TY - JOUR
T1 - Contemporary Trends in Magnetic Resonance Imaging at the Time of Prostate Biopsy
T2 - Results from a Large Private Insurance Database
AU - Kim, Simon P.
AU - Karnes, R. Jeffrey
AU - Mwangi, Raphael
AU - Van Houten, Holly
AU - Gross, Cary P.
AU - Gershman, Boris
AU - Leapman, Michael S.
AU - Shah, Nilay D.
N1 - Funding Information:
Other: None. Financial disclosures: Simon P. Kim certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: Dr. Cary Gross has received funding to support research from Pfizer and 21 st Century Oncology. Dr. Shah has received research support through Mayo Clinic from the Food and Drug Administration to establish Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program (U01FD005938); from the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Innovation under the Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative (TCPI); from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS025164, R01HS025402, R03HS025517); from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH; R56HL130496, R01HL131535), National Science Foundation; and from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) to develop a Clinical Data Research Network (LHSNet). Funding/Support and role of the sponsor: This project was supported by a career development award from the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology for Dr. Simon Kim and the Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery. It was also supported by AHRQ 's Comparative Health System Performance Initiative (grant # 1U19HS024075 ), which studies how health care delivery systems promote evidence-based practices and patient-centered outcomes research in delivering care, for Dr. Nilay Shah.
Funding Information:
Other: None. Financial disclosures: Simon P. Kim certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: Dr. Cary Gross has received funding to support research from Pfizer and 21?st Century Oncology. Dr. Shah has received research support through Mayo Clinic from the Food and Drug Administration to establish Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program (U01FD005938); from the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Innovation under the Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative (TCPI); from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS025164, R01HS025402, R03HS025517); from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH; R56HL130496, R01HL131535), National Science Foundation; and from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) to develop a Clinical Data Research Network (LHSNet). Funding/Support and role of the sponsor: This project was supported by a career development award from the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology for Dr. Simon Kim and the Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery. It was also supported by AHRQ's Comparative Health System Performance Initiative (grant # 1U19HS024075), which studies how health care delivery systems promote evidence-based practices and patient-centered outcomes research in delivering care, for Dr. Nilay Shah.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019
PY - 2021/1
Y1 - 2021/1
N2 - Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate (MRI-prostate) facilitates better detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). Yet, the national trends of MRI at the time of prostate biopsy and its ability to increase the detection of PCa in a biopsy-naïve population remain unknown. Objective: To elucidate the contemporary trends of MRI and prostate biopsy, and whether it improved PCa diagnosis among privately insured patients. Design, setting, and participants: This was a retrospective cohort study of a large private health insurance database in the USA—the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. We identified all men ≥40 yr of age who underwent index prostate biopsies from 2010 through 2016. Intervention: MRI-prostate at the time of index biopsy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Utilization of the MRI at the time of biopsy and incident PCa diagnosis constituted the primary outcomes. We enumerated unadjusted and age-specific annual rates of MRI over time to elucidate trends using regression models (trend analysis). Bivariate and multivariable regression analyses identified patient characteristics associated with MRI-prostate, and the association between the use of MRI and PCa diagnosis. Results and limitations: Overall, 119 202 men underwent index prostate biopsies. Unadjusted annual rates of MRI at the time of biopsy significantly increased from 7 per 1000 biopsies in 2010 to 83 per 1000 biopsies in 2016 (p < 0.001 for trend). Age-specific rates increased across all age groups (40–49, 50–59, 60–65, 66–74, and 75+ yr; all p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, black patients had a lower likelihood of MRI compared with white patients (odds ratio [OR]: 0.6; p < 0.01). MRI at the time of biopsy was not associated with a higher likelihood of incident PCa compared with traditional systematic biopsy (OR: 1.0; p = 0.7). The retrospective design and the inability to detect clinically significant PCa (Gleason 7+) constitute the limitations of this study. Conclusions: While the use of MRI at the time of biopsy rose markedly, it was not associated with a higher detection rate of PCa. Further research is needed to address effective dissemination of MRI and targeted biopsies, and racial disparities. Patient summary: From 2010 to 2016, our study found a significant rise in the utilization of magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate (MRI-prostate) at the time of index biopsy, although only a minority of patients undergo MRI-prostate. The use of MRI-prostate was not associated with a higher likelihood of diagnosing incident prostate cancer. In our contemporary cohort of privately insured patients screened for prostate cancer, utilization of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate increased markedly, but it did not improve the detection of prostate cancer. However, only a small number of patents undergo prostate MRI prior to biopsy, and racial disparities exist in its use.
AB - Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate (MRI-prostate) facilitates better detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). Yet, the national trends of MRI at the time of prostate biopsy and its ability to increase the detection of PCa in a biopsy-naïve population remain unknown. Objective: To elucidate the contemporary trends of MRI and prostate biopsy, and whether it improved PCa diagnosis among privately insured patients. Design, setting, and participants: This was a retrospective cohort study of a large private health insurance database in the USA—the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. We identified all men ≥40 yr of age who underwent index prostate biopsies from 2010 through 2016. Intervention: MRI-prostate at the time of index biopsy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Utilization of the MRI at the time of biopsy and incident PCa diagnosis constituted the primary outcomes. We enumerated unadjusted and age-specific annual rates of MRI over time to elucidate trends using regression models (trend analysis). Bivariate and multivariable regression analyses identified patient characteristics associated with MRI-prostate, and the association between the use of MRI and PCa diagnosis. Results and limitations: Overall, 119 202 men underwent index prostate biopsies. Unadjusted annual rates of MRI at the time of biopsy significantly increased from 7 per 1000 biopsies in 2010 to 83 per 1000 biopsies in 2016 (p < 0.001 for trend). Age-specific rates increased across all age groups (40–49, 50–59, 60–65, 66–74, and 75+ yr; all p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, black patients had a lower likelihood of MRI compared with white patients (odds ratio [OR]: 0.6; p < 0.01). MRI at the time of biopsy was not associated with a higher likelihood of incident PCa compared with traditional systematic biopsy (OR: 1.0; p = 0.7). The retrospective design and the inability to detect clinically significant PCa (Gleason 7+) constitute the limitations of this study. Conclusions: While the use of MRI at the time of biopsy rose markedly, it was not associated with a higher detection rate of PCa. Further research is needed to address effective dissemination of MRI and targeted biopsies, and racial disparities. Patient summary: From 2010 to 2016, our study found a significant rise in the utilization of magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate (MRI-prostate) at the time of index biopsy, although only a minority of patients undergo MRI-prostate. The use of MRI-prostate was not associated with a higher likelihood of diagnosing incident prostate cancer. In our contemporary cohort of privately insured patients screened for prostate cancer, utilization of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate increased markedly, but it did not improve the detection of prostate cancer. However, only a small number of patents undergo prostate MRI prior to biopsy, and racial disparities exist in its use.
KW - Biopsy
KW - Magnetic resonance imaging
KW - Prostate cancer
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064741232&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064741232&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.euf.2019.03.016
DO - 10.1016/j.euf.2019.03.016
M3 - Article
C2 - 31047904
AN - SCOPUS:85064741232
SN - 2405-4569
VL - 7
SP - 86
EP - 94
JO - European Urology Focus
JF - European Urology Focus
IS - 1
ER -