OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate differences in guideline concordance between National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated and other centers and determine whether the level of available evidence influences the degree of variation in concordance. BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute recognizes centers of excellence in the advancement of cancer care. These NCI-designated cancer centers have been shown to have better outcomes for cancer surgery; however, little work has compared surgical process measures. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry linked to Medicare claims data. Fee-for-service Medicare patients with a definitive surgical resection for breast, colon, gastric, rectal, or thyroid cancers diagnosed between 2000 and 2005 were identified. Claims data from 1999 to 2006 were used. Our main outcome measure was guideline concordance at NCI-designated centers compared to other institutions, stratified by level of evidence as graded by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline panels. RESULTS: All centers achieved at least 90%, and often 95%, concordance with guidelines based on level 1 evidence. Concordance rates for guidelines with lower-level evidence ranged from 30% to 97% and were higher at NCI-designated centers. The adjusted concordance ratios for category 1 guidelines were between 1.02 and 1.08, whereas concordance ratios for guidelines with lower-level evidence ranged from 0.97 to 2.19, primarily favoring NCI-designated centers. CONCLUSIONS: When strong evidence supports a guideline, there is little variation in practice between NCI-designated centers and other hospitals, suggesting that all are providing appropriate care. Variation in care may exist, however, for guidelines that are based on expert consensus rather than strong evidence. This suggests that future efforts to generate needed evidence on the optimal approach to care may also reduce institutional variation.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate differences in guideline concordance between National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated and other centers and determine whether the level of available evidence influences the degree of variation in concordance. BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute recognizes centers of excellence in the advancement of cancer care. These NCI-designated cancer centers have been shown to have better outcomes for cancer surgery; however, little work has compared surgical process measures. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry linked to Medicare claims data. Fee-for-service Medicare patients with a definitive surgical resection for breast, colon, gastric, rectal, or thyroid cancers diagnosed between 2000 and 2005 were identified. Claims data from 1999 to 2006 were used. Our main outcome measure was guideline concordance at NCI-designated centers compared to other institutions, stratified by level of evidence as graded by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline panels. RESULTS: All centers achieved at least 90%, and often 95%, concordance with guidelines based on level 1 evidence. Concordance rates for guidelines with lower-level evidence ranged from 30% to 97% and were higher at NCI-designated centers. The adjusted concordance ratios for category 1 guidelines were between 1.02 and 1.08, whereas concordance ratios for guidelines with lower-level evidence ranged from 0.97 to 2.19, primarily favoring NCI-designated centers. CONCLUSIONS: When strong evidence supports a guideline, there is little variation in practice between NCI-designated centers and other hospitals, suggesting that all are providing appropriate care. Variation in care may exist, however, for guidelines that are based on expert consensus rather than strong evidence. This suggests that future efforts to generate needed evidence on the optimal approach to care may also reduce institutional variation.
Authors: David S Cooper; Gerard M Doherty; Bryan R Haugen; Bryan R Hauger; Richard T Kloos; Stephanie L Lee; Susan J Mandel; Ernest L Mazzaferri; Bryan McIver; Furio Pacini; Martin Schlumberger; Steven I Sherman; David L Steward; R Michael Tuttle Journal: Thyroid Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; David J Bentrem; John G Linn; Andrew Freel; Jen Jen Yeh; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Clifford Y Ko; Mark S Talamonti; Cord Sturgeon Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-11-05 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; Mark S Talamonti; Jeffrey D Wayne; James S Tomlinson; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Clifford Y Ko; David J Bentrem Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2008-07
Authors: Robert W Krell; Bradley N Reames; Samantha Hendren; Timothy L Frankel; Timothy M Pawlik; Mathew Chung; David Kwon; Sandra L Wong Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Amy Tyler; Lisa McLeod; Brenda Beaty; Elizabeth Juarez-Colunga; Meghan Birkholz; Daniel Hyman; Allison Kempe; James Todd; Amanda F Dempsey Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Megan R Haymart; Mousumi Banerjee; Di Yang; Andrew K Stewart; James C Sisson; Ronald J Koenig; Gerard M Doherty; Jennifer J Griggs Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-03-28 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Mary E Charlton; Jennifer E Hrabe; Kara B Wright; Jennifer A Schlichting; Bradley D McDowell; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Chi Lin; Karyn B Stitzenberg; John W Cromwell Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Li Tao; Richard B Schwab; Yazmin San Miguel; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Alison J Canchola; Manuela Gago-Dominguez; Ian K Komenaka; James D Murphy; Alfredo A Molinolo; Maria Elena Martinez Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 4.254