BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines for the management of patients with bladder cancer encompass strategies that minimize morbidity and improve survival. In the current study, the authors sought to characterize practice patterns in patients with high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer in relation to established guidelines. METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked data were used to identify subjects diagnosed with high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer between 1992 and 2002 who survived at least 2 years without undergoing definitive treatment (n = 4545). The authors used mixed-effects modeling to estimate the association and partitioned variation of patient sociodemographic, tumor, and provider characteristics with compliance measures. RESULTS: Of the 4545 subjects analyzed, only 1 received all the recommended measures. Approximately 42% of physicians have not performed at least 1 cystoscopy, 1 cytology, and 1 instillation of immunotherapy for a single patient nested within their practice during the initial 2-year period after diagnosis. After 1997, only use of radiographic imaging (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.03-1.37) and instillation of immunotherapy (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.39-2.01) were found to be significantly increased. Surgeon-attributable variation for individual guideline measures (cystoscopy, 25%; cytology, 59%; radiographic imaging, 10%; intravesical chemotherapy, 45%; and intravesical immunotherapy, 26%) contributes to this low compliance rate. CONCLUSIONS: There is marked underuse of guideline-recommended care in this potentially curable cohort. Unexplained provider-level factors significantly contribute to this low compliance rate. Future studies that identify barriers and modulators of provider-level adoption of guidelines are critical to improving care for patients with bladder cancer.
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines for the management of patients with bladder cancer encompass strategies that minimize morbidity and improve survival. In the current study, the authors sought to characterize practice patterns in patients with high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer in relation to established guidelines. METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked data were used to identify subjects diagnosed with high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer between 1992 and 2002 who survived at least 2 years without undergoing definitive treatment (n = 4545). The authors used mixed-effects modeling to estimate the association and partitioned variation of patient sociodemographic, tumor, and provider characteristics with compliance measures. RESULTS: Of the 4545 subjects analyzed, only 1 received all the recommended measures. Approximately 42% of physicians have not performed at least 1 cystoscopy, 1 cytology, and 1 instillation of immunotherapy for a single patient nested within their practice during the initial 2-year period after diagnosis. After 1997, only use of radiographic imaging (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.03-1.37) and instillation of immunotherapy (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.39-2.01) were found to be significantly increased. Surgeon-attributable variation for individual guideline measures (cystoscopy, 25%; cytology, 59%; radiographic imaging, 10%; intravesical chemotherapy, 45%; and intravesical immunotherapy, 26%) contributes to this low compliance rate. CONCLUSIONS: There is marked underuse of guideline-recommended care in this potentially curable cohort. Unexplained provider-level factors significantly contribute to this low compliance rate. Future studies that identify barriers and modulators of provider-level adoption of guidelines are critical to improving care for patients with bladder cancer.
Authors: John L Gore; Mark S Litwin; Julie Lai; Elizabeth M Yano; Rodger Madison; Claude Setodji; John L Adams; Christopher S Saigal Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-04-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Meredith B Rosenthal; Bruce E Landon; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Richard G Frank; Arnold M Epstein Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-11-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ralph Madeb; Dragan Golijanin; Katia Noyes; Susan Fisher; Judith J Stephenson; Stacey R Long; Joy Knopf; Gary H Lyman; Edward M Messing Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sigurdur Gudjónsson; Lars Adell; Fekadu Merdasa; Ronnie Olsson; Bruno Larsson; Thomas Davidsson; Jonas Richthoff; Gunnar Hagberg; Magnus Grabe; Pär Ola Bendahl; Wiking Månsson; Fredrik Liedberg Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-01-13 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrew T Lenis; Nicholas M Donin; Mark S Litwin; Christopher S Saigal; Julie Lai; Jan M Hanley; Badrinath R Konety; Karim Chamie Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2016-06-25 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Beate Pesch; Dirk Taeger; Georg Johnen; Katarzyna Gawrych; Nadine Bonberg; Christian Schwentner; Harald Wellhäusser; Matthias Kluckert; Gabriele Leng; Michael Nasterlack; Yair Lotan; Arnulf Stenzl; Thomas Brüning Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Sean G Smith; Bhanu Prasanth Koppolu; Sruthi Ravindranathan; Samantha L Kurtz; Lirong Yang; Matthew D Katz; David A Zaharoff Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 6.968
Authors: Anthony T Corcoran; Elizabeth Handorf; Daniel Canter; Jeffrey J Tomaszewski; Justin E Bekelman; Simon P Kim; Robert G Uzzo; Alexander Kutikov; Marc C Smaldone Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Devon K Check; David S Aaronson; Matthew E Nielsen; Valerie S Lee; Isaac J Ergas; Janise M Roh; Lawrence H Kushi; Li Tang; Marilyn L Kwan Journal: Urology Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 2.649