• 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2021-03
  • cancer care Because the use of prostate MRI has


     cancer care. Because the use of prostate MRI has grown, and is likely to continue expanding, the cost-effectiveness of MRI-driven pathways are increasingly relevant to the sustainability of the practice. Despite initial high costs associated with obtaining and interpreting MRI studies of the prostate, economic modeling studies imply that MRI would be cost-effective if it D-Luciferin resulted in increased utiliza-tion of AS for low and very-low risk PCa.30 The associa-tion identified in our study between MRI use and initial observation may serve as an informative basis for examin-ing strategies to improve the quality of PCa care with the anticipated growing use of this technology.
    Acknowledgment. The collection of the California cancer incidence data used in this study was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885; the National Cancer Institute’s Surveil-lance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program under contract N01-PC-35136 awarded to the Northern California Cancer Center, contract N01-PC-35139 awarded to the Univer-sity of Southern California, and contract N02-PC-15105 awarded to the Public Health Institute; and the Centers for Dis-ease Control and Prevention's National Program of Cancer Reg-istries, under agreement #U55/CCR921930-02 awarded to the Public Health Institute. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and endorsement by the State of Cali-fornia, Department of Public Health, the National Cancer Insti-tute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or their Contractors and Subcontractors is not intended nor should be inferred. The authors acknowledge the efforts of the Applied Research Program, National Cancer Institute; the Office of Research, Development and Information, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Information Management Services, Inc; and the SEER Program tumor registries in the creation of the SEER-Medicare database. The interpretation and reporting of the SEER-Medicare data are the sole responsibility of the authors. r> SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
    6. Chen RC, Rumble RB, Loblaw DA, et al. Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (cancer care ontario guide-line): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2182–2190.
    7. Weiner AB, Patel SG, Etzioni R, Eggener SE. National trends in the management of low and intermediate risk prostate cancer in the United States. J Urol. 2015;193:95–102. 8. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990-2013. JAMA. 2015;314:80–82. 9. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guide-lines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treat-ment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618–629. 10. Oberlin DT, Casalino DD, Miller FH, Meeks JJ. Dramatic increase in the utilization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for detection and management of prostate cancer. Abdominal Radiol. 2017;42:1255–1258.
    11. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accu-racy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389:815–822.
    12. Coakley FV, Oto A, Alexander LF, et al. ACR appropriateness cri-teria((R)) prostate cancer-pretreatment detection, surveillance, and staging. J Am College Radiol. 2017;14:S245–s257.
    13. Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and gen-eralizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care. 2002;40. IV-3-18.
    14. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation ther-apy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969–974.
    16. Hoffman KE, Niu J, Shen Y, et al. Physician variation in manage-ment of low-risk prostate cancer: a population-based cohort study. JAMA Internal Med. 2014;174:1450–1459. 17. Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity meas-ures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36:8–27. 18. Davidoff AJ, Gardner LD, Zuckerman IH, Hendrick F, Ke X, Edel-man MJ. Validation of disability status, a claims-based measure of functional status for cancer treatment and outcomes studies. Med Care. 2014;52:500–510.
    19. Fewell Z, Davey Smith G, Sterne JA. The impact of residual and unmeasured confounding in epidemiologic studies: a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166:646–655.