Heather Taffet Gold1, Andrew W Dick. 1. Department of Public Health, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY 10021, USA. heg2001@med.cornell.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to quantify variation and variability in treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) over time and across registries of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program; to assess diffusion of treatments (breast-conserving surgery [BCS], BCS with radiotherapy, and mastectomy); and to identify correlates of treatment choice. DATA: The linked SEER-Medicare database from 1991 to 1996 includes 2701 women aged 65 and older diagnosed with unilateral DCIS. 1990 census data provide socioeconomic variables at the zip-code level, and the 1999 Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care provides number of radiation oncologists. STUDY DESIGN: Bivariate and multivariate analyses of retrospective cohort data assess factors that explain treatment choice. The multivariate model includes controls for comorbidity, marital status, age, race, education, poverty, rural, and radiation oncologists per 100,000 population. Chi-squared tests assess differences in treatment rates by registry and by year. Diffusion of treatments is analyzed by predicting yearly mean treatment rates and yearly variation in treatment rates across geographic areas and over time. RESULTS: There are significant geographic and temporal differences in treatment rates for DCIS with increasing use of BCS alone. Treatment choice is explained by SEER registry, diagnosis year, marital status, race, age, urban/rural status, educational attainment, and number of radiation oncologists. Variability in treatment of DCIS is increasing during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that diagnosis year and socioeconomic factors explain treatment choice for DCIS, but unexplained variation at the geographic-region level remains. Increasing variability in treatment implies continued uncertainty about optimal treatment of DCIS.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to quantify variation and variability in treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) over time and across registries of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program; to assess diffusion of treatments (breast-conserving surgery [BCS], BCS with radiotherapy, and mastectomy); and to identify correlates of treatment choice. DATA: The linked SEER-Medicare database from 1991 to 1996 includes 2701 women aged 65 and older diagnosed with unilateral DCIS. 1990 census data provide socioeconomic variables at the zip-code level, and the 1999 Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care provides number of radiation oncologists. STUDY DESIGN: Bivariate and multivariate analyses of retrospective cohort data assess factors that explain treatment choice. The multivariate model includes controls for comorbidity, marital status, age, race, education, poverty, rural, and radiation oncologists per 100,000 population. Chi-squared tests assess differences in treatment rates by registry and by year. Diffusion of treatments is analyzed by predicting yearly mean treatment rates and yearly variation in treatment rates across geographic areas and over time. RESULTS: There are significant geographic and temporal differences in treatment rates for DCIS with increasing use of BCS alone. Treatment choice is explained by SEER registry, diagnosis year, marital status, race, age, urban/rural status, educational attainment, and number of radiation oncologists. Variability in treatment of DCIS is increasing during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that diagnosis year and socioeconomic factors explain treatment choice for DCIS, but unexplained variation at the geographic-region level remains. Increasing variability in treatment implies continued uncertainty about optimal treatment of DCIS.
Authors: Christopher J Louis; Jonathan R Clark; Marianne M Hillemeier; Fabian Camacho; Nengliang Yao; Roger T Anderson Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Roger T Anderson; Tse-Chang Yang; Stephen A Matthews; Fabian Camacho; Teresa Kern; Heath B Mackley; Gretchen Kimmick; Christopher Louis; Eugene Lengerich; Nengliang Yao Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2013-09-30 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Andrew W Dick; Melony S Sorbero; Gretchen M Ahrendt; James A Hayman; Heather T Gold; Linda Schiffhauer; Azadeh Stark; Jennifer J Griggs Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-01-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Heather Taffet Gold; Melony E S Sorbero; Jennifer J Griggs; Huong T Do; Andrew W Dick Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2011-05-19 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Chinwe C Madubata; Ying Liu; Melody S Goodman; Shumei Yun; Jennifer Yu; Min Lian; Graham A Colditz Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-10-22 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Grace L Smith; Ya-Chen T Shih; Ying Xu; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith; George H Perkins; Welela Tereffe; Wendy A Woodward; Thomas A Buchholz Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Caprice C Greenberg; Eric C Schneider; Stuart R Lipsitz; Clifford Y Ko; Jennifer L Malin; Arnold M Epstein; Jane C Weeks; Katherine L Kahn Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 6.113