Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: In 2015, both ASCO and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) proposed frameworks to quantify the benefit of antineoplastic drugs in the face of rising costs. We applied these frameworks to drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration over the past 12 years and examined relationships between costs and benefits. METHODS: We searched FDA.gov for drugs that received initial approval for solid tumors from 2004 to 2015 and calculated the ASCO Net Health Benefit version 2016 (NHB16) and 2015 (NHB15) and the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale scores for each drug. We calculated descriptive statistics and explored correlations and associations among benefit scores, cost, and independent variables. RESULTS: We identified 55 drug approvals supported by phase II (18.2%) and III (81.8%) trials, with primary outcomes of overall survival (36.4%), progression-free survival (43.6%), or response rate (20.0%). No significant association was found between NHB16 and year of approval ( P = .81), organ system ( P = .20), or trial comparator arm ( P = .17), but trials with progression-free survival outcomes were associated with higher scores ( P = .007). Both NHB15 and Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale scores were approximately normally distributed, but only a moderate correlation existed between them ( r = 0.40, P = .006). No correlation between benefit score and cost (NHB16, r = 0.19; ESMO, r = -0.07) was found. Before 2010, two (15.3%) of 13 approved drugs exceeded $500/NHB point x month compared with 10 (25.0%) of 40 drugs subsequently approved. CONCLUSION: Our analysis of the ASCO and ESMO value frameworks illuminates the heterogeneous benefit of new medications and highlights challenges in constructing a unified concept of drug value. Drug benefit does not correlate with cost, and the number of high cost/benefit outliers has increased.

The surgical robot, a costly technology for treatment of prostate cancer with equivocal marginal benefit, rapidly diffused into clinical practice. We sought to evaluate the role of teaching in the early adoption phase of the surgical robot. Teaching hospitals were the primary early adopters: data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project showed that surgical robots were acquired by 45.5% of major teaching, 18.0% of minor teaching and 8.0% of non-teaching hospitals during the early adoption phase. However, teaching hospital faculty produced little comparative effectiveness research: By 2008, only 24 published studies compared robotic prostatectomy outcomes to those of conventional techniques. Just ten of these studies (41.7%) were more than minimally powered, and only six (25%) involved cross-institutional collaborations. In adopting the surgical robot, teaching hospitals fulfilled their mission to innovate, but failed to generate corresponding scientific evidence.

BACKGROUND: Approximately half of veterans with low-risk prostate cancer receive guideline-discordant imaging. Our objective was to identify and describe (1) physician knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to the use of imaging to stage prostate cancer, (2) patient attitudes and behaviors related to use of imaging, and (3) to compare responses across three VA medical centers (VAMCs). METHODS: A qualitative approach was used to explore patient and provider knowledge and behaviors relating to the use of imaging. We conducted 39 semi-structured interviews total-including 22 interviews with patients with newly diagnosed with prostate cancer and 17 interviews with physicians caring for them-between September 2014 and July 2015 at three VAMCs representing a spectrum of inappropriate imaging rates. After core theoretical concepts were identified, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was selected to explore linkages between themes within the dataset and existing domains within the framework. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then coded and analyzed using Nvivo software. RESULTS: Themes from patient interviews were categorized within four TDF domains. Patients reported little interest in staging as compared to disease treatment (goals), and many could not remember if they had imaging at all (knowledge). Patients tended to trust their doctor to make decisions about appropriate tests (beliefs about capabilities). Some patients expressed a minor concern for radiation exposure, but anxiety about cancer outcomes outweighed these fears (emotion). Themes from physician interviews were categorized within five TDF domains. Most physicians self-reported that they know and trust imaging guidelines (knowledge) yet some were still likely to follow their own intuition, whether due to clinical suspicion or years of experience (beliefs about capabilities). Additionally, physicians reported that medico-legal concerns, fear of missing associated diagnoses (beliefs about consequences), influence from colleagues who image frequently (social influences), and the facility where they practice influences rates of imaging (environmental context). CONCLUSIONS: Interviews with patients and physicians suggest that physicians are the primary (and in some cases only) decision-makers regarding staging imaging for prostate cancer. This finding suggests a physician-targeted intervention may be the most effective strategy to improve guideline-concordant prostate cancer imaging.

