INTRODUCTION: In 2012, ASCO created the Top Five Choosing Wisely (CW) list of low-value tests and procedures for which there is little evidence of benefit. ASCO's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative, an oncologist-led practice-based quality assessment program, includes measures on the basis of these recommendations. METHODS: CW test measures from spring and fall 2013, spring 2014, and spring 2015 were evaluated for concordance rates, change in the concordance over time, and variability by practice characteristics. Practice characteristics recorded included geographic location, academic affiliation, number of new cases, number of medical oncologists, and rounds of participation in Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. Medians, interquartile ranges, and percentages were calculated for concordance with recommendations and practice characteristics. Change in recommendation concordance over time was assessed using linear regression models. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2015, 341 unique oncology practices abstracted the CW measures. Performance varied for specific recommendations. The median concordance was best for measure 1 (patients with low or undocumented performance status who received chemotherapy), where concordance ranged from 78.4% to 83.3%. The lowest concordance was for measure 3 (use of biomarkers or advanced imaging tests for surveillance in early breast cancer), where concordance ranged from 67.7% to 74.2%. Performance on CW measures varied markedly by individual practice. Variability over time and by practice characteristics was observed. CONCLUSION: Performance on ASCO's CW demonstrates room for improvement. Concordance rates varied substantially by practice. Further education on CW measures is needed to improve patient care and enhance value.
INTRODUCTION: In 2012, ASCO created the Top Five Choosing Wisely (CW) list of low-value tests and procedures for which there is little evidence of benefit. ASCO's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative, an oncologist-led practice-based quality assessment program, includes measures on the basis of these recommendations. METHODS: CW test measures from spring and fall 2013, spring 2014, and spring 2015 were evaluated for concordance rates, change in the concordance over time, and variability by practice characteristics. Practice characteristics recorded included geographic location, academic affiliation, number of new cases, number of medical oncologists, and rounds of participation in Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. Medians, interquartile ranges, and percentages were calculated for concordance with recommendations and practice characteristics. Change in recommendation concordance over time was assessed using linear regression models. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2015, 341 unique oncology practices abstracted the CW measures. Performance varied for specific recommendations. The median concordance was best for measure 1 (patients with low or undocumented performance status who received chemotherapy), where concordance ranged from 78.4% to 83.3%. The lowest concordance was for measure 3 (use of biomarkers or advanced imaging tests for surveillance in early breast cancer), where concordance ranged from 67.7% to 74.2%. Performance on CW measures varied markedly by individual practice. Variability over time and by practice characteristics was observed. CONCLUSION: Performance on ASCO's CW demonstrates room for improvement. Concordance rates varied substantially by practice. Further education on CW measures is needed to improve patient care and enhance value.
Authors: Stephen B Williams; Yong Shan; Usama Jazzar; Hemalkumar B Mehta; Jacques G Baillargeon; Jinhai Huo; Anthony J Senagore; Eduardo Orihuela; Douglas S Tyler; Todd A Swanson; Ashish M Kamat Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 14.766
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: Stephen B Williams; Yong Shan; Mohamed D Ray-Zack; Hogan K Hudgins; Usama Jazzar; Douglas S Tyler; Stephen J Freedland; Todd A Swanson; Jacques G Baillargeon; Jim C Hu; Sapna Kaul; Ashish M Kamat; John L Gore; Hemalkumar B Mehta Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: K Enright; T Desai; R Sutradhar; A Gonzalez; M Powis; N Taback; C M Booth; M E Trudeau; M K Krzyzanowska Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 3.677
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
Authors: Jennifer L Caswell-Jin; Sylvia K Plevritis; Lu Tian; Christopher J Cadham; Cong Xu; Natasha K Stout; George W Sledge; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Allison W Kurian Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2018-12-24
Authors: Ariela L Marshall; Sarah Jenkins; Amy S Oxentenko; Alfred I Lee; Mark D Siegel; Joel T Katz; Jatin M Vyas; John Del Valle; Joseph R Mikhael Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 3.240