PURPOSE: We examined hospital use of the epidermal growth factor receptor assay in patients with lung cancer in the United States. Our goal was to inform the development of a model to predict phase 3 translation of guideline-directed molecular diagnostic tests. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study. Using logistic regression, we analyzed the association between hospitals' institutional and regional characteristics and the likelihood that an epidermal growth factor receptor assay would be ordered. RESULTS: Significant institutional predictors included affiliation with an academic medical center (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.83), participation in a National Cancer Institute clinical research cooperative group (odds ratio, 2.06, 1.66-2.55), and -availability of positron emission tomography scan (odds ratio, 1.44, 1.07-1.94) and cardiothoracic surgery (odds ratio, 1.90, 1.52-2.37) services. Significant regional predictors included metropolitan county (odds ratio, 2.08, 1.48-2.91), population with above-average education (odds ratio, 1.46, 1.09-1.96), and population with above-average income (odds ratio, 1.46, 1.04-2.05). Distance from a National Cancer Institute cancer center was a negative predictor (odds ratio, 0.996, 0.995-0.998), with a 34% decrease in likelihood for every 100 miles. CONCLUSION: In 2010, only 12% of US acute-care hospitals ordered the epidermal growth factor receptor assay, suggesting that most patients with lung cancer did not have access to this test. This case study illustrated the need for: (i) increased dissemination and implementation research, and (ii) interventions to improve adoption of guideline-directed molecular diagnostic tests by community hospitals.
PURPOSE: We examined hospital use of the epidermal growth factor receptor assay in patients with lung cancer in the United States. Our goal was to inform the development of a model to predict phase 3 translation of guideline-directed molecular diagnostic tests. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study. Using logistic regression, we analyzed the association between hospitals' institutional and regional characteristics and the likelihood that an epidermal growth factor receptor assay would be ordered. RESULTS: Significant institutional predictors included affiliation with an academic medical center (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.83), participation in a National Cancer Institute clinical research cooperative group (odds ratio, 2.06, 1.66-2.55), and -availability of positron emission tomography scan (odds ratio, 1.44, 1.07-1.94) and cardiothoracic surgery (odds ratio, 1.90, 1.52-2.37) services. Significant regional predictors included metropolitan county (odds ratio, 2.08, 1.48-2.91), population with above-average education (odds ratio, 1.46, 1.09-1.96), and population with above-average income (odds ratio, 1.46, 1.04-2.05). Distance from a National Cancer Institute cancer center was a negative predictor (odds ratio, 0.996, 0.995-0.998), with a 34% decrease in likelihood for every 100 miles. CONCLUSION: In 2010, only 12% of US acute-care hospitals ordered the epidermal growth factor receptor assay, suggesting that most patients with lung cancer did not have access to this test. This case study illustrated the need for: (i) increased dissemination and implementation research, and (ii) interventions to improve adoption of guideline-directed molecular diagnostic tests by community hospitals.
Authors: William R Carpenter; Anne-Marie Meyer; Yang Wu; Bahjat Qaqish; Hanna K Sanoff; Richard M Goldberg; Bryan J Weiner Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: J Matthew Reinersman; Melissa L Johnson; Gregory J Riely; Dhananjay A Chitale; Anthony D Nicastri; Gerald A Soff; Ann G Schwartz; Camelia S Sima; Getinet Ayalew; Christopher Lau; Maureen F Zakowski; Valerie W Rusch; Marc Ladanyi; Mark G Kris Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: J Guillermo Paez; Pasi A Jänne; Jeffrey C Lee; Sean Tracy; Heidi Greulich; Stacey Gabriel; Paula Herman; Frederic J Kaye; Neal Lindeman; Titus J Boggon; Katsuhiko Naoki; Hidefumi Sasaki; Yoshitaka Fujii; Michael J Eck; William R Sellers; Bruce E Johnson; Matthew Meyerson Journal: Science Date: 2004-04-29 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Anil Vachani; Yu-Ning Wong; Jennifer Israelite; Nandita Mitra; Sakhena Hin; Lin Yang; Aaron Smith-McLallen; Katrina Armstrong; Peter W Groeneveld; Andrew J Epstein Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Stacy W Gray; Benjamin Kim; Lynette Sholl; Angel Cronin; Aparna R Parikh; Carrie N Klabunde; Katherine L Kahn; David A Haggstrom; Nancy L Keating Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Mark McKeage; Mark Elwood; Sandar Tin Tin; Prashannata Khwaounjoo; Phyu Aye; Angie Li; Karen Sheath; Phillip Shepherd; George Laking; Nicola Kingston; Christopher Lewis; Donald Love Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 4.493
Authors: Dorothy Romanus; Stephanie Cardarella; David Cutler; Mary Beth Landrum; Neal I Lindeman; G Scott Gazelle Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Lauren L Palazzo; Deirdre F Sheehan; Angela C Tramontano; Chung Yin Kong Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Austin Lammers; Christopher G Slatore; Erik K Fromme; Kelly C Vranas; Donald R Sullivan Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Julie A Lynch; Brygida Berse; W David Dotson; Muin J Khoury; Nicole Coomer; John Kautter Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 8.822