Cargando…

Difference in Incontinence Pad Use between Patients after Radical Prostatectomy and Cancer-Free Population with Subgroup Analysis for Open vs. Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy: A Descriptive Analysis of Insurance Claims-Based Data

Purpose: to quantify and compare pre- and post-surgical incontinence pad use between men treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa) and cancer-free controls, using population-based Austrian insurance claims data. Methods: Men who underwent RP for treating PCa between 2013–2015...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mun, Dong-Ho, Yang, Lin, Shariat, Shahrokh F., Reitter-Pfoertner, Sylvia, Gredinger, Gerald, Waldhoer, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8296932/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34199008
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136891
_version_ 1783725742370062336
author Mun, Dong-Ho
Yang, Lin
Shariat, Shahrokh F.
Reitter-Pfoertner, Sylvia
Gredinger, Gerald
Waldhoer, Thomas
author_facet Mun, Dong-Ho
Yang, Lin
Shariat, Shahrokh F.
Reitter-Pfoertner, Sylvia
Gredinger, Gerald
Waldhoer, Thomas
author_sort Mun, Dong-Ho
collection PubMed
description Purpose: to quantify and compare pre- and post-surgical incontinence pad use between men treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa) and cancer-free controls, using population-based Austrian insurance claims data. Methods: Men who underwent RP for treating PCa between 2013–2015 were identified. Cancer-free men ≥45 years with and without benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) were used as controls. Longitudinal data on ICD-diagnoses, type of surgery, prescribed incontinence pads, and hospitals’ surgery volumes were aggregated between 2011–2018 to capture pre- and up to three years post-RP follow-up. Monthly rates of pad use were calculated and compared between RP types and cancer-free controls. Results: A total of 6248 RP patients, 7158 cancer-free men with BPH, and 50,257 cancer-free men without BPH were analyzed. Comparing to pre-RP (0.03, 95%CI: 0.02–0.05), RP resulted in significantly higher rates of prescribed pads (at 3 months: 12.61, 95%CI: 11.59–13.65; 12 months: 6.71, 95%CI: 6.10–7.34; 36 months: 4.91, 95%CI: 3.76–4.62). These rates were also higher than those for cancer free controls (with BPH:0.06, 95%CI: 0.04–0.09; without BPH:0.12, 95%CI: 0.10–0.14). The rate of prescribed pads after surgery continued to decline over time and remained higher among men who underwent minimally invasive RP compared to those who underwent an open procedure. Conclusion: Despite progress in surgical techniques, post-RP incontinence remains a prevalent adverse event. The rate of pad usage steadily improved over the first three years post RP. The rate of patients with incontinence needing pads was higher among those who were treated minimally invasive compared to open approach.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8296932
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82969322021-07-23 Difference in Incontinence Pad Use between Patients after Radical Prostatectomy and Cancer-Free Population with Subgroup Analysis for Open vs. Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy: A Descriptive Analysis of Insurance Claims-Based Data Mun, Dong-Ho Yang, Lin Shariat, Shahrokh F. Reitter-Pfoertner, Sylvia Gredinger, Gerald Waldhoer, Thomas Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Purpose: to quantify and compare pre- and post-surgical incontinence pad use between men treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa) and cancer-free controls, using population-based Austrian insurance claims data. Methods: Men who underwent RP for treating PCa between 2013–2015 were identified. Cancer-free men ≥45 years with and without benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) were used as controls. Longitudinal data on ICD-diagnoses, type of surgery, prescribed incontinence pads, and hospitals’ surgery volumes were aggregated between 2011–2018 to capture pre- and up to three years post-RP follow-up. Monthly rates of pad use were calculated and compared between RP types and cancer-free controls. Results: A total of 6248 RP patients, 7158 cancer-free men with BPH, and 50,257 cancer-free men without BPH were analyzed. Comparing to pre-RP (0.03, 95%CI: 0.02–0.05), RP resulted in significantly higher rates of prescribed pads (at 3 months: 12.61, 95%CI: 11.59–13.65; 12 months: 6.71, 95%CI: 6.10–7.34; 36 months: 4.91, 95%CI: 3.76–4.62). These rates were also higher than those for cancer free controls (with BPH:0.06, 95%CI: 0.04–0.09; without BPH:0.12, 95%CI: 0.10–0.14). The rate of prescribed pads after surgery continued to decline over time and remained higher among men who underwent minimally invasive RP compared to those who underwent an open procedure. Conclusion: Despite progress in surgical techniques, post-RP incontinence remains a prevalent adverse event. The rate of pad usage steadily improved over the first three years post RP. The rate of patients with incontinence needing pads was higher among those who were treated minimally invasive compared to open approach. MDPI 2021-06-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8296932/ /pubmed/34199008 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136891 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Mun, Dong-Ho
Yang, Lin
Shariat, Shahrokh F.
