Predictors of Follow-Up Visits Post Radical Prostatectomy

14Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Long-term follow-up care among prostate cancer patients is important as biochemical recurrence can occur many years after diagnosis, with 20%–30% of men experiencing biochemical recurrence within 10 years of treatment. This study examined predictors of follow-up care among 1,158 radical prostatectomy patients, treated at the Washington University in St. Louis, within 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years post surgery. Predictors examined included age at surgery, race (Black vs. White), rural/urban status, education, marital status, and prostate cancer aggressiveness. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between the predictors and follow-up visits with a urologist in 6 months, the 1st year, and the 2nd year post surgery. In a secondary analysis, any follow-up visit with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test was included, regardless of provider type. Men that were Black (6 months OR: 0.60; 95% CI [0.36, 0.99], 1 year OR: 0.34; 95% CI [0.20, 0.59], 2 year OR: 0.41; 95% CI [0.25, 0.68]), resided in a rural residence (1 year OR: 0.61; 95% CI [0.44, 0.85], 2 year OR: 0.41; 95% CI [0.25, 0.68]), or were unmarried (2 year OR: 0.69; 95% CI [0.49, 0.97]) had a reduced odds of follow-up visits with a urologist. In models where any follow-up visit with a PSA test was examined, race remained a significant predictor of follow-up. The results indicate that Black men, men residing in a rural residence, and unmarried men may not receive adequate long-term follow-up care following radical prostatectomy. These men represent a high-risk group that could benefit from increased support post treatment.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Khan, S., Hicks, V., Rancilio, D., Langston, M., Richardson, K., & Drake, B. F. (2018). Predictors of Follow-Up Visits Post Radical Prostatectomy. American Journal of Men’s Health, 12(4), 760–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988318762633

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free