Impact of cancer service centralisation on the radical treatment of men with high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer: A national cross-sectional analysis in England

Timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy (RP): long-term outcomes in the RADICALS-RT trial (NCT00541047)

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer has been uncertain. RADICALS-RT compared efficacy and safety of adjuvant RT versus an observation policy with salvage RT for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

RADICALS-RT was a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with ≥1 risk factor (pT3/4, Gleason 7-10, positive margins, preoperative PSA≥10 ng/ml) for recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Patients were randomised 1:1 to adjuvant RT ('Adjuvant-RT') or an observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure ('Salvage-RT') defined as PSA≥0.1 ng/ml or three consecutive rises. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned RT schedule (52.5 Gy/20 fractions or 66 Gy/33 fractions) and treatment centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom-from-distant-metastasis (FFDM), designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with Salvage-RT (control) to 95% at 10 years with Adjuvant-RT. Secondary outcome measures were biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used; hazard ratio (HR)<1 favours Adjuvant-RT.

RESULTS

Between October 2007 and December 2016, 1396 participants from UK, Denmark, Canada and Ireland were randomised: 699 Salvage-RT, 697 Adjuvant-RT. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years. Ninety-three percent (649/697) Adjuvant-RT reported RT within 6 months after randomisation; 39% (270/699) Salvage-RT reported RT during follow-up. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. With 80 distant metastasis events, 10-year FFDM was 93% for Adjuvant-RT and 90% for Salvage-RT: HR=0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.07, P=0.095]. Of 109 deaths, 17 were due to prostate cancer. Overall survival was not improved (HR=0.980, 95% CI 0.667-1.440, P=0.917). Adjuvant-RT reported worse urinary and faecal incontinence 1 year after randomisation (P=0.001); faecal incontinence remained significant after 10 years (P=0.017).

CONCLUSION

Long-term results from RADICALS-RT confirm adjuvant RT after radical prostatectomy increases the risk of urinary and bowel morbidity, but does not meaningfully improve disease control. An observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy.

TRIAL IDENTIFICATION

RADICALS, RADICALS-RT, ISRCTN40814031, NCT00541047.

The impact of transportation mode, socioeconomic deprivation and rurality on travel times to radiotherapy and surgical services for patients with prostate cancer: A national population-based evaluation

BACKGROUND

The distances that patients have to travel can influence their access to cancer treatment. We investigated the determinants of travel time, separately for journeys by car and public transport, to centres providing radical surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

METHODS

Using national cancer registry records linked to administrative hospital data, we identified patients who had radical surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer between January 2017 and December 2018 in the English National Health Service. Estimated travel times from the patients' residential area to the nearest specialist surgical or radiotherapy centre were estimated for journeys by car and by public transport.

RESULTS

We included 13,186 men who had surgery and 26,581 who had radiotherapy. Estimated travel times by public transport (74.4 mins for surgery and 69.4 mins for radiotherapy) were more than twice as long as by car (33.4 mins and 29.1mins, respectively). Patients living in more socially deprived neighbourhoods in rural areas had the longest travel times to the nearest cancer treatment centres by car (62.0 mins for surgery and 52.1 mins for radiotherapy). Conversely patients living in more affluent neighbourhoods in urban conurbations had the shortest (18.7 mins for surgery and 17.9 mins for radiotherapy).

CONCLUSION

Travel times to cancer centres vary widely according to mode of transport, socioeconomic deprivation, and rurality. Policies changing the geographical configuration of cancer services should consider the impact on the expected travel times both by car and by public transport to avoid enhancing existing inequalities in access to treatment and patient outcomes.

Impact of centralization of prostate cancer services on the choice of radical treatment

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of centralization of prostate cancer surgery and radiotherapy services on the choice of prostate cancer treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This national population-based study used linked cancer registry data and administrative hospital-level data for all 16 621 patients who were diagnosed between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) or radical radiation therapy (RT) in the English National Health Service (NHS). Travel times by car to treating centres were estimated using a geographic information system. We used logistic regression to assess the impact of the relative proximity of alternative treatment options on the type of treatment received, with adjustment for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 78 NHS hospitals that provide RT or RP for prostate cancer, 41% provide both, 36% provide RT and 23% provide RP. Compared to patients who had both treatment options available at their nearest centre where overall 57% of patients received RT and 43% RP, patients were less likely to receive RT if their nearest centre offered RP only and the extra travel time to a hospital providing RT was >15 min (52% of patients received RT and 48% RP%, odds ratio [OR] 0.70 (0.58-0.85); P < 0.001). Conversely, patients were more likely to receive RT if their nearest centre offered RT and the extra travel time to a hospital providing RP was >15 min (63% of patients received RT and 37% RP, OR 1.23 (1.08-1.40); P < 0.001). There was a negligible impact on the type of treatment received if centres providing alternative treatment options were ≤15-min travel time from each other.

