Erin E Hahn1, Ron D Hays, Katherine L Kahn, Mark S Litwin, Patricia A Ganz. 1. University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Fielding School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of California, Los Angeles, California; Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Research Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recently released a "Top Five" list of opportunities to improve the quality of cancer care. Item 4 on the list advises against using advanced imaging and biomarkers for surveillance in patients with breast cancer who are treated with curative intent. This study examined concordance with ASCO follow-up care guidelines for breast cancer survivors treated at an academic medical center. METHODS: Claims data and medical records were reviewed and abstracted for early stage breast cancer survivors starting 1 year post diagnosis. A trained abstractor classified imaging tests as diagnostic or surveillance. Proportions and frequencies were generated for receipt of services. Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate factors associated with receiving recommended and nonrecommended services and biomarker tests. RESULTS: Records were available for 258 patients. Mean age at diagnosis was 58 years (standard deviation of 13 years), mean time since diagnosis was 6 years (standard deviation of 2 years), and 71% were stage 0/1. Only 47% of the sample received a mammogram within 1 year of diagnosis, and 55% of the sample received at least 1 nonrecommended imaging service for surveillance purposes. Seventy-seven percent of the sample received at least 1 nonrecommended biomarker test. Regression results indicate that main treating physician, advanced disease stage, younger age at diagnosis, and greater number of years since diagnosis were associated with receiving nonrecommended services for surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Use of nonrecommended services for surveillance occurs frequently among early-stage breast cancer survivors. There are opportunities to increase use of guideline concordant posttreatment care for breast cancer survivors.
BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recently released a "Top Five" list of opportunities to improve the quality of cancer care. Item 4 on the list advises against using advanced imaging and biomarkers for surveillance in patients with breast cancer who are treated with curative intent. This study examined concordance with ASCO follow-up care guidelines for breast cancer survivors treated at an academic medical center. METHODS: Claims data and medical records were reviewed and abstracted for early stage breast cancer survivors starting 1 year post diagnosis. A trained abstractor classified imaging tests as diagnostic or surveillance. Proportions and frequencies were generated for receipt of services. Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate factors associated with receiving recommended and nonrecommended services and biomarker tests. RESULTS: Records were available for 258 patients. Mean age at diagnosis was 58 years (standard deviation of 13 years), mean time since diagnosis was 6 years (standard deviation of 2 years), and 71% were stage 0/1. Only 47% of the sample received a mammogram within 1 year of diagnosis, and 55% of the sample received at least 1 nonrecommended imaging service for surveillance purposes. Seventy-seven percent of the sample received at least 1 nonrecommended biomarker test. Regression results indicate that main treating physician, advanced disease stage, younger age at diagnosis, and greater number of years since diagnosis were associated with receiving nonrecommended services for surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Use of nonrecommended services for surveillance occurs frequently among early-stage breast cancer survivors. There are opportunities to increase use of guideline concordant posttreatment care for breast cancer survivors.
Authors: Gregory S Cooper; Christine Cole Johnson; Lois Lamerato; Laila M Poisson; Lonni Schultz; Jan Simpkins; Karen Wells; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Gary Chase; S David Nathanson; Jennifer Elston Lafata Journal: Med Care Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: M P Rojas; E Telaro; A Russo; I Moschetti; L Coe; R Fossati; D Palli; Turco M del Roselli; A Liberati Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2005-01-25
Authors: T J Smith; N E Davidson; D V Schapira; E Grunfeld; H B Muss; V G Vogel; M R Somerfield Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeanne S Mandelblatt; William F Lawrence; Jennifer Cullen; Annette L Stanton; Janice L Krupnick; Lorna Kwan; Patricia A Ganz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Patricia A Ganz; Erin E Hahn; Laura Petersen; Michelle E Melisko; John P Pierce; Marlene Von Friederichs-Fitzwater; Karen T Lane; Robert A Hiatt Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2016-05-14 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Melissa K Accordino; Jason D Wright; Sowmya Vasan; Alfred I Neugut; Grace C Hillyer; Jim C Hu; Dawn L Hershman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Shrujal S Baxi; Minal Kale; Salomeh Keyhani; Benjamin R Roman; Annie Yang; Antonio P Derosa; Deborah Korenstein Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Joan M Neuner; Ann B Nattinger; Tina Yen; Emily McGinley; Michael Nattinger; Liliana E Pezzin Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Sarah A Birken; Sarah Raskin; Yuqing Zhang; Gema Lane; Alexandra Zizzi; Mandi Pratt-Chapman Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Sarah A Birken; Robin Urquhart; Corrine Munoz-Plaza; Alexandra R Zizzi; Emily Haines; Angela Stover; Deborah K Mayer; Erin E Hahn Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; N Lynn Henry; Julie R Gralow; Dana K Mirick; William Barlow; Ruth Etzioni; David Mummy; Rahber Thariani; David L Veenstra Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Feiten; J Dünnebacke; V Friesenhahn; J Heymanns; H Köppler; R Meister; J Thomalla; C van Roye; D Wey; R Weide Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.915