Heather B Neuman1,2, Jessica R Schumacher3, David F Schneider3, Emily R Winslow3, Rebecca A Busch3, Jennifer L Tucholka3, Maureen A Smith4,5,6, Caprice C Greenberg3,4. 1. Wisconsin Surgical Outcomes Research Program, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. Neuman@surgery.wisc.edu. 2. University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. Neuman@surgery.wisc.edu. 3. Wisconsin Surgical Outcomes Research Program, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 4. University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 5. Department of Population Health Sciences, UW Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 6. Department of Family Medicine, UW Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current guidelines do not delineate the types of providers that should participate in early breast cancer follow-up care (within 3 years after completion of treatment). This study aimed to describe the types of providers participating in early follow-up care of older breast cancer survivors and to identify factors associated with receipt of follow-up care from different types of providers. METHODS: Stages 1-3 breast cancer survivors treated from 2000 to 2007 were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End results Medicare database (n = 44,306). Oncologist (including medical, radiation, and surgical) follow-up and primary care visits were defined using Medicare specialty provider codes and linked American Medical Association (AMA) Masterfile. The types of providers involved in follow-up care were summarized. Stepped regression models identified factors associated with receipt of medical oncology follow-up care and factors associated with receipt of medical oncology care alone versus combination oncology follow-up care. RESULTS: Oncology follow-up care was provided for 80 % of the patients: 80 % with a medical oncologist, 46 % with a surgeon, and 39 % with a radiation oncologist after radiation treatment. The patients with larger tumor size, positive axillary nodes, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive status, and chemotherapy treatment were more likely to have medical oncology follow-up care than older patients with higher Charlson comorbidity scores who were not receiving axillary care. The only factor associated with increased likelihood of follow-up care with a combination of oncology providers was regular primary care visits (>2 visits/year). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation exists in the types of providers that participate in breast cancer follow-up care. Improved guidance for the types of providers involved and delineation of providers' responsibilities during follow-up care could lead to improved efficiency and quality of care.
BACKGROUND: The current guidelines do not delineate the types of providers that should participate in early breast cancer follow-up care (within 3 years after completion of treatment). This study aimed to describe the types of providers participating in early follow-up care of older breast cancer survivors and to identify factors associated with receipt of follow-up care from different types of providers. METHODS: Stages 1-3 breast cancer survivors treated from 2000 to 2007 were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End results Medicare database (n = 44,306). Oncologist (including medical, radiation, and surgical) follow-up and primary care visits were defined using Medicare specialty provider codes and linked American Medical Association (AMA) Masterfile. The types of providers involved in follow-up care were summarized. Stepped regression models identified factors associated with receipt of medical oncology follow-up care and factors associated with receipt of medical oncology care alone versus combination oncology follow-up care. RESULTS: Oncology follow-up care was provided for 80 % of the patients: 80 % with a medical oncologist, 46 % with a surgeon, and 39 % with a radiation oncologist after radiation treatment. The patients with larger tumor size, positive axillary nodes, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive status, and chemotherapy treatment were more likely to have medical oncology follow-up care than older patients with higher Charlson comorbidity scores who were not receiving axillary care. The only factor associated with increased likelihood of follow-up care with a combination of oncology providers was regular primary care visits (>2 visits/year). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation exists in the types of providers that participate in breast cancer follow-up care. Improved guidance for the types of providers involved and delineation of providers' responsibilities during follow-up care could lead to improved efficiency and quality of care.
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: James M Naessens; Macaran A Baird; Holly K Van Houten; David J Vanness; Claudia R Campbell Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Sharon H Giordano; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Shu-Wan C Kau; Richard L Theriault; Melissa L Bondy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02-01 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: Nancy L Keating; Mary Beth Landrum; Edward Guadagnoli; Eric P Winer; John Z Ayanian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Elizabeth B Lamont; James E Herndon; Jane C Weeks; I Craig Henderson; Craig C Earle; Richard L Schilsky; Nicholas A Christakis Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-09-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Farah F Quyyumi; Jason D Wright; Melissa K Accordino; Donna Buono; Cynthia W Law; Grace C Hillyer; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Joan L Warren; Michael J Barrett; Dolly P White; Robert Banks; Susannah Cafardi; Lindsey Enewold Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2020-05-01
Authors: Jet W Ankersmid; Jolanda C van Hoeve; Luc J A Strobbe; Yvonne E A van Riet; Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; Sabine Siesling; Constance H C Drossaert Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 2.328
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
Authors: Alexis D Leal; Holly Van Houten; Lindsey Sangaralingham; Rachel A Freedman; Ahmedin Jemal; Heather B Neuman; Tufia C Haddad; Robert W Mutter; Theresa H M Keegan; Sarah S Mougalian; Charles L Loprinzi; Cary P Gross; Nilay Shah; Kathryn J Ruddy Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 3.225