2058-2066.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bill-Axelson  A, Holmberg  L, Ruutu  M,  et al; Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study No. 4.  Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(19):1977-1984.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Prostate Cancer. Version 1. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN; 2004.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Prostate Cancer. Version 2. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN; 2007.
Klabunde  CN, Potosky  AL, Legler  JM, Warren  JL.  Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(12):1258-1267.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wu  S, Crespi  CM, Wong  WK.  Comparison of methods for estimating the intraclass correlation coefficient for binary responses in cancer prevention cluster randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33(5):869-880.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hanley  JA, Negassa  A, Edwardes  MD, Forrester  JE.  Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: an orientation. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157(4):364-375.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shahinian  VB, Kuo  YF, Freeman  JL, Goodwin  JS.  Determinants of androgen deprivation therapy use for prostate cancer: role of the urologist. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(12):839-845.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Snijders  TAB, Bosker  RJ. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling.2nd ed. London, England: SAGE Publications; 2012.
Moyer  VA; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(2):120-134.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Andel  C, Davidow  SL, Hollander  M, Moreno  DA.  The economics of health care quality and medical errors. J Health Care Finance. 2012;39(1):39-50.
PubMed
Galvin  RS, McGlynn  EA.  Using performance measurement to drive improvement: a road map for change. Med Care. 2003;41(1)(suppl):I48-I60.
PubMed
Davison  BJ, Oliffe  JL, Pickles  T, Mroz  L.  Factors influencing men undertaking active surveillance for the management of low-risk prostate cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2009;36(1):89-96.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Demark-Wahnefried  W, Schildkraut  JM, Iselin  CE,  et al.  Treatment options, selection, and satisfaction among African American and white men with prostate carcinoma in North Carolina. Cancer. 1998;83(2):320-330.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gorin  MA, Soloway  CT, Eldefrawy  A, Soloway  MS.  Factors that influence patient enrollment in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2011;77(3):588-591.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Miles  BJ, Giesler  B, Kattan  MW.  Recall and attitudes in patients with prostate cancer. Urology. 1999;53(1):169-174.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Xu  J, Neale  AV, Dailey  RK, Eggly  S, Schwartz  KL.  Patient perspective on watchful waiting/active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25(6):763-770.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pollack  CE, Weissman  G, Bekelman  J, Liao  K, Armstrong  K.  Physician social networks and variation in prostate cancer treatment in three cities. Health Serv Res. 2012;47(1, pt 2):380-403.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ramsey  SD, Zeliadt  SB, Fedorenko  CR,  et al.  Patient preferences and urologist recommendations among local-stage prostate cancer patients who present for initial consultation and second opinions. World J Urol. 2011;29(1):3-9.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Snyder  CF, Frick  KD, Blackford  AL,  et al.  How does initial treatment choice affect short-term and long-term costs for clinically localized prostate cancer? Cancer. 2010;116(23):5391-5399.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Falit  BP, Gross  CP, Roberts  KB.  Integrated prostate cancer centers and over-utilization of IMRT: a close look at fee-for-service medicine in radiation oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(5):1285-1288.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
US Government Accountability Office. Medicare: Higher Use of Costly Prostate Cancer Treatment by Providers Who Self-Refer Warrants Scrutiny.2013. http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/656026.pdf. Accessed September 27, 2013.
American Society for Radiation Oncology. Five things physicians and patients should question. Choosing Wisely website. http://www.choosingwisely.org/doctor-patient-lists/american-society-for-radiation-oncology/. Accessed September 27, 2013.
Sanda  MG, Dunn  RL, Michalski  J,  et al.  Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(12):1250-1261.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Potosky  AL, Legler  J, Albertsen  PC,  et al.  Health outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(19):1582-1592.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dall’Era  MA, Albertsen  PC, Bangma  C,  et al.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2012;62(6):976-983.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cooperberg  MR, Broering  JM, Carroll  PR.  Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(7):1117-1123.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Social Security Administration. Period life table, 2009.http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html. Accessed May 28, 2014.
Choo  R, Klotz  L, Danjoux  C,  et al.  Feasibility study: watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. J Urol. 2002;167(4):1664-1669.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Albertsen  PC, Hanley  JA, Gleason  DF, Barry  MJ.  Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280(11):975-980.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Johansson  JE, Holmberg  L, Johansson  S, Bergström  R, Adami  HO.  Fifteen-year survival in prostate cancer: a prospective, population-based study in Sweden. JAMA. 1997;277(6):467-471.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Epstein  JI, Feng  Z, Trock  BJ, Pierorazio  PM.  Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):1019-1024.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Cohort Selection Criteria

