Danil V Makarov1, Pamela R Soulos2, Heather T Gold3, James B Yu4, Sounok Sen5, Joseph S Ross6, Cary P Gross7. 1. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC2Department of Urology, New York University School of Medicine, New York3Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York4New York University Cancer Institute, New York. 2. Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut6Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 3. Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York4New York University Cancer Institute, New York7Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York. 4. Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut8Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 5. Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 6. Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut10Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut11Department of Health Policy and Managem. 7. Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut6Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut12Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Y.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The association between regional norms of clinical practice and appropriateness of care is incompletely understood. Understanding regional patterns of care across diseases might optimize implementation of programs like Choosing Wisely, an ongoing campaign to decrease wasteful medical expenditures. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether regional rates of inappropriate prostate and breast cancer imaging were associated. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study using the the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. We identified patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2007 with low-risk prostate (clinical stage T1c/T2a; Gleason score, ≤6; and prostate-specific antigen level, <10 ng/mL) or breast cancer (in situ, stage I, or stage II disease), based on Choosing Wisely definitions. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In a hospital referral region (HRR)-level analysis, our dependent variable was HRR-level imaging rate among patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Our independent variable was HRR-level imaging rate among patients with low-risk breast cancer. In a subsequent patient-level analysis we used multivariable logistic regression to model prostate cancer imaging as a function of regional breast cancer imaging and vice versa. RESULTS: We identified 9219 men with prostate cancer and 30,398 women with breast cancer residing in 84 HRRs. We found high rates of inappropriate imaging for both prostate cancer (44.4%) and breast cancer (41.8%). In the first, second, third, and fourth quartiles of breast cancer imaging, inappropriate prostate cancer imaging was 34.2%, 44.6%, 41.1%, and 56.4%, respectively. In the first, second, third, and fourth quartiles of prostate cancer imaging, inappropriate breast cancer imaging was 38.1%, 38.4%, 43.8%, and 45.7%, respectively. At the HRR level, inappropriate prostate cancer imaging rates were associated with inappropriate breast cancer imaging rates (ρ = 0.35; P < .01). At the patient level, a man with low-risk prostate cancer had odds ratios (95% CIs) of 1.72 (1.12-2.65), 1.19 (0.78-1.81), or 1.76 (1.15-2.70) for undergoing inappropriate prostate imaging if he lived in an HRR in the fourth, third, or second quartiles, respectively, of inappropriate breast cancer imaging, compared with the lowest quartile. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: At a regional level, there is an association between inappropriate prostate and breast cancer imaging rates. This finding suggests the existence of a regional-level propensity for inappropriate imaging utilization, which may be considered by policymakers seeking to improve quality of care and reduce health care spending in high-utilization areas.
IMPORTANCE: The association between regional norms of clinical practice and appropriateness of care is incompletely understood. Understanding regional patterns of care across diseases might optimize implementation of programs like Choosing Wisely, an ongoing campaign to decrease wasteful medical expenditures. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether regional rates of inappropriate prostate and breast cancer imaging were associated. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study using the the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. We identified patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2007 with low-risk prostate (clinical stage T1c/T2a; Gleason score, ≤6; and prostate-specific antigen level, <10 ng/mL) or breast cancer (in situ, stage I, or stage II disease), based on Choosing Wisely definitions. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In a hospital referral region (HRR)-level analysis, our dependent variable was HRR-level imaging rate among patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Our independent variable was HRR-level imaging rate among patients with low-risk breast cancer. In a subsequent patient-level analysis we used multivariable logistic regression to model prostate cancer imaging as a function of regional breast cancer imaging and vice versa. RESULTS: We identified 9219 men with prostate cancer and 30,398 women with breast cancer residing in 84 HRRs. We found high rates of inappropriate imaging for both prostate cancer (44.4%) and breast cancer (41.8%). In the first, second, third, and fourth quartiles of breast cancer imaging, inappropriate prostate cancer imaging was 34.2%, 44.6%, 41.1%, and 56.4%, respectively. In the first, second, third, and fourth quartiles of prostate cancer imaging, inappropriate breast cancer imaging was 38.1%, 38.4%, 43.8%, and 45.7%, respectively. At the HRR level, inappropriate prostate cancer imaging rates were associated with inappropriate breast cancer imaging rates (ρ = 0.35; P < .01). At the patient level, a man with low-risk prostate cancer had odds ratios (95% CIs) of 1.72 (1.12-2.65), 1.19 (0.78-1.81), or 1.76 (1.15-2.70) for undergoing inappropriate prostate imaging if he lived in an HRR in the fourth, third, or second quartiles, respectively, of inappropriate breast cancer imaging, compared with the lowest quartile. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: At a regional level, there is an association between inappropriate prostate and breast cancer imaging rates. This finding suggests the existence of a regional-level propensity for inappropriate imaging utilization, which may be considered by policymakers seeking to improve quality of care and reduce health care spending in high-utilization areas.
Authors: Lowell E Schnipper; Thomas J Smith; Derek Raghavan; Douglas W Blayney; Patricia A Ganz; Therese Marie Mulvey; Dana S Wollins Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Xiaomei Ma; Rong Wang; Jessica B Long; Joseph S Ross; Pamela R Soulos; James B Yu; Danil V Makarov; Heather T Gold; Cary P Gross Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Robert W Carlson; D Craig Allred; Benjamin O Anderson; Harold J Burstein; W Bradford Carter; Stephen B Edge; John K Erban; William B Farrar; Andres Forero; Sharon Hermes Giordano; Lori J Goldstein; William J Gradishar; Daniel F Hayes; Clifford A Hudis; Britt-Marie Ljung; David A Mankoff; P Kelly Marcom; Ingrid A Mayer; Beryl McCormick; Lori J Pierce; Elizabeth C Reed; Jasgit Sachdev; Mary Lou Smith; George Somlo; John H Ward; Antonio C Wolff; Richard Zellars Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Danil V Makarov; Rani A Desai; James B Yu; Richa Sharma; Nitya Abraham; Peter C Albertsen; David F Penson; Cary P Gross Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Danil V Makarov; Rani Desai; James B Yu; Richa Sharma; Nitya Abraham; Peter C Albertsen; Harlan M Krumholz; David F Penson; Cary P Gross Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 6.301
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: Hely Shah; Julian Surujballi; Arif Ali Awan; Brian Hutton; Angel Arnaout; Risa Shorr; Lisa Vandermeer; Mashari Jemaan Alzahrani; Mark Clemons Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Gabrielle B Rocque; Courtney P Williams; Bradford E Jackson; Audrey S Wallace; Karina I Halilova; Kelly M Kenzik; Edward E Partridge; Maria Pisu Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 3.840