Reitter-Pfoertner, Sylvia
Gredinger, Gerald
Waldhoer, Thomas
Difference in Incontinence Pad Use between Patients after Radical Prostatectomy and Cancer-Free Population with Subgroup Analysis for Open vs. Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy: A Descriptive Analysis of Insurance Claims-Based Data
title Difference in Incontinence Pad Use between Patients after Radical Prostatectomy and Cancer-Free Population with Subgroup Analysis for Open vs. Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy: A Descriptive Analysis of Insurance Claims-Based Data
title_full Difference in Incontinence Pad Use between Patients after Radical Prostatectomy and Cancer-Free Population with Subgroup Analysis for Open vs. Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy: A Descriptive Analysis of Insurance Claims-Based Data
title_fullStr Difference in Incontinence Pad Use between Patients after Radical Prostatectomy and Cancer-Free Population with Subgroup Analysis for Open vs. Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy: A Descriptive Analysis of Insurance Claims-Based Data
title_full_unstemmed Difference in Incontinence Pad Use between Patients after Radical Prostatectomy and Cancer-Free Population with Subgroup Analysis for Open vs. Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy: A Descriptive Analysis of Insurance Claims-Based Data
title_short Difference in Incontinence Pad Use between Patients after Radical Prostatectomy and Cancer-Free Population with Subgroup Analysis for Open vs. Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy: A Descriptive Analysis of Insurance Claims-Based Data
title_sort difference in incontinence pad use between patients after radical prostatectomy and cancer-free population with subgroup analysis for open vs. minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: a descriptive analysis of insurance claims-based data
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8296932/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34199008
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136891
work_keys_str_mv AT mundongho differenceinincontinencepadusebetweenpatientsafterradicalprostatectomyandcancerfreepopulationwithsubgroupanalysisforopenvsminimallyinvasiveradicalprostatectomyadescriptiveanalysisofinsuranceclaimsbaseddata
AT yanglin differenceinincontinencepadusebetweenpatientsafterradicalprostatectomyandcancerfreepopulationwithsubgroupanalysisforopenvsminimallyinvasiveradicalprostatectomyadescriptiveanalysisofinsuranceclaimsbaseddata
AT shariatshahrokhf differenceinincontinencepadusebetweenpatientsafterradicalprostatectomyandcancerfreepopulationwithsubgroupanalysisforopenvsminimallyinvasiveradicalprostatectomyadescriptiveanalysisofinsuranceclaimsbaseddata
AT reitterpfoertnersylvia differenceinincontinencepadusebetweenpatientsafterradicalprostatectomyandcancerfreepopulationwithsubgroupanalysisforopenvsminimallyinvasiveradicalprostatectomyadescriptiveanalysisofinsuranceclaimsbaseddata
AT gredingergerald differenceinincontinencepadusebetweenpatientsafterradicalprostatectomyandcancerfreepopulationwithsubgroupanalysisforopenvsminimallyinvasiveradicalprostatectomyadescriptiveanalysisofinsuranceclaimsbaseddata
AT waldhoerthomas differenceinincontinencepadusebetweenpatientsafterradicalprostatectomyandcancerfreepopulationwithsubgroupanalysisforopenvsminimallyinvasiveradicalprostatectomyadescriptiveanalysisofinsuranceclaimsbaseddata