PURPOSE: While major prostate cancer active surveillance (AS) programs recommend repeat testing such as PSA and prostate biopsy, compliance with such testing is unknown. Our objective was to determine whether men in the community receive the same intensity of AS testing as in prospective AS protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of men aged >/=66 in the SEER-Medicare database diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2001-2009 who did not receive curative therapy in the year after diagnosis with >/=1 post-diagnosis prostate biopsy. We used multivariable-adjusted Poisson regression to determine the association between frequency of AS testing with patient demographics and clinical features. Among 1349 men with /=14 PSA and >/=2 biopsy), and at Johns Hopkins (>/=10 PSA and >/=4 biopsy). RESULTS: Among 5192 patients undergoing AS, >80% had >/=1 PSA test per year but <13% received biopsy beyond the first 2 years. MRI was rarely used during the study period. On multivariable analysis, recent diagnosis and higher income were associated with higher frequency of surveillance biopsy, while older age and greater comorbidity were associated with fewer biopsies. African American men underwent fewer PSAs but similar numbers of biopsies. During 5 years of AS, only 11.1% and 5.0% met the testing standards of the Sunnybrook/PRIAS and Johns Hopkins programs. CONCLUSIONS: In the community, very few elderly men receive the intensity of AS testing recommended by major prospective AS programs.; Key of Definition for Abbreviations: AS=active surveillance, PCa=prostate cancer, PSA=prostate specific antigen, MRI=magnetic resonance imaging, NCCN=National Comprehensive Cancer Network, PRIAS=Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance, WW=watchful waiting.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of immediate versus delayed radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with low-grade prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included a nationwide population-based cohort in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden, of 7608 men with clinically localized, biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer who underwent immediate or delayed RP in 1997-2007. Multivariable models compared RP pathology, use of salvage radiotherapy and prostate cancer mortality based on timing of RP (< 1, 1-2 or >2 years after diagnosis). Median follow-up was 8.1 years. RESULTS: Men undergoing RP more than 2 years after diagnosis had a higher risk of Gleason upgrading [odds ratio 2.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.34-3.68] and an increased risk of salvage radiotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) 1.90, 95% CI 1.41-2.55], but no significant increase in prostate cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.85, 95% CI 0.57-5.99). In competing risk analysis, 7 year prostate cancer-specific cumulative mortality was similar, at less than 1%, for immediate RP and active surveillance regardless of later intervention. Limitations of this study include the lack of data on follow-up biopsies and the limited follow-up time. CONCLUSION: Men undergoing RP more than 2 years after diagnosis had more adverse pathological features and second line therapy, highlighting the trade-off in deferring immediate curative therapy. However, men with delayed RP constitute a minority with higher risk cancer among the much larger group of low-risk men initially surveilled, and the overall risk of prostate cancer mortality at 7 years was similarly low with immediate RP or active surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of appropriate and inappropriate prostate cancer imaging in an integrated health care system. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Veterans Health Administration Central Cancer Registry linked to VA electronic medical records and Medicare claims (2004-2008). STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of VA patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (N = 45,084). Imaging (CT, MRI, bone scan, PET) use was assessed among patients with low-risk disease, for whom guidelines recommend against advanced imaging, and among high-risk patients for whom guidelines recommend it. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found high rates of inappropriate imaging among men with low-risk prostate cancer (41 percent) and suboptimal rates of appropriate imaging among men with high-risk disease (70 percent). Veterans utilizing Medicare-reimbursed care had higher rates of inappropriate imaging [OR: 1.09 (1.03-1.16)] but not higher rates of appropriate imaging. Veterans treated in middle [OR: 0.51 (0.47-0.56)] and higher [OR: 0.50 (0.46-0.55)] volume medical centers were less likely to undergo inappropriate imaging without compromising appropriate imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the overutilization of imaging, even in an integrated health care system without financial incentives encouraging provision of health care services. Paradoxically, imaging remains underutilized among high-risk patients who could potentially benefit from it most.

BACKGROUND: The human papilloma virus (HPV) is a carcinogen known for its strong association with cervical cancers and cervical lesions. It is also known to be associated with a variety of squamous cell carcinomas in other areas, such as the penis, vulva, anus and head and neck. However, the association with urothelial carcinoma remains controversial. Here, we report a case of urothelial carcinoma with squamous differentiation associated with HPV-6/HPV-11. CASE PRESENTATION: This is a case of a 70 year old man who presented with nocturia and pressure during urination. During the TURP procedure for what was clinically thought to be benign prostate hyperplasia with pathologic diagnosis as prostate carcinoma, a 2 cm papillary mass was found in the distal penile urethra. The papillary mass was found to be a high grade urothelial carcinoma positive for GATA 3 expression, with focal areas of squamous differentiation. The areas with squamous differentiation demonstrated koilocytic differentiation, which were positive for strong p16 expression. The tumor was found to harbor low risk HPV 6/11 by in situ hybridization. CONCLUSIONS: This study case demonstrates HPV infection with a low risk subtype (HPV 6/11) associated with an urothelial carcinoma with squamous differentiation and condylomatous features.

Danil V Makarov speaks to Gemma Westcott, Commissioning Editor: Danil V Makarov is an Assistant Professor and Director of Surgical Research in the Department of Urology at NYU Langone Medical Center (NY, USA). In addition, he is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Population Health. His clinical areas of expertise include prostate cancer, benign prostatic hyperplasia, erectile dysfunction, kidney cancer, urinary tract infections, genitourinary neoplasm, elevated prostate-specific antigen and testicular cancer. In addition, his research interests are in the areas of prostate cancer, health policy and quality of care. An alumnus of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (MD, USA), he completed his residency in urology at Johns Hopkins Hospital and a research fellowship at Yale University School of Medicine (CT, USA).

In the era before the widespread adoption of PSA screening for prostate cancer, most incident cases were already advanced stage. Because treatment options such as surgery or radiation are thought mainly to benefit patients with localized disease, prostate cancer imaging was necessary prior to treatment of almost all patients. In the PSA era, however, over 90% of incident cases are localized, making the need for routine imaging with CT, MRI, or bone scan obsolete [1]. Numerous studies show a relatively low rate of positive staging imaging in low- and intermediate- risk patients. Recognizing these trends, several professional societies issued prostate cancer imaging guidelines in the mid-1990s in an effort to curb the overuse of imaging