David F Friedlander1, Matthew J Resnick2, Chaochen You3, Jeffrey Bassett3, Vidhush Yarlagadda4, David F Penson2, Daniel A Barocas5. 1. Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn. 2. Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn; Vanderbilt University, Center for Surgical Quality and Outcomes Research, Nashville, Tenn; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Tennessee Valley Veterans Administration Health Care System, Nashville, Tenn. 3. Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn; Vanderbilt University, Center for Surgical Quality and Outcomes Research, Nashville, Tenn. 4. Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tenn. 5. Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn; Vanderbilt University, Center for Surgical Quality and Outcomes Research, Nashville, Tenn. Electronic address: dan.barocas@vanderbilt.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hematuria is a common clinical finding and represents the most frequent presenting sign of bladder cancer. The American Urological Association recommends cystoscopy and abdomino-pelvic imaging for patients aged more than 35 years. Nonetheless, less than half of patients presenting with hematuria undergo proper evaluation. We sought to identify clinical and nonclinical factors associated with evaluation of persons with newly diagnosed hematuria. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study, using claims data and laboratory values. The primary exposure was practice site, as a surrogate for nonclinical, potentially modifiable sources of variation. Primary outcomes were cystoscopy or abdomino-pelvic imaging within 180 days after hematuria diagnosis. We modeled the association between clinical and nonclinical factors and appropriate hematuria evaluation. RESULTS: We identified 2455 primary care patients aged 40 years or more and diagnosed with hematuria between 2004 and 2012 in the absence of other explanatory diagnosis; 13.7% of patients underwent cystoscopy within 180 days. Multivariate logistic regression revealed significant variation between those who did and did not undergo evaluation in age, gender, and anticoagulant use (P < .001, P = .036, P = .028, respectively). Addition of practice site improved the predictive discrimination of each model (P < .001). Evaluation was associated with a higher rates of genitourinary neoplasia diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with hematuria rarely underwent complete evaluation. Although established risk factors for malignancy were associated with increasing use of diagnostic testing, factors unassociated with risk, such as practice site, also accounted for significant variation. Inconsistency across practice sites is undesirable and may be amenable to quality improvement interventions.
BACKGROUND:Hematuria is a common clinical finding and represents the most frequent presenting sign of bladder cancer. The American Urological Association recommends cystoscopy and abdomino-pelvic imaging for patients aged more than 35 years. Nonetheless, less than half of patients presenting with hematuria undergo proper evaluation. We sought to identify clinical and nonclinical factors associated with evaluation of persons with newly diagnosed hematuria. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study, using claims data and laboratory values. The primary exposure was practice site, as a surrogate for nonclinical, potentially modifiable sources of variation. Primary outcomes were cystoscopy or abdomino-pelvic imaging within 180 days after hematuria diagnosis. We modeled the association between clinical and nonclinical factors and appropriate hematuria evaluation. RESULTS: We identified 2455 primary care patients aged 40 years or more and diagnosed with hematuria between 2004 and 2012 in the absence of other explanatory diagnosis; 13.7% of patients underwent cystoscopy within 180 days. Multivariate logistic regression revealed significant variation between those who did and did not undergo evaluation in age, gender, and anticoagulant use (P < .001, P = .036, P = .028, respectively). Addition of practice site improved the predictive discrimination of each model (P < .001). Evaluation was associated with a higher rates of genitourinary neoplasia diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with hematuria rarely underwent complete evaluation. Although established risk factors for malignancy were associated with increasing use of diagnostic testing, factors unassociated with risk, such as practice site, also accounted for significant variation. Inconsistency across practice sites is undesirable and may be amenable to quality improvement interventions.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Rodney Davis; J Stephen Jones; Daniel A Barocas; Erik P Castle; Erich K Lang; Raymond J Leveillee; Edward M Messing; Scott D Miller; Andrew C Peterson; Thomas M T Turk; William Weitzel Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-24 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sara Gandini; Edoardo Botteri; Simona Iodice; Mathieu Boniol; Albert B Lowenfels; Patrick Maisonneuve; Peter Boyle Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Alan M Nieder; Yair Lotan; Geoffrey R Nuss; Joshua P Langston; Sachin Vyas; Murugesan Manoharan; Mark S Soloway Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2008-12-20 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Hannes Steiner; Maria Bergmeister; Irmgard Verdorfer; Thomas Granig; Gregor Mikuz; Georg Bartsch; Brigitte Stoehr; Andrea Brunner Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-03-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jeffrey C Bassett; JoAnn Alvarez; Tatsuki Koyama; Matthew Resnick; Chaochen You; Shenghua Ni; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jacob T Ark; JoAnn R Alvarez; Tatsuki Koyama; Jeffrey C Bassett; William J Blot; Michael T Mumma; Matthew J Resnick; Chaochen You; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-06-24 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Wassim Kassouf; Armen Aprikian; Peter Black; Girish Kulkarni; Jonathan Izawa; Libni Eapen; Adrian Fairey; Alan So; Scott North; Ricardo Rendon; Srikala S Sridhar; Tarik Alam; Fadi Brimo; Normand Blais; Chris Booth; Joseph Chin; Peter Chung; Darrel Drachenberg; Yves Fradet; Michael Jewett; Ron Moore; Chris Morash; Bobby Shayegan; Geoffrey Gotto; Neil Fleshner; Fred Saad; D Robert Siemens Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Laimonis Kavalieris; Paul J O'Sullivan; James M Suttie; Brent K Pownall; Peter J Gilling; Christophe Chemasle; David G Darling Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Agata Ptaszynska; Samuel M Cohen; Edward M Messing; Timothy P Reilly; Eva Johnsson; Kristina Johnsson Journal: Diabetes Ther Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 2.945
Authors: Yin Zhou; Marije van Melle; Hardeep Singh; Willie Hamilton; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Fiona M Walter Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 2.692