BACKGROUND: Advanced imaging and serum biomarkers are commonly used for surveillance in patients with early-stage breast cancer, despite recommendations against this practice. Incentives to perform such low-value testing may be less prominent in integrated health care delivery systems. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate and compare the use of these services within 2 integrated systems: Kaiser Permanente (KP) and Intermountain Healthcare (IH). The authors also sought to distinguish the indication for testing: diagnostic purposes or routine surveillance. METHODS: Patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage 0 to II breast cancer diagnosed between 2009 and 2010 were identified and the use of imaging and biomarker tests over an 18-month period were quantified, starting at 1 year after diagnosis. Chart abstraction was performed on a random sample of patients who received testing to identify the indication for testing. Multivariate regression was used to explore associations with the use of nonrecommended care. RESULTS: A total of 6585 patients were identified; 22% had stage 0 disease, 44% had stage I disease, and 34% had stage II disease. Overall, 24% of patients received at least 1 imaging test (25% at KP vs 22% at IH; P = .009) and 28% of patients received at least 1 biomarker (36% at KP vs 13% at IH; P<.001). Chart abstraction revealed that 84% of imaging tests were performed to evaluate symptoms or signs. Virtually all biomarkers were ordered for routine surveillance. Stage of disease, medical center that provided the services, and provider experience were found to be significantly associated with the use of biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced imaging was most often performed for appropriate indications, but biomarkers were used for nonrecommended surveillance. Distinguishing between inappropriate use for surveillance and appropriate diagnostic testing is essential when evaluating adherence to recommendations.
BACKGROUND: Advanced imaging and serum biomarkers are commonly used for surveillance in patients with early-stage breast cancer, despite recommendations against this practice. Incentives to perform such low-value testing may be less prominent in integrated health care delivery systems. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate and compare the use of these services within 2 integrated systems: Kaiser Permanente (KP) and Intermountain Healthcare (IH). The authors also sought to distinguish the indication for testing: diagnostic purposes or routine surveillance. METHODS:Patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage 0 to II breast cancer diagnosed between 2009 and 2010 were identified and the use of imaging and biomarker tests over an 18-month period were quantified, starting at 1 year after diagnosis. Chart abstraction was performed on a random sample of patients who received testing to identify the indication for testing. Multivariate regression was used to explore associations with the use of nonrecommended care. RESULTS: A total of 6585 patients were identified; 22% had stage 0 disease, 44% had stage I disease, and 34% had stage II disease. Overall, 24% of patients received at least 1 imaging test (25% at KP vs 22% at IH; P = .009) and 28% of patients received at least 1 biomarker (36% at KP vs 13% at IH; P<.001). Chart abstraction revealed that 84% of imaging tests were performed to evaluate symptoms or signs. Virtually all biomarkers were ordered for routine surveillance. Stage of disease, medical center that provided the services, and provider experience were found to be significantly associated with the use of biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced imaging was most often performed for appropriate indications, but biomarkers were used for nonrecommended surveillance. Distinguishing between inappropriate use for surveillance and appropriate diagnostic testing is essential when evaluating adherence to recommendations.
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: Joan M Neuner; Ann B Nattinger; Tina Yen; Emily McGinley; Michael Nattinger; Liliana E Pezzin Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Sarah A Birken; Sarah Raskin; Yuqing Zhang; Gema Lane; Alexandra Zizzi; Mandi Pratt-Chapman Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Michael J Hassett; Matthew Banegas; Hajime Uno; Shicheng Weng; Angel M Cronin; Maureen O'Keeffe Rosetti; Nikki M Carroll; Mark C Hornbrook; Debra P Ritzwoller Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Ryan D Nipp; Amy M Shui; Giselle K Perez; Anne C Kirchhoff; Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Beverly Moy; Karen Kuhlthau; Elyse R Park Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Ramzi G Salloum; Maureen O'Keeffe-Rosetti; Debra P Ritzwoller; Mark C Hornbrook; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Matthew E Nielsen Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Jessica R Schumacher; Heather B Neuman; George J Chang; Benjamin D Kozower; Stephen B Edge; Menggang Yu; David J Vanness; Yajuan Si; Elizabeth A Jacobs; Amanda B Francescatti; Patricia A Spears; Jeffrey Havlena; Taiwo Adesoye; Daniel McKellar; David Winchester; Elizabeth S Burnside; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Debra P Ritzwoller; Paul A Fishman; Matthew P Banegas; Nikki M Carroll; Maureen O'Keeffe-Rosetti; Angel M Cronin; Hajime Uno; Mark C Hornbrook; Michael J Hassett Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Randy C Miles; Christoph I Lee; Qin Sun; Aasthaa Bansal; Gary H Lyman; Jennifer M Specht; Catherine R Fedorenko; Mikael Anne Greenwood-Hickman; Scott D Ramsey; Janie M Lee Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 12.693