CONCLUSION

The relative proximity of prostate cancer treatment options to a patient's residence is an independent predictor for the type of radical treatment received. Centralization policies for prostate cancer should not focus on one treatment modality but should consider all treatments to avoid a negative impact on treatment choice.

Trends and variation in the use of radiotherapy in non-metastatic prostate cancer: A 12-year nationwide overview from the Netherlands

PURPOSE

This population-based study describes nationwide trends and variation in the use of primary radiotherapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer in The Netherlands in 2008-2019.

METHODS

Prostate cancer patients were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (N = 103,059). Treatment trends were studied over time by prognostic risk groups. Multilevel analyses were applied to identify variables associated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachy-monotherapy versus no active treatment in low-risk disease, and EBRT versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate and high-risk disease.

RESULTS

EBRT use remained stable (5-6%) in low-risk prostate cancer and increased from 21% to 32% in intermediate-risk, 37% to 45% in high-risk localized and 50% to 57% in high-risk locally advanced disease. Brachy-monotherapy decreased from 19% to 6% and from 15% to 10% in low and intermediate-risk disease, respectively, coinciding an increase of no active treatment from 55% to 73% in low-risk disease. Use of EBRT or brachy-monotherapy versus no active treatment in low-risk disease differed by region, T-stage and patient characteristics. Hospital characteristics were not associated with treatment in low-risk disease, except for availability of brachy-monotherapy in 2008-2013. Age, number of comorbidities, travel time for EBRT, prognostic risk group, and hospital characteristics were associated with EBRT versus prostatectomy in intermediate and high-risk disease.

CONCLUSION

Intermediate/high-risk PCa was increasingly managed with EBRT, while brachy-monotherapy in low/intermediate-risk PCa decreased. In low-risk PCa, the no active treatment-approach increased. Variation in treatment suggests treatment decision related to patient/disease characteristics. In intermediate/high-risk disease, variation seems furthermore related to the treatment modalities available in the diagnosing hospitals.

Socioeconomic Status and Distance to Reference Centers for Complex Cancer Diseases: A Source of Health Inequalities? A Population Cohort Study Based on Catalonia (Spain)

The centralization of complex surgical procedures for cancer in Catalonia may have led to geographical and socioeconomic inequities. In this population-based cohort study, we assessed the impacts of these two factors on 5-year survival and quality of care in patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer (2011–12) and pancreatic cancer (2012–15) in public centers, adjusting for age, comorbidity, and tumor stage. We used data on the geographical distance between the patients’ homes and their reference centers, clinical patient and treatment data, income category, and data from the patients’ district hospitals. A composite ‘textbook outcome’ was created from five subindicators of hospitalization. We included 646 cases of pancreatic cancer (12 centers) and 1416 of rectal cancer (26 centers). Distance had no impact on survival for pancreatic cancer patients and was not related to worse survival in rectal cancer. Compared to patients with medium–high income, the risk of death was higher in low-income patients with pancreatic cancer (hazard ratio (HR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15–1.86) and very-low-income patients with rectal cancer (HR 5.14, 95% CI 3.51–7.52). Centralization was not associated with worse health outcomes in geographically dispersed patients, including for survival. However, income level remained a significant determinant of survival.

Associations of hospital volume and hospital competition with short-term, middle-term and long-term patient outcomes after breast cancer surgery: a retrospective population-based study

OBJECTIVES

For oncological care, there is a clear tendency towards centralisation and collaboration aimed at improving patient outcomes. However, in market-based healthcare systems, this trend is related to the potential trade-off between hospital volume and hospital competition. We analyse the association between hospital volume, competition from neighbouring hospitals and outcomes for patients who underwent surgery for invasive breast cancer (IBC).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Surgical margins, 90 days re-excision, overall survival.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

In this population-based study, we use data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Our study sample consists of 136 958 patients who underwent surgery for IBC between 2004 and 2014 in the Netherlands.

RESULTS

Our findings show that treatment types as well as patient and tumour characteristics explain most of the variation in all outcomes. After adjusting for confounding variables and intrahospital correlation in multivariate logistic regressions, hospital volume and competition from neighbouring hospitals did not show significant associations with surgical margins and re-excision rates. For patients who underwent surgery in hospitals annually performing 250 surgeries or more, multilevel Cox proportional hazard models show that survival was somewhat higher (HR 0.94). Survival in hospitals with four or more (potential) competitors within 30 km was slightly higher (HR 0.97). However, this effect did not hold after changing this proxy for hospital competition.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the selection of patient outcomes, hospital volume and regional competition appear to play only a limited role in the explanation of variation in IBC outcomes across Dutch hospitals. Further research into hospital variation for high-volume tumours like the one studied here is recommended to (i) use consistently measured quality indicators that better reflect multidisciplinary clinical practice and patient and provider decision-making, (ii) include more sophisticated measures for hospital competition and (iii) assess the entire process of care within the hospital, as well as care provided by other providers in cancer networks.

Comparison of the treatment of men with prostate cancer between the US and England: an international population-based study

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of prostate cancer varies between the United States (US) and England, however this has not been well characterised using recent data. We therefore investigated the extent of the differences between US and English patients with respect to initial treatment.

METHODS

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the US and the treatments they received. We also used the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database for the same purposes among men diagnosed with prostate cancer in England. Next, we used multivariable regression to estimate the adjusted risk ratio (aRR) of receiving radical local treatment for men with non-metastatic prostate cancer according to the country of diagnosis (US vs. England). The five-tiered Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) classification was included as an interaction term.

RESULTS

We identified 109,697 patients from the SEER database, and 74,393 patients from the NPCA database, who were newly diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer between April 1st 2014 and December 31st 2016 with sufficient information for risk stratification according to the CPG classification. Men in the US were more likely to receive radical local treatment across all prognostic groups compared to men in England (% radical treatment US vs. England, CPG1: 38.1% vs. 14.3% - aRR 2.57, 95% CI 2.47-2.68; CPG2: 68.6% vs. 52.6% - aRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.25-1.29; CPG3: 76.7% vs. 67.1% - aRR 1.12, 95% CI 1.10-1.13; CPG4: 82.6% vs. 72.4% - aRR 1.09, 95% CI 1.08-1.10; CPG5: 78.2% vs. 71.7% - aRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.07) CONCLUSIONS: Treatment rates were higher in the US compared to England raising potential over-treatment concerns for low-risk disease (CPG1) in the US and under-treatment of clinically significant disease (CPG3-5) in England.

Centralisation of Care for Prevalent Urological Malignancies: The Case for Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer presents a significant challenge and burden for health care centres across the world. In the UK and other parts of Europe, as well as areas of the USA, centralisation of services has been implemented. In the UK and Europe, hospital centres are split into a hub-and-spoke system. High-volume centres carry out treatment as hubs and local hospitals carry out diagnostics and referrals as spokes. In this narrative mini-review we evaluate whether centralisation of services has improved patient outcomes, streamlined the use of resources, and reduced costs. We also discuss the positive and negative impacts of centralisation of prostate cancer services. PATIENT SUMMARY: This mini-review discusses the current use of centralisation of prostate cancer services. We assess the evidence in favour of centralisation as well as the issues it can present to both health care systems and patients.

An observational study of volume-outcome effects for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in England

OBJECTIVES

To investigate volume-outcome relationships in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for cancer using data from the Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) database for England.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data for all adult, elective RPs for cancer during the period January 2013-December 2018 (inclusive) were extracted from the HES database. The HES database records data on all National Health Service (NHS) hospital admissions in England. Data were extracted for the NHS trust and surgeon undertaking the procedure, the surgical technique used (laparoscopic, open or robot-assisted), hospital length of stay (LOS), emergency readmissions, and deaths. Multilevel modelling was used to adjust for hierarchy and covariates.

RESULTS

Data were available for 35 629 RPs (27 945 RARPs). The proportion of procedures conducted as RARPs increased from 53.2% in 2013 to 92.6% in 2018. For RARP, there was a significant relationship between 90-day emergency hospital readmission (primary outcome) and trust volume (odds ratio [OR] for volume decrease of 10 procedures: 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.00; P = 0.037) and surgeon volume (OR for volume decrease of 10 procedures: 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00; P = 0.013) in the previous year. From lowest to highest volume category there was a decline in the adjusted proportion of patients readmitted as an emergency at 90 days from 10.6% (0-49 procedures) to 7.0% (≥300 procedures) for trusts and from 9.4% (0-9 procedures) to 8.3% (≥100 procedures) for surgeons. LOS was also significantly associated with surgeon and trust volume, although 1-year mortality was associated with neither.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence of a volume-outcome relationship for RARP in England and minimising low-volume RARP will improve patient outcomes. Nevertheless, the observed effect size was relatively modest, and stakeholders should be realistic when evaluating the likely impact of further centralisation at a population level.

Timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT): a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer is uncertain. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant radiotherapy versus an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) biochemical progression.

METHODS

We did a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with at least one risk factor (pathological T-stage 3 or 4, Gleason score of 7-10, positive margins, or preoperative PSA ≥10 ng/mL) for biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT). The study took place in trial-accredited centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to adjuvant radiotherapy or an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression (PSA ≥0·1 ng/mL or three consecutive rises). Masking was not deemed feasible. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned radiotherapy schedule (52·5 Gy in 20 fractions or 66 Gy in 33 fractions), and centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom from distant metastases, designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with salvage radiotherapy (control) to 95% at 10 years with adjuvant radiotherapy. We report on biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used. A hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1 favoured adjuvant radiotherapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 22, 2007, and Dec 30, 2016, 1396 patients were randomly assigned, 699 (50%) to salvage radiotherapy and 697 (50%) to adjuvant radiotherapy. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years (IQR 60-68). Median follow-up was 4·9 years (IQR 3·0-6·1). 649 (93%) of 697 participants in the adjuvant radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 6 months; 228 (33%) of 699 in the salvage radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 8 years after randomisation. With 169 events, 5-year biochemical progression-free survival was 85% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 88% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 1·10, 95% CI 0·81-1·49; p=0·56). Freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy at 5 years was 93% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 92% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·58-1·33; p=0·53). Self-reported urinary incontinence was worse at 1 year for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group (mean score 4·8 vs 4·0; p=0·0023). Grade 3-4 urethral stricture within 2 years was reported in 6% of individuals in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 4% in the salvage radiotherapy group (p=0·020).

INTERPRETATION

These initial results do not support routine administration of adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adjuvant radiotherapy increases the risk of urinary morbidity. An observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, and Canadian Cancer Society.

Risk stratification for prostate cancer management: value of the Cambridge Prognostic Group classification for assessing treatment allocation

BACKGROUND

The five-tiered Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) classification is a better predictor of prostate cancer-specific mortality than the traditional three-tiered classification (low, intermediate, and high risk). We investigated radical treatment rates according to CPG in men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer in England between 2014 and 2017.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer were identified from the National Prostate Cancer Audit database. Men were risk stratified according to the CPG classification. Risk ratios (RR) were estimated for undergoing radical treatment according to CPG and for receiving radiotherapy for those treated radically. Funnel plots were used to display variation in radical treatment rates across hospitals.

RESULTS

A total of 61,999 men were included with 10,963 (17.7%) in CPG1 (lowest risk group), 13,588 (21.9%) in CPG2, 9452 (15.2%) in CPG3, 12,831 (20.7%) in CPG4, and 15,165 (24.5%) in CPG5 (highest risk group). The proportion of men receiving radical treatment increased from 11.3% in CPG1 to 78.8% in CGP4, and 73.3% in CPG5. Men in CPG3 were more likely to receive radical treatment than men in CPG2 (66.3% versus 48.4%; adjusted RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.36-1.53; P < 0.001). Radically treated men in CPG3 were also more likely to receive radiotherapy than men in CPG2 (59.2% versus 43.9%; adjusted RR, 1.18; 95% CI 1.10-1.26). Although radical treatment rates were similar in CPG4 and CPG5 (78.8% versus 73.3%; adjusted RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98-1.04), more men in CPG5 had radiotherapy than men in CPG4 (79.9% versus 59.1%, adjusted RR 1.26; 95% CI 1.12-1.40).

CONCLUSIONS

The CPG classification distributes men in five risk groups that are about equal in size. It reveals differences in treatment practices in men with intermediate-risk disease (CPG2 and CPG3) and in men with high-risk disease (CPG4 and CPGP5) that are not visible when using the traditional three-tiered risk classification.

Simulating the impact of centralization of prostate cancer surgery services on travel burden and equity in the English National Health Service: A national population based model for health service re-design

Introduction

There is limited evidence on the impact of centralization of cancer treatment services on patient travel burden and access to treatment. Using prostate cancer surgery as an example, this national study analysis aims to simulate the effect of different centralization scenarios on the number of center closures, patient travel times, and equity in access.

Methods

We used patient‐level data on all men (n = 19,256) undergoing radical prostatectomy in the English National Health Service between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014, and considered three scenarios for centralization of prostate cancer surgery services A: procedure volume, B: availability of specialized services, and C: optimization of capacity. The probability of patients travelling to each of the remaining centers in the choice set was predicted using a conditional logit model, based on preferences revealed through actual hospital selections. Multivariable linear regression analysed the impact on travel time according to patient characteristics.

Results

Scenarios A, B, and C resulted in the closure of 28, 24, and 37 of the 65 radical prostatectomy centers, respectively, affecting 3993 (21%), 5763 (30%), and 7896 (41%) of the men in the study. Despite similar numbers of center closures the expected average increase on travel time was very different for scenario B (+15 minutes) and A (+28 minutes). A distance minimization approach, assigning patients to their next nearest center, with patient preferences not considered, estimated a lower impact on travel burden in all scenarios. The additional travel burden on older, sicker, less affluent patients was evident, but where significant, the absolute difference was very small.

Conclusion

The study provides an innovative simulation approach using national patient‐level datasets, patient preferences based on actual hospital selections, and personal characteristics to inform health service planning. With this approach, we demonstrated for prostate cancer surgery that three different centralization scenarios would lead to similar number of center closures but to different increases in patient travel time, whilst all having a minimal impact on equity.