BACKGROUND: Provider-based research networks such as the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) have been shown to facilitate the translation of evidence-based cancer care into clinical practice. This study compared the utilization of laparoscopy and partial nephrectomy among patients with early-stage kidney cancer according to their exposure to CCOP-affiliated providers. METHODS: With linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, patients with T1aN0M0 kidney cancer who had been treated with nephrectomy from 2000 to 2007 were identified. For each patient, the receipt of care from a CCOP physician or hospital and treatment with laparoscopy or partial nephrectomy were determined. Adjusted for patient characteristics (eg, age, sex, and marital status) and other organizational features (eg, community hospital and National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center), multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the association between each surgical innovation and CCOP affiliation. RESULTS: During the study interval, 1578 patients (26.8%) were treated by a provider with a CCOP affiliation. Trends in the utilization of laparoscopy and partial nephrectomy remained similar between affiliated and nonaffiliated providers (P ≥ .05). With adjustments for patient characteristics, organizational features, and clustering, no association was noted between CCOP affiliation and the use of laparoscopy (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-1.53) or partial nephrectomy (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82-1.32) despite the more frequent receipt of these treatments in academic settings (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: At a population level, patients treated by providers affiliated with CCOP were no more likely to receive at least 1 of 2 surgical innovations for treatment of their kidney cancer, indicating perhaps a more limited scope to provider-based research networks as they pertain to translational efforts in cancer care.
BACKGROUND: Provider-based research networks such as the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) have been shown to facilitate the translation of evidence-based cancer care into clinical practice. This study compared the utilization of laparoscopy and partial nephrectomy among patients with early-stage kidney cancer according to their exposure to CCOP-affiliated providers. METHODS: With linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, patients with T1aN0M0 kidney cancer who had been treated with nephrectomy from 2000 to 2007 were identified. For each patient, the receipt of care from a CCOP physician or hospital and treatment with laparoscopy or partial nephrectomy were determined. Adjusted for patient characteristics (eg, age, sex, and marital status) and other organizational features (eg, community hospital and National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center), multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the association between each surgical innovation and CCOP affiliation. RESULTS: During the study interval, 1578 patients (26.8%) were treated by a provider with a CCOP affiliation. Trends in the utilization of laparoscopy and partial nephrectomy remained similar between affiliated and nonaffiliated providers (P ≥ .05). With adjustments for patient characteristics, organizational features, and clustering, no association was noted between CCOP affiliation and the use of laparoscopy (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-1.53) or partial nephrectomy (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82-1.32) despite the more frequent receipt of these treatments in academic settings (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: At a population level, patients treated by providers affiliated with CCOP were no more likely to receive at least 1 of 2 surgical innovations for treatment of their kidney cancer, indicating perhaps a more limited scope to provider-based research networks as they pertain to translational efforts in cancer care.
Authors: Jeffrey S Barkun; Jeffrey K Aronson; Liane S Feldman; Guy J Maddern; Steven M Strasberg; Douglas G Altman; Jeffrey S Barkun; Jane M Blazeby; Isabell C Boutron; W Bruce Campbell; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Jonathan A Cook; Patrick L Ergina; David R Flum; Paul Glasziou; John C Marshall; Peter McCulloch; Jon Nicholl; Bournaby C Reeves; Christoph M Seiler; Jonathan L Meakins; Deborah Ashby; Nick Black; John Bunker; Martin Burton; Marion Campbell; Kalipso Chalkidou; Iain Chalmers; Marc de Leval; Jon Deeks; Adrian Grant; Muir Gray; Roger Greenhalgh; Milos Jenicek; Sean Kehoe; Richard Lilford; Peter Littlejohns; Yoon Loke; Rajan Madhock; Kim McPherson; Peter Rothwell; Bill Summerskill; David Taggart; Parris Tekkis; Matthew Thompson; Tom Treasure; Ulrich Trohler; Jan Vandenbroucke Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-09-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Michael N Neuss; Christopher E Desch; Kristen K McNiff; Peter D Eisenberg; Dean H Gesme; Joseph O Jacobson; Mohammad Jahanzeb; Jennifer J Padberg; John M Rainey; Jeff J Guo; Joseph V Simone Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-08-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David C Miller; Daniel S Murtagh; Ronald S Suh; Peter M Knapp; Rodney L Dunn; James E Montie Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-10-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Anne-Marie Meyer; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Huan Liu; Stephanie B Wheeler; Dolly Penn; Bryan J Weiner; William R Carpenter Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: David C Miller; Christopher S Saigal; Joan L Warren; Meryl Leventhal; Dennis Deapen; Mousumi Banerjee; Julie Lai; Jan Hanley; Mark S Litwin Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-06-06 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Jennifer Jones; Jaimin Bhatt; Jonathan Avery; Andreas Laupacis; Katherine Cowan; Naveen Basappa; Joan Basiuk; Christina Canil; Sohaib Al-Asaaed; Daniel Heng; Lori Wood; Dawn Stacey; Christian Kollmannsberger; Michael A S Jewett Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 1.862