Men with prostate cancer are often castrated with long-acting injectable drugs termed androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Although many benefit, ADT is also used in patients with little or nothing to gain. The best ways to stop this practice are unknown, and range from blunt pharmacy restrictions to informed decision-making. This study will refine and pilot two different de-implementation strategies for reducing ADT use among those unlikely to benefit in preparation for a comparative effectiveness trial. This innovative mixed methods research program has three aims. Aim 1: To assess preferences and barriers for de-implementation of chemical castration in prostate cancer. Guided by the theoretical domains framework (TDF), urologists and patients from facilities with the highest and lowest castration rates across the VA will be interviewed to identify key preferences and de-implementation barriers for reducing castration as prostate cancer treatment. This qualitative work will inform Aim 2 while gathering rich information for two proposed pilot intervention strategies. Aim 2: To use a discrete choice experiment (DCE), a novel barrier prioritization approach, for de-implementation strategy tailoring. The investigators will conduct national surveys of urologists to prioritize key barriers identified in Aim 1 for stopping incident castration as localized prostate cancer treatment using a DCE experiment design. These quantitative results will identify the most important barriers to be addressed through tailoring of two pilot de-implementation strategies in preparation for Aim 3 piloting. Aim 3: To pilot two tailored de-implementation strategies to reduce castration as localized prostate cancer treatment. Building on findings from Aims 1 and 2, two de-implementation strategies will be piloted. One strategy will focus on formulary restriction at the organizational level and the other on physician/patient informed decision-making at different facilities. Outcomes will include acceptability, feasibility, and scalability in preparation for an effectiveness trial comparing these two widely varying de-implementation strategies. Our innovative approach to de-implementation strategy development is directly aligned with state-of-the-art complex implementation intervention development and implementation science. This work will broadly advance de-implementation science for low value cancer care, and foster participation in our de-implementation evaluation trial by addressing barriers, facilitators, and concerns through pilot tailoring. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03579680 , First Posted July 6, 2018.
Medical insurance claims are becoming increasingly common data sources to answer a variety of questions in biomedical research. Although comprehensive in terms of longitudinal characterization of disease development and progression for a potentially large number of patients, population-based studies using these datasets require thoughtful modification to sample selection and analytic strategies, relative to other types of studies. Along with complex selection bias and missing data issues, claims-based studies are purely observational, which limits effective understanding and characterization of the treatment differences between groups being compared. All these issues contribute to a crisis in reproducibility and replication of comparative findings. This paper offers some practical guidance to the full analytical process, demonstrates methods for estimating causal treatment effects on several types of outcomes common to such studies, such as binary, count, time to event and longitudinally varying repeated measures outcomes, and aims to increase transparency and reproducibility. We provide an online version of the paper with readily implementable code for the entire analysis pipeline to serve as a guided tutorial for practitioners. The online version can be accessed at https://rydaro.github.io/. The analytic pipeline is illustrated using a sub-cohort of patients with advanced prostate cancer from the large Clinformatics TM Data Mart Database (OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, Minnesota), consisting of 73 million distinct private payer insurees from 2001-2016.
Management of men with advanced prostate cancer has evolved to include urologists, made possible by oral targeted agents (eg, abiraterone or enzalutamide) that can be dispensed directly to patients in the office. We sought to investigate whether this increasingly common model improves access to these agents, especially for Black men who are historically undertreated.We used 20% national Medicare data to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with advanced prostate cancer from 2011 through 2019, managed by urology practices with and without in-office dispensing. Using a difference-in-difference framework, generalized estimating equations were used to measure the effect of in-office dispensing on prescriptions for abiraterone and/or enzalutamide, adjusting for differences between patients, including race.New prescription fills for oral targeted agents increased after the adoption of in-office dispensing (+4.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.4% to 5.4%) relative to that for men managed by practices without dispensing (+2.4%, 95% CI = 1.4% to 3.4%). The increase in the postintervention period (difference-in-difference estimate) was 2% higher (95% CI = 0.6% to 3.4%) for men managed by practices adopting dispensing relative to men managed by practices without dispensing. The effect was strongest for practices adopting dispensing in 2015 (difference-in-difference estimate: +4.2%, 95% CI = 2.3% to 6.2%). The effect of dispensing adoption did not differ by race.Adoption of in-office dispensing by urology practices increased prescription fills for oral targeted agents in men with advanced prostate cancer. This model of delivery may improve access to this important class of medications.
Sipuleucel-T is an immunotherapy that has been approved for use in patients with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, sipuleucel-T may not be available to some patients because of logistics, cost, and practice structure.To identify factors associated with the adoption of sipuleucel-T across the United States.In this retrospective cohort study, patients with prostate cancer who received therapy for mCRPC (docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel, radium 223, or sipuleucel-T) from January 1, 2010, through June 30, 2016, were identified in a large claims database of commercially insured patients. Patients who received sipuleucel-T were compared with patients who received any of the other treatments for mCRPC but did not receive sipuleucel-T. Data were analyzed from May 3, 2018, to February 24, 2019.Sipuleucel-T treatment.Patterns of treatment that involved the use of sipuleucel-T were elucidated, and binomial logistic regression was conducted to determine patient and physician factors that were associated with the use of sipuleucel-T and whether patients received sipuleucel-T in isolation or concurrently with other therapies.Among 7272 patients who received a treatment for mCRPC, 730 (10.0%) received sipuleucel-T. Mean (SD) age of patients in the entire cohort was 73.2 (9.2) years; 6739 (92.7%) were non-Hispanic and 975 (13.4%) were black. In multivariable analysis, patients who were Hispanic (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) or lived in the Pacific region (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.97) had lower odds of receiving sipuleucel-T than patients who were not Hispanic or who lived in the South Atlantic region. Patients with higher incomes had greater odds of receiving sipuleucel-T than patients with incomes of less than $50 000 (OR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.04-1.61] for $50 000-$99 000; OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.10-1.85] for >$99 000). Patients treated by a urologist had greater odds of receiving sipuleucel-T than patients not treated by a urologist (OR, 8.89; 95% CI, 7.10-11.11). Sixty-seven patients received concurrent therapies with sipuleucel-T, most commonly abiraterone or enzalutamide, but no factors were independently associated with patients receiving sipuleucel-T concurrent with other therapies for mCRPC.In this study, 1 of 10 patients with prostate cancer who were treated for mCRPC received sipuleucel-T, with several variables associated with its use. Identifying disparities in receipt of sipuleucel-T may affect future access to this and other highly specialized cancer therapies by defining barriers to treatment that could be addressed in future studies.
Abstract For decades, the mainstay of treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer has been androgen deprivation therapy. In recent years, 4 systemic therapies—docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide—have improved overall survival for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer when combined with androgen deprivation therapy, raising the question of which treatment to choose. The role for metastasis-directed therapy with surgery or radiation among these new treatments has also yet to be defined. Thus, several factors have come into play to guide treatment selection, including disease characteristics, age, fitness, and comorbidities of the patient, potential adverse effects of therapies, and health system considerations such as access to care and financial toxicity. Careful and shared decision making between patient and provider is critical. Future directions aimed at refining our treatment selection include researching the role of novel molecular imaging techniques, biomarkers predicting therapy response, sequencing and combining therapies, and understanding the long-term and late effects of these treatments.
