Shrujal S Baxi1, Minal Kale, Salomeh Keyhani, Benjamin R Roman, Annie Yang, Antonio P Derosa, Deborah Korenstein. 1. *Department of Medicine, Head and Neck Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center †Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY ‡Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA §Department of Surgery ∥Center for Health Policy and Outcomes ¶Medical Library, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overuse, the provision of health services for which harms outweigh the benefits, results in suboptimal patient care and may contribute to the rising costs of cancer care. We performed a systematic review of the evidence on overuse in oncology. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS databases, and 2 grey literature sources, for articles published between December 1, 2011 and March 10, 2017. We included publications from December 2011 to evaluate the literature since the inception of the ABIM Foundation's Choosing Wisely initiative in 2012. We included original research articles quantifying overuse of any medical service in patients with a cancer diagnosis when utilizing an acceptable standard to define care appropriateness, excluding studies of cancer screening. One of 4 investigator reviewed titles and abstracts and 2 of 4 reviewed each full-text article and extracted data. Methodology used PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 59 articles measuring overuse of 154 services related to imaging, procedures, and therapeutics in cancer management. The majority of studies addressed adult or geriatric patients (98%) and focused on US populations (76%); the most studied services were diagnostic imaging in low-risk prostate and breast cancer. Few studies evaluated active cancer therapeutics or interventions aimed at reducing overuse. Rates of overuse varied widely among services and among studies of the same service. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recent attention to overuse in cancer, evidence identifying areas of overuse remains limited. Broader investigation, including assessment of active cancer treatment, is critical for identifying improvement targets to optimize value in cancer care.
BACKGROUND: Overuse, the provision of health services for which harms outweigh the benefits, results in suboptimal patient care and may contribute to the rising costs of cancer care. We performed a systematic review of the evidence on overuse in oncology. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS databases, and 2 grey literature sources, for articles published between December 1, 2011 and March 10, 2017. We included publications from December 2011 to evaluate the literature since the inception of the ABIM Foundation's Choosing Wisely initiative in 2012. We included original research articles quantifying overuse of any medical service in patients with a cancer diagnosis when utilizing an acceptable standard to define care appropriateness, excluding studies of cancer screening. One of 4 investigator reviewed titles and abstracts and 2 of 4 reviewed each full-text article and extracted data. Methodology used PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 59 articles measuring overuse of 154 services related to imaging, procedures, and therapeutics in cancer management. The majority of studies addressed adult or geriatric patients (98%) and focused on US populations (76%); the most studied services were diagnostic imaging in low-risk prostate and breast cancer. Few studies evaluated active cancer therapeutics or interventions aimed at reducing overuse. Rates of overuse varied widely among services and among studies of the same service. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recent attention to overuse in cancer, evidence identifying areas of overuse remains limited. Broader investigation, including assessment of active cancer treatment, is critical for identifying improvement targets to optimize value in cancer care.
Authors: Jodi B Segal; John F P Bridges; Hsien-Yen Chang; Eva Chang; Najlla Nassery; Jonathan Weiner; Kitty S Chan Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Lowell E Schnipper; Gary H Lyman; Douglas W Blayney; J Russell Hoverman; Derek Raghavan; Dana S Wollins; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dana Haddad; Erin M Garvey; Laurie Mihalik; Barbara A Pockaj; Richard J Gray; Nabil Wasif Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2013-10-12 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Jesse D Sammon; Firas Abdollah; Gally Reznor; Daniel Pucheril; Toni K Choueiri; Jim C Hu; Simon P Kim; Marianne Schmid; Akshay Sood; Maxine Sun; Adam S Kibel; Paul L Nguyen; Mani Menon; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-10-29 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Wesley W Choi; Stephen B Williams; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Paul L Nguyen; Jim C Hu Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Tenbroeck G Smith; Sara Strollo; Xin Hu; Craig C Earle; Corinne R Leach; Larissa Nekhlyudov Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 5.128
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: Zachary Predmore; Jean Pannikottu; Ritu Sharma; Monica Tung; Stephanie Nothelle; Jodi B Segal Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Wynne E Norton; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; David A Chambers; Philip J Stella; Otis W Brawley; Barnett S Kramer Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2021-02-24
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