You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized: Active Surveillance I1 Apr 2018MP12-11 RATES AND RISK FACTORS OF LOST TO FOLLOW UP IN PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS MANAGED WITH ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE Kevin Ginsburg, Gregory Auffenberg, Ji Qi, Isaac Powell, James Montie, David Miller, Michael Cher, and For the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative Kevin GinsburgKevin Ginsburg More articles by this author , Gregory AuffenbergGregory Auffenberg More articles by this author , Ji QiJi Qi More articles by this author , Isaac PowellIsaac Powell More articles by this author , James MontieJames Montie More articles by this author , David MillerDavid Miller More articles by this author , Michael CherMichael Cher More articles by this author , and For the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement CollaborativeFor the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.398AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as an appropriate management strategy for many men with prostate cancer (PC), however insufficient monitoring may increase the risk of undesired outcomes. We evaluated a large AS cohort across diverse practices in Michigan to determine rates of loss to follow-up (LTFU) and associated risk factors. METHODS MUSIC maintains a prospective registry of PC patients from 44 academic and community urology practices within the state of Michigan. We identified all patients in the registry managed with AS from 2011-2015. We defined LTFU as any 18-month period where no pertinent surveillance information was identified in the medical record by trained data abstractors (i.e., no PSA, prostate CT/MRI, or prostate biopsy). LTFU events were stratified as either (1) prolonged loss to follow up (PLTFU): a LTFU event with no further data entered; or (2) insufficient follow up (IFU): a LTFU event followed by subsequent data. We fit multivariable logistic regression models and compared adjusted rates of LTFU events across MUSIC practices. RESULTS Of 2211 men enrolled on AS from 2011-2015, 217 (9.8%) had a LTFU event. Of these, 184 (8.3%) patients had PLTFU and 33 (1.5%) had IFU. African American (AA) patients were more likely than Caucasian patients to be LTFU (17.0% vs 7.4%, p<0.05). In multivariable analyses, both AA race (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.42-3.92) and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) of ≥1 (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.03-2.27) were independently associated with an increased likelihood of LTFU. There was wide variability in rates of LTFU across MUSIC practices, ranging from 2.6% to 41.4% of patients entering AS, p<0.05 (Figure 1). CONCLUSIONS Nearly ten percent of men placed on AS become LTFU, representing suboptimal implementation of this management strategy. Patient-specific factors associated with being LTFU include AA race and higher burden of medical co-morbidity. Practice-level variability in LTFU may reveal opportunities to identify systems of care used in higher-performing practices that can reduce LTFU across all sites thereby improving the long-term safety of AS for men with early-stage PC. © 2018FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 199Issue 4SApril 2018Page: e139-e140 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018MetricsAuthor Information Kevin Ginsburg More articles by this author Gregory Auffenberg More articles by this author Ji Qi More articles by this author Isaac Powell More articles by this author James Montie More articles by this author David Miller More articles by this author Michael Cher More articles by this author For the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract