Meghan R Flanagan1, Thomas K Varghese2, Leah M Backhus2, Douglas E Wood2, Michael S Mulligan2, Aaron M Cheng2, David R Flum1, Farhood Farjah3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: ffarjah@uw.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines recommend routine use of pulmonary function tests (PFTs), computed tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET) for the workup of resectable lung cancer patients. Little is known about the frequency of guideline concordance in routine practice. METHODS: A cohort study (2007 to 2013) of 15,951 lung cancer patients undergoing lobectomy or pneumonectomy was conducted with MarketScan, a claims database of individuals with employer-provided health insurance. Guideline concordance was defined by claims for PFT within 180 days of resection and for CT and PET within 90 days of resection. Generalized linear models were used to evaluate temporal trends, patient characteristics, and costs associated with guideline-concordant care. RESULTS: Overall, 61% of patients received guideline-concordant care, increasing from 57% in 2007 to 66% in 2013 (p < 0.001). Compared with patients who received guideline-discordant care, patients with guideline-concordant care more frequently underwent repeat testing (PFT: 21% versus 12%, p < 0.001; CT: 46% versus 22%, p < 0.001; PET: 2.3% versus 1.1%, p < 0.001). Health plan-adjusted mean total test-related costs were higher among guideline-concordant patients who underwent repeat testing than patients who did not ($4,304 versus $3,454, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Forty percent of lung cancer patients treated with surgical procedures did not receive recommended noninvasive cancer staging and physiologic assessment before resection. Guideline concordance was associated with repeat testing, and repeat testing was associated with higher costs. These findings support the need for quality improvement interventions that can increase guideline concordance while curbing potential excess use of diagnostic tests.
BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines recommend routine use of pulmonary function tests (PFTs), computed tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET) for the workup of resectable lung cancerpatients. Little is known about the frequency of guideline concordance in routine practice. METHODS: A cohort study (2007 to 2013) of 15,951 lung cancerpatients undergoing lobectomy or pneumonectomy was conducted with MarketScan, a claims database of individuals with employer-provided health insurance. Guideline concordance was defined by claims for PFT within 180 days of resection and for CT and PET within 90 days of resection. Generalized linear models were used to evaluate temporal trends, patient characteristics, and costs associated with guideline-concordant care. RESULTS: Overall, 61% of patients received guideline-concordant care, increasing from 57% in 2007 to 66% in 2013 (p < 0.001). Compared with patients who received guideline-discordant care, patients with guideline-concordant care more frequently underwent repeat testing (PFT: 21% versus 12%, p < 0.001; CT: 46% versus 22%, p < 0.001; PET: 2.3% versus 1.1%, p < 0.001). Health plan-adjusted mean total test-related costs were higher among guideline-concordant patients who underwent repeat testing than patients who did not ($4,304 versus $3,454, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Forty percent of lung cancerpatients treated with surgical procedures did not receive recommended noninvasive cancer staging and physiologic assessment before resection. Guideline concordance was associated with repeat testing, and repeat testing was associated with higher costs. These findings support the need for quality improvement interventions that can increase guideline concordance while curbing potential excess use of diagnostic tests.
Authors: Gerarda J M Herder; Henk Kramer; Otto S Hoekstra; Egbert F Smit; Jan Pruim; Harm van Tinteren; Emile F Comans; Paul Verboom; Carin A Uyl-de Groot; Alle Welling; Marinus A Paul; Maarten Boers; Pieter E Postmus; Gerrit J Teule; Harry J M Groen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-03-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Harm van Tinteren; Otto S Hoekstra; Egbert F Smit; Jan H A M van den Bergh; Ad J M Schreurs; Roland A L M Stallaert; Piet C M van Velthoven; Emile F I Comans; Fred W Diepenhorst; Paul Verboom; Johan C van Mourik; Pieter E Postmus; Maarten Boers; Gerrit J J Teule Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-04-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Michael K Gould; James Fletcher; Mark D Iannettoni; William R Lynch; David E Midthun; David P Naidich; David E Ost Journal: Chest Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Rosalie C Viney; Michael J Boyer; Madeleine T King; Patricia M Kenny; Christine A Pollicino; Jocelyn M McLean; Brian C McCaughan; Michael J Fulham Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Carrie N Klabunde; Julie M Legler; Joan L Warren; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Deborah Schrag Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2007-05-25 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Louise M Henderson; Farhood Farjah; Frank Detterbeck; Robert A Smith; Gerard A Silvestri; M Patricia Rivera Journal: Chest Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 10.262
Authors: Pamela Samson; Traves Crabtree; Stephen Broderick; Daniel Kreisel; A Sasha Krupnick; G Alexander Patterson; Bryan Meyers; Varun Puri Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 4.330