Heather B Neuman1,2, Paul J Rathouz3, Emily Winslow4, Jennifer M Weiss5,6, Noelle K LoConte5,7, Chee Paul Lin8, Mike Wurm3, Maureen A Smith5,9,10, Deborah Schrag11, Caprice C Greenberg4,5. 1. Wisconsin Surgical Outcomes Research Program, Department of Surgery, UW Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. neuman@surgery.wisc.edu. 2. University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, UW Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. neuman@surgery.wisc.edu. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, UW Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 4. Wisconsin Surgical Outcomes Research Program, Department of Surgery, UW Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 5. University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, UW Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UW Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, UW Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 8. Center for Clinical and Translational Science, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 9. Department of Population Health Sciences, UW Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 10. Department of Family Medicine, UW Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 11. Center for Outcomes and Policy Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Frequent follow-up is recommended for the more than 3 million breast cancer survivors living in the USA. Given the multidisciplinary nature of breast cancer treatment, follow-up may be provided by medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgeons and primary care providers. This creates the potential for significant redundancy as well as gaps in care. The objective was to examine patterns of breast cancer follow-up provided by different types of oncologists and develop a statistical means of quantifying visit distribution over time. METHODS: We identified stage I-III breast cancer patients who underwent breast conservation from 2000 to 2006 (n = 12 139) within the SEER-Medicare linked database. Provider type was defined using Medicare specialty provider codes and AMA Masterfile. The coefficient of variation (CV) for time between oncologist follow-up visits was calculated. Ordinal logistic regression assessed factors associated with CV. RESULTS: Substantial variation in CV was observed. Sixty-seven per cent of patients with low CV (high visit regularity) received follow-up from a single oncologist type, versus 8% with high CV (low visit regularity). The number of oncologist types participating in follow-up had the greatest association with high CV (odds ratio 7.4 [6.7-8.3] and 15.4 [13.6-17.6] for two and three oncologist types). CONCLUSIONS: Using a novel means of quantifying follow-up visit regularity, we determined that breast cancer patients with dispersed follow-up with more than one oncologist have more disordered care. The CV could be used in electronic medical records to identify cancer survivors with more disordered.
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Frequent follow-up is recommended for the more than 3 million breast cancer survivors living in the USA. Given the multidisciplinary nature of breast cancer treatment, follow-up may be provided by medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgeons and primary care providers. This creates the potential for significant redundancy as well as gaps in care. The objective was to examine patterns of breast cancer follow-up provided by different types of oncologists and develop a statistical means of quantifying visit distribution over time. METHODS: We identified stage I-III breast cancerpatients who underwent breast conservation from 2000 to 2006 (n = 12 139) within the SEER-Medicare linked database. Provider type was defined using Medicare specialty provider codes and AMA Masterfile. The coefficient of variation (CV) for time between oncologist follow-up visits was calculated. Ordinal logistic regression assessed factors associated with CV. RESULTS: Substantial variation in CV was observed. Sixty-seven per cent of patients with low CV (high visit regularity) received follow-up from a single oncologist type, versus 8% with high CV (low visit regularity). The number of oncologist types participating in follow-up had the greatest association with high CV (odds ratio 7.4 [6.7-8.3] and 15.4 [13.6-17.6] for two and three oncologist types). CONCLUSIONS: Using a novel means of quantifying follow-up visit regularity, we determined that breast cancerpatients with dispersed follow-up with more than one oncologist have more disordered care. The CV could be used in electronic medical records to identify cancer survivors with more disordered.
Authors: Laura-Mae Baldwin; Walter Adamache; Carrie N Klabunde; Kevin Kenward; Celia Dahlman; Joan L Warren Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: M van Hezewijk; E T M Hille; A N Scholten; C A M Marijnen; A M Stiggelbout; C J H van de Velde Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Christopher R Friese; Kathryn A Martinez; Paul Abrahamse; Ann S Hamilton; John J Graff; Reshma Jagsi; Jennifer J Griggs; Sarah T Hawley; Steven J Katz Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: James L Khatcheressian; Antonio C Wolff; Thomas J Smith; Eva Grunfeld; Hyman B Muss; Victor G Vogel; Francine Halberg; Mark R Somerfield; Nancy E Davidson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-10-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; Cary P Gross; Grace L Smith; Deron H Galusha; Justin E Bekelman; Bruce G Haffty Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-05-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Michael E Stokes; David Thompson; Eduardo L Montoya; Milton C Weinstein; Eric P Winer; Craig C Earle Journal: Value Health Date: 2008 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Carrie N Klabunde; Paul K J Han; Craig C Earle; Tenbroeck Smith; John Z Ayanian; Richard Lee; Anita Ambs; Julia H Rowland; Arnold L Potosky Journal: Fam Med Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Heather B Neuman; Jennifer M Weiss; Deborah Schrag; Katie Ronk; Jeffrey Havlena; Noelle K LoConte; Maureen A Smith; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Heather B Neuman; Jessica R Schumacher; Amanda B Francescatti; Taiwo Adesoye; Stephen B Edge; Elizabeth S Burnside; David J Vanness; Menggang Yu; Yajuan Si; Dan McKellar; David P Winchester; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Heather B Neuman; Jessica R Schumacher; David F Schneider; Emily R Winslow; Rebecca A Busch; Jennifer L Tucholka; Maureen A Smith; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: J L Tucholka; N Jacobson; N M Steffens; J R Schumacher; A J Tevaarwerk; B Anderson; L G Wilke; C C Greenberg; Heather B Neuman Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-01-13 Impact factor: 3.603