Literature DB >> 24221994

Intended versus inferred care after PET performed for initial staging in the National Oncologic PET Registry.

Bruce E Hillner1, Anna N Tosteson, Tor D Tosteson, Qianfei Wang, Yunjie Song, Lucy G Hanna, Barry A Siegel.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) collected data on intended management before and after PET in cancer patients. We have previously reported that PET was associated with a change in intended management of about one third of patients and was consistent across cancer types. It is uncertain if intended management plans reflect the actual care these patients received. One approach to assess actual care received is using administrative claims to categorize the type and timing of clinical services.
METHODS: NOPR data from 2006 to 2008 were linked to Medicare claims for consenting patients aged 65 y or older undergoing initial-staging PET scanning for bladder, ovarian, pancreatic, small cell lung, or stomach cancers. We determined the 60-d agreement between claims-inferred care and NOPR treatment plans.
RESULTS: Patients (n = 4,661) were assessed, and 30%-52% had metastatic disease. Planned treatments were about two-thirds monotherapy, of which 46% was systemic therapy only, and one-third combinations. Claims paid by 60 d confirmed the NOPR plan of any systemic therapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in 79.3%, 64.7%, and 63.6%, respectively. Single-mode plans were much more often confirmed: systemic therapy in more than 85% of patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and small cell lung cancers and surgery in more than 73% of those with bladder, pancreatic, and stomach cancers. Intended combination treatments had claims for both in only 28% of patients receiving surgery-based combinations and in 55% receiving chemoradiotherapy. About 90% of patients with NOPR-planned systemic therapy had evaluation or management claims from a medical oncologist. An age of less than 75 y was associated more often with confirmation of chemotherapy, less often for radiotherapy but not with confirmation of surgery. Performance status or comorbidity did not explain confirmation rates within action categories, but confirmation rates were higher if the referrer specialized in the planned treatment.
CONCLUSION: Claims confirmations of NOPR intent for initial staging were widely variable but were higher than previously reported for restaging PET, suggesting that measuring change in intended management is a reasonable method for assessing the impact diagnostic tests have on actual care.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Medicare; cohort studies; health services research; medical record linkage; neoplasm staging; positron emission tomography

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24221994      PMCID: PMC3851922          DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.113.123430

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  33 in total

1.  Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  James N Weinstein; Tor D Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Anna N A Tosteson; Emily Blood; Brett Hanscom; Harry Herkowitz; Frank Cammisa; Todd Albert; Scott D Boden; Alan Hilibrand; Harley Goldberg; Sigurd Berven; Howard An
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Adherence to therapy with oral antineoplastic agents.

Authors:  Ann H Partridge; Jerry Avorn; Philip S Wang; Eric P Winer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-05-01       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Criterion validity of Medicare chemotherapy claims in Cancer and Leukemia Group B breast and lung cancer trial participants.

Authors:  Elizabeth B Lamont; James E Herndon; Jane C Weeks; I Craig Henderson; Rogerio Lilenbaum; Richard L Schilsky; Nicholas A Christakis
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-07-20       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Cancer patients' roles in treatment decisions: do characteristics of the decision influence roles?

Authors:  Nancy L Keating; Mary Beth Landrum; Neeraj K Arora; Jennifer L Malin; Patricia A Ganz; Michelle van Ryn; Jane C Weeks
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-08-16       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Timing of adjuvant chemotherapy initiation after surgery for stage III colon cancer.

Authors:  Dawn Hershman; Michael J Hall; Xiaoyan Wang; Judith S Jacobson; Russell McBride; Victor R Grann; Alfred I Neugut
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2006-12-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Desire for information and involvement in treatment decisions: elderly cancer patients' preferences and their physicians' perceptions.

Authors:  Elena B Elkin; Susie H M Kim; Ephraim S Casper; David W Kissane; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-11-20       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  PET changes management and improves prognostic stratification in patients with head and neck cancer: results of a multicenter prospective study.

Authors:  Andrew M Scott; Dishan H Gunawardana; Dylan Bartholomeusz; Jayne E Ramshaw; Peter Lin
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2008-09-15       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry.

Authors:  Bruce E Hillner; Barry A Siegel; Dawei Liu; Anthony F Shields; Ilana F Gareen; Lucy Hanna; Sharon Hartson Stine; R Edward Coleman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-03-24       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR): design and analysis plan.

Authors:  Bruce E Hillner; Dawei Liu; R Edward Coleman; Anthony F Shields; Ilana F Gareen; Lucy Hanna; Sharon Hartson Stine; Barry A Siegel
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2007-10-17       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  Use of SEER-Medicare data for measuring cancer surgery.

Authors:  Gregory S Cooper; Beth Virnig; Carrie N Klabunde; Nicola Schussler; Jean Freeman; Joan L Warren
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  3 in total

1.  Using Big Data in oncology to prospectively impact clinical patient care: A proof of concept study.

Authors:  Vérène Dougoud-Chauvin; Jae Jin Lee; Edgardo Santos; Vonetta L Williams; Nicolò M L Battisti; Kavita Ghia; Marina Sehovic; Cortlin Croft; Jongphil Kim; Lodovico Balducci; Julie A Kish; Martine Extermann
Journal:  J Geriatr Oncol       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 3.599

2.  Intended Versus Inferred Treatment After 18F-Fluoride PET Performed for Evaluation of Osseous Metastatic Disease in the National Oncologic PET Registry.

Authors:  Bruce E Hillner; Lucy Hanna; Rajesh Makineni; Fenghai Duan; Anthony F Shields; Rathan M Subramaniam; Ilana Gareen; Barry A Siegel
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2017-11-30       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography-computed tomography to diagnose recurrent cancer.

Authors:  J J You; K J Cline; C-S Gu; K I Pritchard; I S Dayes; K Y Gulenchyn; R I Inculet; S K Dhesy-Thind; M A Freeman; A M Chan; J A Julian; M N Levine
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 7.640

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.