cT Indicates clinical tumor, and PSA, prostate-specific antigen.aThis step excluded patients whose diagnosis was made by transurethral resection of the prostate alone; patients who received a diagnosis in the Veterans Affairs or military medical system, in which claims are not submitted; and patients whose diagnostic biopsy was performed by a nonurologist. There were no clinically meaningful differences between men who were and were not matched to a diagnosing urologist.bThese men were used to determine urologist diagnosis volume and radiation oncologist treatment volume.cThese men who did not have low-risk prostate cancer were used to determine whether or not the urologist treated non–low-risk prostate cancer. dBecause men with cT2NOS disease could have higher-volume disease, men with cT2 disease were excluded from sensitivity analyses.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Case-Adjusted Frequency of Management of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer With Observation for Individual Urologists and Radiation Oncologists

Frequency of observation is adjusted for patient age, race and ethnicity, comorbidity, Medicaid coverage, clinical tumor category, and serum prostate-specific antigen level. Red dotted line indicates mean case-adjusted frequency of observation, and black bars, physicians who had rates significantly different from the mean (P < .05). The 95% confidence interval bars take into account variability of the calculated rate based on the size of the patient panel. A, Frequency by rank, from lowest (4.5%) to highest (64.2%), for 391 urologists who diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer in at least 10 men in the study cohort (blue line). Mean case-adjusted frequency was 19.7%; 40 urologists had rates significantly different from the mean. B, Frequency by rank, from lowest (2.2%) to highest (46.8%), for 226 radiation oncologists who saw at least 10 men with low-risk prostate cancer in the study cohort (blue line). Mean case-adjusted frequency of observation was 8.5%; 20 radiation oncologists had rates significantly different from the mean.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Characteristics of Patients With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Characteristics of the Diagnosing Urologists
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.  Diagnosing Urologist and Patient Characteristics Associated With Observationa
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4.  Association Between Type of Prostate Cancer Treatment Performed or Billed by Diagnosing Urologist and Type of Treatment Received by Patients Who Underwent Up-Front Treatment

