Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Mar 8;170(5):440-50.
doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.1.

Physician visits prior to treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer

Affiliations

Physician visits prior to treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer

Thomas L Jang et al. Arch Intern Med. .

Abstract

Background: The 2 primary therapeutic interventions for localized prostate cancer are delivered by different types of physicians, urologists, and radiation oncologists. We evaluated how visits to specialists and primary care physicians (PCPs) by men with localized prostate cancer are related to treatment choice.

Methods: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database, we identified 85 088 men with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed at age 65 years or older, between 1994 and 2002. Men were categorized by primary treatment received within 9 months of diagnosis: radical prostatectomy (n = 18 201 [21%]), radiotherapy (n = 35 925 [42%]), androgen deprivation (n = 14 021 [17%]), or expectant management (n = 16 941 [20%]). Visits to specialists and PCPs were analyzed by patient characteristics and primary therapies received and were identified using Medicare claims and the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile.

Results: Overall, 42 309 men (50%) were seen exclusively by urologists, 37 540 (44%) by urologists and radiation oncologists, 2329 (3%) by urologists and medical oncologists, and 2910 (3%) by all 3 specialists. There was a strong association between the type of specialist seen and primary therapy received. Visits to PCPs were infrequent between diagnosis and receipt of therapy (22% of patients visited any PCP and 17% visited an established PCP) and were not associated with a greater likelihood of specialist visits. Irrespective of age, comorbidity status, or specialist visits, men seen by PCPs were more likely to be treated expectantly.

Conclusions: Specialist visits relate strongly to prostate cancer treatment choices. In light of these findings, prior evidence that specialists prefer the modality they themselves deliver and the lack of conclusive comparative studies demonstrating superiority of one modality over another, it is essential to ensure that men have access to balanced information before choosing a particular therapy for prostate cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have no financial disclosures

There are no conflicts of interest for any of the authors, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Definition of study cohort of 85,088 men with clinically localized prostate cancer.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Specialists that were consulted prior to definitive treatment for a) 18,201 men who had a radical prostatectomy; b) 35,925 men who had radiation therapy. Note: Missing physician specialty codes on claims for radiotherapy accounted for the 7% of patients who received radiotherapy but for whom a visit with a radiation oncologist could not be identified.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Specialists that were consulted prior to definitive treatment for a) 18,201 men who had a radical prostatectomy; b) 35,925 men who had radiation therapy. Note: Missing physician specialty codes on claims for radiotherapy accounted for the 7% of patients who received radiotherapy but for whom a visit with a radiation oncologist could not be identified.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Observed versus expected distribution of an individual urologist’s patient to undergo a radiation oncologist evaluation.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009 [epub ahead of print] - PubMed
    1. Zeliadt SB, Ramsey SD, Penson DF, et al. Why do men choose one treatment over another?: a review of patient decision making for localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2006;106(9):1865–1874. - PubMed
    1. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Jama. 1998;280(11):969–974. - PubMed
    1. Moore MJ, O'Sullivan B, Tannock IF. How expert physicians would wish to be treated if they had genitourinary cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1988;6(11):1736–1745. - PubMed
    1. Fowler FJ, Jr, McNaughton Collins M, Albertsen PC, Zietman A, Elliott DB, Barry MJ. Comparison of recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Jama. 2000;283(24):3217–3222. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances