ArticleCancer medicine2026
Impact of In-Office Dispensing Adoption by Urology Practices on Oral Specialty Drug Use in Advanced Prostate Cancer.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of In-Office Dispensing Adoption by Urology Practices on Oral Specialty Drug Use in Advanced Prostate Cancer.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionA paradigm shift in advanced prostate cancer toward the use of oral specialty drugs has been accompanied by increased involvement of urologists. In fact, some urology groups can deliver these medications in the office, providing them directly to their patients.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was performed using a 20% national sample of men with advanced prostate cancer enrolled in Traditional Medicare and managed by independent urology groups between 2011 and 2019. Urology groups with and without in-office dispensing were identified. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess relationships between urology group characteristics and in-office dispensing. A difference-in-differences design was used to measure the effect of in-office dispensing on the use of oral specialty drugs within urology group markets compared to markets without dispensing.
resultsUrology group characteristics associated with adoption of in-office dispensing included large practice size (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.2-6.5), increasing volume of men with advanced prostate cancer (OR 1.1 per 10-patient increase, 95% CI 1.0-1.2), decreasing social vulnerability of the group's patient population (OR 0.81 per 0.1 unit increase, 95% CI 0.69-0.95), lower competition (OR 1.02 per 100 unit increase in the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, 95% CI 1.0-1.1), and radiation vault ownership (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.1-8.4). Compared with markets of urology groups that did not adopt in-office dispensing, adopting markets experienced a significant increase in oral specialty drug prescriptions (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, 46 prescriptions per 1000 men, p < 0.001).
conclusionsAdoption of in-office dispensing by independent urology groups increased oral specialty drug prescriptions for advanced prostate cancer within a group's market.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.