Radiation oncologist consultations prior to prostatectomy in Ontario, Canada: Disparities and opportunities.
Authors: Mark T Corkum, Andrew Loblaw, Gerard Morton, Alexander V Louie, Rachel Glicksman, Joseph Chin, Girish S. Kulkarni, Robert E Dinniwell, Barbara Jean Fisher, Refik Saskin, Jason Pantarotto, Andrew Warner, George Rodrigues
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2021)

e17052 Background: Men with localized prostate cancer have many options for initial definitive treatment. In 2015, Cancer Care Ontario Quality Based Procedures (QBP) recommended that men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) in Ontario be seen by a radiation oncologist (RO) or discussed at a multidisciplinary case conference (MCC) prior to surgery. An a-priori target rate of 76% was set by QBP, but to our knowledge, has not been reported upon to date. Our objective was to use population-based data to explore factors associated with not receiving RO consult/MCC prior to RP. Methods: Men with localized prostate cancer diagnosed and treated in Ontario, Canada with RP between 2007 and 2017 were identified using administrative data from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Physician billing data was utilized to identify patients who received RO consult/MCC prior to RP. Trends were evaluated using the Cochran-Armitage test. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify patient and provider factors predictive of RO/MCC prior to RP. Results: 31,467 men with localized prostate cancer underwent RP between 2007 and 2017. Prior to RP, 29.3% of men were seen by RO, 1.0% underwent MCC, and 1.6% had both. RO consult/MCC prior to RP increased from 18.0% in 2007 to 47.8% in 2017 ( p&lt;0.001). On multivariable analysis, the Odds Ratio (OR) of RO consult/MCC prior to RP between the lowest and highest geographic regions (LHINs) was 8.79 (95% CI 6.83–11.32, p&lt;0.001). RO consult/MCC was less likely to occur for patients living further from the nearest cancer center (OR 0.74 per 50km, 95% CI 0.70–0.77, p&lt;0.001) and more likely to occur for men residing in the highest versus lowest income quintile regions (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.30–1.55, p&lt;0.001). Men with NCCN Low (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.16–1.47, p&lt;0.001), High (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09–1.31, p&lt;0.001) or Very High (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11–1.30, p&lt;0.001) risk disease were more likely to receive RO consult/MCC compared to those with favourable-intermediate risk disease. Of the 128 urologists who performed at least 10 RP between 2016 and 2017, RO referral/MCC rate ranged from 0% to 100%, with 31 urologists (24.2%) having ≥76% of their patients seen prior to RP. To meet QBP targets in 2017, an additional 701 men would have needed RO consult/MCC. If all were seen by RO, approximately 2.4 additional full time equivalent RO positions would be needed. Conclusions: Despite increasing rates of utilization, a large proportion of men are not seen by RO or MCC prior to RP in Ontario, Canada. While the largest factors predicting RO consult/MCC discussion appear to be geographic and which urologist performs the RP, these factors are closely intertwined. In addition, these factors may be related to RO availability and radiation system capacity, which would need to be addressed to meet patient demand should QBP consultation rates be mandated to reduce disparities in pre-RP consultation practices.