Real-world use of bone modifying agents in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer

Costs to Medicare of Nonrecommended Bone-Modifying Agent Use for Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) do not prevent skeletal-related events among patients with castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC), but many patients receive BMAs unnecessarily. The costs to Medicare from overuse have not been assessed.

METHODS

We used linked SEER-Medicare data 2011-2015 to measure the frequency and number of doses of zoledronic acid (ZA) and denosumab received during CSPC (between diagnosis and initiation of metastatic, castration resistant prostate cancer therapy). We estimated excess BMA among patients who received BMA therapy for CSPC and did not have an indication for osteoporosis fracture prevention. We used the Medicare fee schedule for drug prices and peer-reviewed sources to estimate adverse event frequencies and costs.

RESULTS

Median CSPC duration was 387 days (IQR, 253-573), during which time 42% of patients received ≥one dose of denosumab (mean doses, 7) and 18% received ≥one dose of ZA (mean doses, 7). Thirty-eight percent of those receiving denosumab and 47% of those receiving ZA had a history of osteoporosis, osteopenia, spine or hip fracture, or hypercalcemia. The estimated, annual excess BMA cost to Medicare was $44,105,041 in US dollars (USD), composed of $43,303,078 USD and $45,512 USD in drug costs for denosumab and ZA, respectively, and $682,865 USD and $75,585 USD in adverse event costs, respectively. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the estimate was most sensitive to denosumab dosing frequency (estimate range, $28,469,237 USD-$98,830,351 USD) and duration of CSPC (estimate range, $36,823,311 USD-$99,015,908 USD).

CONCLUSION

BMA overuse in CSPC incurs substantial cost to Medicare, largely because of denosumab drug costs. Excess costs may be reduced by greater adherence to guideline-concordant BMA use.

Physician knowledge, practice patterns, and barriers encountered regarding guideline-concordant use of bone modifying agents for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend bone-modifying agents (BMAs) for patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and bone metastasis, but not for castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC). Physicians beliefs and practices regarding BMA therapy are poorly understood.

METHODS

This was a qualitative interview study with embedded Likert-scale elements. Study participants were physicians who treat prostate cancer, located within an academic cancer center or an affiliated community-based network. Participants were asked about their experiences and practice patterns regarding BMA therapy. Participants used Likert-scale items to identify the most common barriers to guideline-concordant BMA use and the most effective potential interventions. Participants were subsequently asked to rank the three most common barriers and the three most effective interventions to reduce underuse (for CRPC) and overuse (for CSPC).

RESULTS

Nineteen physicians were invited and 15 participated; one physician did not answer some questions as outside of their practice scope. All were aware of the recommendation for BMAs in CRPC. 14% (2/14) were unaware of the recommendation against BMA use for CSPC; an additional 29% (4/14) believed that BMA use could be appropriate for CSPC depending on the metastatic disease burden. 36% (5/14) were unaware of recommendations for screening and treatment of low bone mineral density. The most common barriers (occurring "often" or "sometimes") were obtaining dental clearance (11/15) and insufficient clinic time (6/15). The interventions identified as most effective to reduce underuse were dental navigation (11/15) and electronic medical record (EMR)-based guidance (9/15). The interventions identified as most effective to reduce overuse were peer-to-peer education (14/15) and EMR-based guidance (13/15).

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness of guideline recommendations for screening and treatment of low bone mineral density and against BMA use for CSPC was good, but not complete. Dental navigation, peer-to-peer education, and EMR-based guidance were preferred intervention strategies to improve guideline-concordant use.

Determinants of Bone-Modifying Agent Prescribing for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in a National Health Care Delivery System

PURPOSE

Despite guidelines recommending bone-modifying agents (BMAs) to decrease skeletal-related events (SREs) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), BMAs are underutilized. In this retrospective cohort study, we report the factors associated with BMA use in a national health care delivery system.

METHODS

We used the Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse to identify men with mCRPC between 2010 and 2017. BMA prescribing frequency was evaluated, and the association between patient- and disease-specific factors with BMA use was assessed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 3,980 men identified with mCRPC (mean age 73.5 years, 29% Black), 47% received a BMA; median time to BMA from start of mCRPC treatment was 102 days. Factors associated with BMA use included previous BMA use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 7.81 [95% CI, 6.48 to 9.47]), diagnosis code for bone metastases (aOR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.08 to 1.46]), and concomitant corticosteroid use (aOR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.29 to 1.82]). Decreased BMA use was associated with advancing age (aOR, 0.85 per 10 years [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.92]), Charlson comorbidity index ≥2 (aOR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.93]), Black race (aOR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.98]), and decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; aOR, 0.19 [95% CI, 0.11 to 0.32] for eGFR 0-29 mL/minutes; aOR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.91] for 30-59 mL/minutes).

CONCLUSION

Patients who are older, Black, or have more comorbidities are less likely to receive guideline concordant care to prevent SREs. These observations highlight the unique challenges of caring for patients with mCRPC and the need for future studies to increase BMA use in these populations.

Vertical integration of oncologists and cancer outcomes and costs in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The share of oncology practices owned by hospitals (ie, vertically integrated) nearly doubled from 2007 to 2017. We examined how integration between hospitals and oncologists affected care quality, outcomes, and spending among metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients.

METHODS

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data and the Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty, we identified Medicare beneficiaries who initiated systemic therapy for mCRPC between 2008 and 2017 (n = 9172). Primary outcomes included 1) bone-modifying agents (BMA) use, 2) time on systemic therapy, 3) survival, and 4) Medicare spending for the first 3 months following therapy initiation. We used a differences-in-differences approach to estimate the impact of vertical integration on outcomes, adjusting for patient and provider characteristics.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients treated by integrated oncologists increased from 28% to 55% from 2008 to 2017. Vertical integration was associated with an 11.7 percentage point (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.2 to 19.1) increased likelihood of BMA use. There were no satistically significant changes in time on systemic therapy, survival, or total per-patient Medicare spending. Further decomposition showed an increase in outpatient payment ($5190, 95% CI = $1451 to $8930) and decrease in professional service payment (-$4757, 95% CI = -$7644 to -$1870) but no statistically significant changes for other service types (eg, inpatient and prescription drugs).

CONCLUSIONS

Vertical integration was associated with statistically significant increased BMA use but not with other cancer outcomes among mCRPC patients. For oncologists who switched service billing from physician offices to outpatient departments, there was no statistically significant change in overall Medicare spending in the first 3 months of therapy initiation. Future studies should extend the investigation to other cancer types and patient outcomes.

Improving Bone Health in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer with the Use of Algorithm-Based Clinical Practice Tool

Background: The bone health of patients with locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer is at risk from treatment-related bone density loss and skeletal-related events from metastatic disease in bones. Evidence-based guidelines recommend using denosumab or zoledronic acid at bone metastasis-indicated dosages in the setting of castration-resistant prostate cancer with bone metastases and at the osteoporosis-indicated dosages in the hormone-sensitive setting in patients with a significant risk of fragility fracture. For the concerns of jaw osteonecrosis, a dental evaluation is recommended before starting bone-modifying agents. The literature review suggests a limited evidence-based practice for bone health with prostate cancer in the real world. Both under-treatment and inappropriate dosing of bone remodeling therapies place additional risks to bone health. An incomplete dental work up before starting bone-modifying agents increases the risk of jaw osteonecrosis. Methods: We created an algorithm-based clinical practice tool to minimize the deviation from evidence-based guidelines at our center and provide appropriate bone health care to our patients by ensuring indication-appropriate dosing and dental screening rates. This order set was incorporated into the electronic medical record system for ordering a bone remodeling agent for prostate cancer. The tool prompts the clinicians to follow the appropriate algorithm in a stepwise manner to ensure a pretreatment dental evaluation and use of the correct dosage of drugs. Results: We analyzed the data from Sept 2019 to April 2022 following the incorporation of this tool. 0/35 (0%) patients were placed on inappropriate bone modifying agent dosing, and dental health was addressed in every patient before initiating treatment. We compared the change in the practice of prescribing and noted a significant difference in the clinician’s practice while prescribing denosumab/zoledronic acid before and after implementation of this tool [incorrect dosing: 24/41 vs. 0/35 (p < 0.00001)]; and an improvement in pretreatment dental checkup before and after implementation of the tool was noted to be [missed dental evaluation:12/41 vs. 0/35 (p < 0.00001)]. Conclusion: We found that incorporating an evidence-based algorithm in the order set while prescribing bone remodeling agents significantly improved our institutional clinical practice of indication-appropriate dosing and dental screening rates, and facilitated high-quality, evidence-based care to our patients with prostate cancer.