References

Ganz  PA, Barry  JM, Burke  W,  et al.  National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(8):591-595.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Roberts  CB, Albertsen  PC, Shao  YH,  et al.  Patterns and correlates of prostate cancer treatment in older men. Am J Med. 2011;124(3):235-243.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hamilton  AS, Albertsen  PC, Johnson  TK,  et al.  Trends in the treatment of localized prostate cancer using supplemented cancer registry data. BJU Int. 2011;107(4):576-584.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. Version 2.2014. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf. Accessed May 28, 2014.
American Urologic Association. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. https://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/education/clinical-guidance/Prostate-Cancer.pdf. Accessed May 28, 2014.
Heidenreich  A, Bastian  PJ, Bellmunt  J,  et al. Guidelines on prostate cancer. European Association of Urology website. 2012. http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pockets/english/07_Prostate_Cancer.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2012.
Bill-Axelson  A, Holmberg  L, Filén  F,  et al; Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4.  Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(16):1144-1154.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wilt  TJ, Brawer  MK, Jones  KM,  et al; Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) Study Group.  Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):203-213.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Daskivich  TJ, Chamie  K, Kwan  L,  et al.  Overtreatment of men with low-risk prostate cancer and significant comorbidity. Cancer. 2011;117(10):2058-2066.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bill-Axelson  A, Holmberg  L, Ruutu  M,  et al; Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study No. 4.  Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(19):1977-1984.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Prostate Cancer. Version 1. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN; 2004.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Prostate Cancer. Version 2. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN; 2007.
Klabunde  CN, Potosky  AL, Legler  JM, Warren  JL.  Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(12):1258-1267.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wu  S, Crespi  CM, Wong  WK.  Comparison of methods for estimating the intraclass correlation coefficient for binary responses in cancer prevention cluster randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33(5):869-880.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hanley  JA, Negassa  A, Edwardes  MD, Forrester  JE.  Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: an orientation. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157(4):364-375.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shahinian  VB, Kuo  YF, Freeman  JL, Goodwin  JS.  Determinants of androgen deprivation therapy use for prostate cancer: role of the urologist. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(12):839-845.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Snijders  TAB, Bosker  RJ. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling.2nd ed. London, England: SAGE Publications; 2012.
Moyer  VA; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(2):120-134.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Andel  C, Davidow  SL, Hollander  M, Moreno  DA.  The economics of health care quality and medical errors. J Health Care Finance. 2012;39(1):39-50.
PubMed
Galvin  RS, McGlynn  EA.  Using performance measurement to drive improvement: a road map for change. Med Care. 2003;41(1)(suppl):I48-I60.
PubMed
Davison  BJ, Oliffe  JL, Pickles  T, Mroz  L.  Factors influencing men undertaking active surveillance for the management of low-risk prostate cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2009;36(1):89-96.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Demark-Wahnefried  W, Schildkraut  JM, Iselin  CE,  et al.  Treatment options, selection, and satisfaction among African American and white men with prostate carcinoma in North Carolina. Cancer. 1998;83(2):320-330.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gorin  MA, Soloway  CT, Eldefrawy  A, Soloway  MS.  Factors that influence patient enrollment in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2011;77(3):588-591.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Miles  BJ, Giesler  B, Kattan  MW.  Recall and attitudes in patients with prostate cancer. Urology. 1999;53(1):169-174.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Xu  J, Neale  AV, Dailey  RK, Eggly  S, Schwartz  KL.  Patient perspective on watchful waiting/active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25(6):763-770.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pollack  CE, Weissman  G, Bekelman  J, Liao  K, Armstrong  K.  Physician social networks and variation in prostate cancer treatment in three cities. Health Serv Res. 2012;47(1, pt 2):380-403.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ramsey  SD, Zeliadt  SB, Fedorenko  CR,  et al.  Patient preferences and urologist recommendations among local-stage prostate cancer patients who present for initial consultation and second opinions. World J Urol. 2011;29(1):3-9.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Snyder  CF, Frick  KD, Blackford  AL,  et al.  How does initial treatment choice affect short-term and long-term costs for clinically localized prostate cancer? Cancer. 2010;116(23):5391-5399.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Falit  BP, Gross  CP, Roberts  KB.  Integrated prostate cancer centers and over-utilization of IMRT: a close look at fee-for-service medicine in radiation oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(5):1285-1288.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
US Government Accountability Office. Medicare: Higher Use of Costly Prostate Cancer Treatment by Providers Who Self-Refer Warrants Scrutiny.2013. http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/656026.pdf. Accessed September 27, 2013.
American Society for Radiation Oncology. Five things physicians and patients should question. Choosing Wisely website. http://www.choosingwisely.org/doctor-patient-lists/american-society-for-radiation-oncology/. Accessed September 27, 2013.
Sanda  MG, Dunn  RL, Michalski  J,  et al.  Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(12):1250-1261.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Potosky  AL, Legler  J, Albertsen  PC,  et al.  Health outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(19):1582-1592.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dall’Era  MA, Albertsen  PC, Bangma  C,  et al.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2012;62(6):976-983.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cooperberg  MR, Broering  JM, Carroll  PR.  Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(7):1117-1123.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Social Security Administration. Period life table, 2009.http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html. Accessed May 28, 2014.
Choo  R, Klotz  L, Danjoux  C,  et al.  Feasibility study: watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. J Urol. 2002;167(4):1664-1669.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Albertsen  PC, Hanley  JA, Gleason  DF, Barry  MJ.  Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280(11):975-980.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Johansson  JE, Holmberg  L, Johansson  S, Bergström  R, Adami  HO.  Fifteen-year survival in prostate cancer: a prospective, population-based study in Sweden. JAMA. 1997;277(6):467-471.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Epstein  JI, Feng  Z, Trock  BJ, Pierorazio  PM.  Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):1019-1024.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

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

Supplement.

eTable 1. Definitions of Prostate Biopsy, Physician Specialty, and Type of Primary Cancer-Directed Therapy

eTable 2. Management Strategy for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer by Age

eTable 3. Multilevel Analyses Evaluating the Relative Contributions of the Diagnosing Urologist and Patient-Level Fixed Effects to the Variance in the Rate of Observation

eTable 4. Characteristics of 870 Radiation Oncologists and 7554 Patients With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

eTable 5. Radiation Oncologist and Patient Characteristics Associated With Observation

eTable 6. Multilevel Analyses Evaluating the Relative Contributions of the Radiation Oncologist and Patient-Level Fixed Effects to the Variance in the Rate of Observation

eAppendix. Additional Discussion

Supplemental Content

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

2,247 Views
6 Citations

Related Content

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

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
From Evidence to Recommendations

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Overall Confidence in Effect Estimates

×