Real-World Clinical and Economic Outcomes Among Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer Treated with External Beam Radiation Therapy Across Different Risk Stratifications in the United States.
6 affiliations
- 1START Carolinas/Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA.
- 2Chesapeake Urology, Towson, Maryland, USA.
- 3Johnson & Johnson, Horsham, Pennsylvania, USA.
- 4Analysis Group, Inc., Montréal, Canada.
- 5Advent Health Urology, Denver, Colorado, USA.
- 6New Jersey Urology, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, USA.
Abstract
Background
External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is an effective treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC). Despite the widespread use of EBRT, evaluation of outcomes based on LPC risk status is limited.Objectives
To comprehensively compare clinical and economic outcomes between patients with high-risk vs low/intermediate-risk LPC following EBRT in real-world United States (US) clinical practice.Methods
This retrospective study used linked patient-level electronic medical record data from PPS Analytics and administrative claims data from the Komodo Research Database (1 January 2016-31 August 2024). Patients with LPC treated with EBRT (date of the first claim was defined as the index date) were identified and stratified into high-risk and low/intermediate-risk cohorts based on clinical guidelines incorporating information based on localized cancer staging, Gleason score, and prostate-specific antigen level. Baseline characteristics were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting. A weighted Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare metastasis-free survival (MFS) and event-free survival (EFS) between cohorts. Weighted ordinary least squares regression was used to compare all-cause and PC-related healthcare costs (2024 US dollars), measured per-patient-per-year (PPPY), in the subgroup of patients with continuous insurance eligibility.Results
In total, 5984 and 10 471 patients were included in the high-risk and low/intermediate-risk LPC cohorts, respectively. Patients with low/intermediate-risk vs high-risk LPC had significantly longer MFS (36-month hazard ratio [HR]; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.47 [2.15, 2.84], P < .001; 60-month HR: 2.29 [2.05, 2.55], P < .001) and EFS (36-month HR: 1.84 [1.65, 2.06], P < .001; 60-month HR: 1.90 [1.73, 2.08], P < .001). Among the subgroup of patients with continuous insurance eligibility (high-risk: 980 patients; low/intermediate-risk: 1862 patients), patients with high-risk LPC incurred significantly higher mean total all-cause healthcare costs (cost difference [95% CI]: 8269 PPPY [3869, 12 800], P < .001) and mean total PC−related healthcare costs (9053 PPPY [5232, 13 147], P < .001) post-index compared with those with low/intermediate-risk LPC.Conclusion
Patients with high-risk vs low/intermediate-risk LPC had significantly worse survival outcomes and incurred significantly higher costs following EBRT, consistent with the greater disease burden associated with high-risk disease. More effective treatment strategies are needed to further improve clinical outcomes and reduce economic burden among this patient population.
Related
- Case Report: Clinical improvement of localized chronic eczema following multisegmental paraspinal electroacupuncture
- Optimising cost and treatment simplicity of PD-1 blockade in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an economic analysis of three clinical trials in China
- Shared Governance for Effective Clinical Education in Medical Radiation Science: A Narrative Review
- Efficacy and safety of narlumosbart in combination with stereotactic body radiation therapy followed by first-line chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy in advanced driver gene-negative non-small cell lung cancer patients with bone metastases: a phase II, single-arm, single-centre clinical trial protocol
- Pulmonary Vein Isolation with Different Single-Shot Ablation Devices in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Prospective Observational Single-Center Clinical Evaluation
BibTeX
@article{shore2026realworld,
title = {{Real-World Clinical and Economic Outcomes Among Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer Treated with External Beam Radiation Therapy Across Different Risk Stratifications in the United States.}},
author = {Neal Shore and Benjamin Lowentritt and Charmi Patel and Sabree Burbage and Frederic Kinkead and Carmine Rossi and Francesca Lee and Dominic Pilon and Lawrence Karsh and Gordon Brown},
journal = {Journal of health economics and outcomes research},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.36469/001c.171930},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42968839},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Real-World Clinical and Economic Outcomes Among Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer Treated with External Beam Radiation Therapy Across Different Risk Stratifications in the United States.
AU - Neal Shore
AU - Benjamin Lowentritt
AU - Charmi Patel
AU - Sabree Burbage
AU - Frederic Kinkead
AU - Carmine Rossi
AU - Francesca Lee
AU - Dominic Pilon
AU - Lawrence Karsh
AU - Gordon Brown
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/30
JO - Journal of health economics and outcomes research
DO - 10.36469/001c.171930
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42968839
AB - Background External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is an effective treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC). Despite the widespread use of EBRT, evaluation of outcomes based on LPC risk status is limited.Objectives To comprehensively compare clinical and economic outcomes between patients with high-risk vs low/intermediate-risk LPC following EBRT in real-world United States (US) clinical practice.Methods This retrospective study used linked patient-level electronic medical record data from PPS Analytics and administrative claims data from the Komodo Research Database (1 January 2016-31 August 2024). Patients with LPC treated with EBRT (date of the first claim was defined as the index date) were identified and stratified into high-risk and low/intermediate-risk cohorts based on clinical guidelines incorporating information based on localized cancer staging, Gleason score, and prostate-specific antigen level. Baseline characteristics were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting. A weighted Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare metastasis-free survival (MFS) and event-free survival (EFS) between cohorts. Weighted ordinary least squares regression was used to compare all-cause and PC-related healthcare costs (2024 US dollars), measured per-patient-per-year (PPPY), in the subgroup of patients with continuous insurance eligibility.Results In total, 5984 and 10 471 patients were included in the high-risk and low/intermediate-risk LPC cohorts, respectively. Patients with low/intermediate-risk vs high-risk LPC had significantly longer MFS (36-month hazard ratio [HR]; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.47 [2.15, 2.84], P < .001; 60-month HR: 2.29 [2.05, 2.55], P < .001) and EFS (36-month HR: 1.84 [1.65, 2.06], P < .001; 60-month HR: 1.90 [1.73, 2.08], P < .001). Among the subgroup of patients with continuous insurance eligibility (high-risk: 980 patients; low/intermediate-risk: 1862 patients), patients with high-risk LPC incurred significantly higher mean total all-cause healthcare costs (cost difference [95% CI]: 8269 PPPY [3869, 12 800], P < .001) and mean total PC−related healthcare costs (9053 PPPY [5232, 13 147], P < .001) post-index compared with those with low/intermediate-risk LPC.Conclusion Patients with high-risk vs low/intermediate-risk LPC had significantly worse survival outcomes and incurred significantly higher costs following EBRT, consistent with the greater disease burden associated with high-risk disease. More effective treatment strategies are needed to further improve clinical outcomes and reduce economic burden among this patient population.
SN - 2326-697X
SN - 2327-2236
ER -