You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life and Shared Decision Making III1 Apr 2016MP31-09 COMORBIDITY, DISABILITY, AND PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY USE FOR OLDER PATIENTS WITH STAGE I KIDNEY CANCER Hung-Jui Tan, Timothy Daskivich, Joseph Shirk, Christopher Filson, Mark Litwin, and Jim Hu Hung-Jui TanHung-Jui Tan More articles by this author , Timothy DaskivichTimothy Daskivich More articles by this author , Joseph ShirkJoseph Shirk More articles by this author , Christopher FilsonChristopher Filson More articles by this author , Mark LitwinMark Litwin More articles by this author , and Jim HuJim Hu More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.1262AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The surgical risks notwithstanding, the long-term benefits of nephron-sparing may be maximized in patients with poorer health because of their propensity for progressive renal or cardiac disease. Accordingly, we sought to determine if receipt of partial nephrectomy (PN) for stage I kidney cancer varied with baseline comorbidity or disability. METHODS Using SEER-Medicare data from 2000-2009, we applied a validated, claims-based algorithm to identify patients treated with PN or radical nephrectomy (RN) for stage I kidney cancer. For each patient, we measured comorbidity with the Charlson comorbidity score and disability with function-related indicators (FRI), a collection of claims indicative of dysfunction (e.g., mobility-assist devices, falls). Pre-existing diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and kidney disease were also classified. After comparing baseline characteristics, we evaluated trends in PN usage according to comorbidity and disability by applying logistic regression. Finally, we estimated the probability of PN using multivariable, mixed effects models adjusting for patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS Overall, 2,956 of 11,678 patients (25.3%) underwent treatment with PN. Receipt of PN was associated with younger age, male gender, higher socioeconomic position, smaller tumor size, and treatment by a high-volume provider, cancer center, or academic institution (p<0.001). During the study period, PN utilization increased significantly (p<0.001) but did not differ according to comorbidity or disability (Figure). Adjusting for patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics, the predicted probability of PN stood at 22.2%, 22.8%, and 19.6% for patients with Charlson scores of 0, 1, and 2+, respectively. For patients with FRI counts of 0, 1, and 2+, the probability of PN was 21.8%, 22.6%, and 20.3% respectively. Only history of kidney disease appeared to be linked to PN use (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.33-1.66). CONCLUSIONS In this population, the increasing use of PN did not vary with respect to patient comorbidity or disability. As the potential benefits of PN differ according to a patient's underlying health status, selection tools and algorithms that match treatment to patient comorbidity or function may be needed to optimize kidney cancer care in the US. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e422 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Hung-Jui Tan More articles by this author Timothy Daskivich More articles by this author Joseph Shirk More articles by this author Christopher Filson More articles by this author Mark Litwin More articles by this author Jim Hu More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract