Benjamin R Roman1, Snehal G Patel2, Marilene B Wang2, Anna M Pou2, F Christopher Holsinger2, David Myssiorek2, David Goldenberg2, Samuel Swisher-McClure2, Alexander Lin2, Jatin P Shah2, Judy A Shea2. 1. From the RWJ Clinical Scholars Program/Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics/Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Head and Neck Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Deparment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana; Department of Otolaryngology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York; Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Pennsylvania State University-Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania; and Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. From the RWJ Clinical Scholars Program/Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics/Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Head and Neck Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Deparment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana; Department of Otolaryngology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York; Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Pennsylvania State University-Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania; and Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. From the RWJ Clinical Scholars Program/Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics/Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Head and Neck Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Deparment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana; Department of Otolaryngology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York; Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Pennsylvania State University-Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania; and Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of routine surveillance testing beyond guideline recommended levels is common in many oncologic disciplines, including head and neck cancer. The impact of guideline familiarity and other physician characteristics on surveillance imaging use are not well understood. METHODS: A cross-sectional national survey was performed of physicians responsible for surveillance of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The primary outcome was self-reported use of routine surveillance PET/CT in asymptomatic patients. A secondary outcome was familiarity with guideline recommendations. Using multivariable regression, the impact of guideline familiarity and other physician characteristics on PET/CT use was examined. RESULTS: Of the 502 responders, 79% endorsed ever using PET/CT scans for routine surveillance imaging, and 39% were high imaging users (used PET/CT scans on more than half of their asymptomatic patients); 76% were familiar with the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Head and Neck Cancers recommending against routine surveillance PET/CT scans. Although guideline familiarity was associated with being a low imaging user or a never-user, among those who were familiar with guidelines, 31% were nonetheless high imaging users and 73% endorsed ever using PET/CT scans. In multivariable analysis controlling for physician characteristics, guideline familiarity was the strongest predictor of PET/CT use. CONCLUSIONS: Familiarity with the NCCN Guidelines predicts self-reported routine surveillance PET/CT use among physicians who treat patients with HNSCC. However, given the observed variation and high levels of imaging even among physicians who are familiar with the guidelines, further research should examine the reasons physicians choose to use surveillance PET/CT scans.
BACKGROUND: Use of routine surveillance testing beyond guideline recommended levels is common in many oncologic disciplines, including head and neck cancer. The impact of guideline familiarity and other physician characteristics on surveillance imaging use are not well understood. METHODS: A cross-sectional national survey was performed of physicians responsible for surveillance of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The primary outcome was self-reported use of routine surveillance PET/CT in asymptomatic patients. A secondary outcome was familiarity with guideline recommendations. Using multivariable regression, the impact of guideline familiarity and other physician characteristics on PET/CT use was examined. RESULTS: Of the 502 responders, 79% endorsed ever using PET/CT scans for routine surveillance imaging, and 39% were high imaging users (used PET/CT scans on more than half of their asymptomatic patients); 76% were familiar with the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Head and Neck Cancers recommending against routine surveillance PET/CT scans. Although guideline familiarity was associated with being a low imaging user or a never-user, among those who were familiar with guidelines, 31% were nonetheless high imaging users and 73% endorsed ever using PET/CT scans. In multivariable analysis controlling for physician characteristics, guideline familiarity was the strongest predictor of PET/CT use. CONCLUSIONS: Familiarity with the NCCN Guidelines predicts self-reported routine surveillance PET/CT use among physicians who treat patients with HNSCC. However, given the observed variation and high levels of imaging even among physicians who are familiar with the guidelines, further research should examine the reasons physicians choose to use surveillance PET/CT scans.
Authors: Sweet Ping Ng; Courtney Pollard; Joel Berends; Zeina Ayoub; Mona Kamal; Adam S Garden; Houda Bahig; Scott B Cantor; Andrew J Schaefer; Temitayo Ajayi; G Brandon Gunn; Steven J Frank; Heath Skinner; Jack Phan; William H Morrison; Renata Ferrarotto; Jason M Johnson; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Stephen Y Lai; Amy C Hessel; Erich M Sturgis; Randal S Weber; Clifton D Fuller; David I Rosenthal Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: D A Krieger; P A Hudgins; G K Nayak; K L Baugnon; A S Corey; M R Patel; J J Beitler; N F Saba; Y Liu; A H Aiken Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Benjamin R Roman; Shivangi Lohia; Nandita Mitra; Marilene B Wang; Anna M Pou; F Christopher Holsinger; David Myssiorek; David Goldenberg; David A Asch; Judy A Shea Journal: Head Neck Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Solomon Husain; Shivangi Lohia; Valentina Petkov; Timothy Blackwell; Samuel Swisher-McClure; Aviram Mizrachi; Luc G Morris; Marc A Cohen; Richard J Wong; Benjamin R Roman Journal: Head Neck Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 3.821
Authors: Petr Szturz; Carl Van Laer; Christian Simon; Dirk Van Gestel; Jean Bourhis; Jan B Vermorken Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 6.244