PURPOSE: PET use for cancer care has increased unevenly, possibly because of regional health care market characteristics or underlying population characteristics. The aim of this study was to examine variation in advanced imaging use among individuals with cancer in relation to population and hospital service area (HSA) characteristics. METHODS: A retrospective national study of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with diagnoses of 1 of 5 cancers covered by Medicare for PET (2004-2008) was conducted. Crude and adjusted rates of PET, CT, and MRI were estimated for HSAs and sociodemographic subgroups. Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess the effects of race/ethnicity, area-level income, and HSA-level physician supply and spending on imaging utilization. RESULTS: On the basis of an annual average of 116,452 beneficiaries with cancer, adjusted PET rates (imaging days per person-year) showed significantly higher use for whites compared with blacks in both 2004 (whites, 0.35 [95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.36]; blacks, 0.31 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.33]) and 2008 (whites, 0.64 [95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.65]; blacks, 0.57 [95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.59]). This trend was similar for the highest quartile of group-level median household income but was opposite for CT use, with blacks having higher rates than whites. The highest Medicare-spending HSAs had significantly higher adjusted PET rates compared with lower spending areas (0.57 [95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.60] vs 0.69 [95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.71] imaging days/person-year). CONCLUSIONS: The use of PET among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer increased from 2004 to 2008, with higher rates observed among whites, among higher socioeconomic groups, and in higher Medicare spending areas. Sociodemographic differences in advanced imaging use are modality specific.
PURPOSE: PET use for cancer care has increased unevenly, possibly because of regional health care market characteristics or underlying population characteristics. The aim of this study was to examine variation in advanced imaging use among individuals with cancer in relation to population and hospital service area (HSA) characteristics. METHODS: A retrospective national study of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with diagnoses of 1 of 5 cancers covered by Medicare for PET (2004-2008) was conducted. Crude and adjusted rates of PET, CT, and MRI were estimated for HSAs and sociodemographic subgroups. Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess the effects of race/ethnicity, area-level income, and HSA-level physician supply and spending on imaging utilization. RESULTS: On the basis of an annual average of 116,452 beneficiaries with cancer, adjusted PET rates (imaging days per person-year) showed significantly higher use for whites compared with blacks in both 2004 (whites, 0.35 [95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.36]; blacks, 0.31 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.33]) and 2008 (whites, 0.64 [95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.65]; blacks, 0.57 [95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.59]). This trend was similar for the highest quartile of group-level median household income but was opposite for CT use, with blacks having higher rates than whites. The highest Medicare-spending HSAs had significantly higher adjusted PET rates compared with lower spending areas (0.57 [95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.60] vs 0.69 [95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.71] imaging days/person-year). CONCLUSIONS: The use of PET among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer increased from 2004 to 2008, with higher rates observed among whites, among higher socioeconomic groups, and in higher Medicare spending areas. Sociodemographic differences in advanced imaging use are modality specific.
Authors: Michael K Gould; Ellen M Schultz; Todd H Wagner; Xiangyan Xu; Sharfun J Ghaus; Robert B Wallace; Dawn Provenzale; David H Au Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Michaela A Dinan; Lesley H Curtis; Bradley G Hammill; Edward F Patz; Amy P Abernethy; Alisa M Shea; Kevin A Schulman Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: William R Hendee; Gary J Becker; James P Borgstede; Jennifer Bosma; William J Casarella; Beth A Erickson; C Douglas Maynard; James H Thrall; Paul E Wallner Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-08-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; Thérèse A Stukel; Daniel J Gottlieb; F L Lucas; Etoile L Pinder Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-02-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Anna N Tosteson; Yunjie Song; Tor D Tosteson; Tracy Onega; David C Goodman; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Susan A Sabatino; Ralph J Coates; Robert J Uhler; Nancy Breen; Florence Tangka; Kate M Shaw Journal: Med Care Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Leah M Backhus; Farhood Farjah; Thomas K Varghese; Aaron M Cheng; Xiao-Hua Zhou; Douglas E Wood; Larry Kessler; Steven B Zeliadt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; Ron Blankstein; Jill E Jacobs; Jonathon A Leipsic; Raymond Y Kwong; Viviany R Taqueti; Rob S B Beanlands; Jennifer H Mieres; Scott D Flamm; Thomas C Gerber; John Spertus; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Tracy Onega; Rebecca Hubbard; Deirdre Hill; Christoph I Lee; Jennifer S Haas; Heather A Carlos; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Andy Bogart; Wendy B DeMartini; Karla Kerlikowske; Beth A Virnig; Diana S M Buist; Louise Henderson; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Michael K Gould; Todd H Wagner; Ellen M Schultz; Xiangyan Xu; Sharfun J Ghaus; Dawn Provenzale; David H Au Journal: Chest Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Jennifer L Caswell-Jin; Alison Callahan; Natasha Purington; Summer S Han; Haruka Itakura; Esther M John; Douglas W Blayney; George W Sledge; Nigam H Shah; Allison W Kurian Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2021-05