Certificate of Need and Use of Imrt in Elderly Patients with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

Grace L. Lu-Yao,Carl Nelson,Shunhua Shen,Yu-Hsuan Shao,Hui Li,Tina M. Mayer,Dirk Moore,Sung Kim
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.31.6_suppl.204
IF: 45.3
2013-01-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:204 Background: Certificate of Need (CON) laws are optional from state to state, and are meant to limit proliferation of certain unnecessary medical facilities. Theoretically, CON should limit the use of IMRT (intensity modulated radiation therapy) in the population who likely would benefit from it the least: older or debilitated men with low risk prostate cancer. We evaluated the effect of CON on IMRT use in these patients in a population-based cohort. Methods: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database linked with Medicare files, we identified male residents of SEER regions who were diagnosed between 2004-07 with low- risk prostate cancer (T1, Gleason≤6, PSA<10) and were either ≥70 years old or ≥65 years old with Charlson comorbidity score ≥ 2. The endpoint was percentage of newly diagnosed patients who were treated with IMRT within 12 month of cancer diagnosis. Logistic regression was used to assess the impact of CON laws on IMRT use. Results: 2,263 (33%) of the patients came from states with radiation oncology CON laws, whereas 4,622 (67%) came from non-CON states. IMRT was performed on 28% of CON patients versus 24% of non-CON patients. Logistic regression analysis using two sided p-values revealed that IMRT is actually utilized more often in CON states than in non-CON states, with an odds ratio of 1.23 (95% CI 1.10-1.39, p<0.001). Conclusions: CON laws do not effectively limit use of IMRT in older or debilitated patients with low risk prostate cancer.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?