Bruce E Hillner1, Lucy Hanna2, Rajesh Makineni2, Fenghai Duan2,3, Anthony F Shields4, Rathan M Subramaniam5, Ilana Gareen2,6, Barry A Siegel7. 1. Department of Internal Medicine and the Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia Hillner@vcu.edu. 2. The Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island. 4. Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. 5. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, and Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island; and. 7. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology and the Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
We have previously reported that PET with 18F-fluoride (NaF PET) for assessment of osseous metastatic disease led to changes in intended management in a substantial fraction of patients with prostate or other types of cancer participating in the National Oncologic PET Registry. This study was performed to assess the concordance of intended patient management after NaF PET and inferred management based on analysis of Medicare claims. Methods: We analyzed linked post-NaF PET data of consenting National Oncologic PET Registry participants age 65 y or older from 2011 to 2014 and their corresponding Medicare claims. Post-NaF PET treatment plans, including combinations of 2 modes of therapy, were assessed for their concordance with clinical actions inferred from Medicare claims. NaF PET studies were stratified by indication (initial staging [IS] or suspected first osseous metastasis [FOM]) and cancer type (prostate, lung, or other cancers). Agreement was assessed between post-NaF PET intended management plans for treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, or systemic therapy) within 90 d for lung and 180 d for prostate or other cancers, and for watching (the absence of treatment claims for ≥60 d) as compared with claims-inferred care. Results: Actions after 9,898 scans were assessed. After NaF PET for IS, there was claims agreement for planned surgery in 76.0% (19/25) lung, 75.4% (98/130) other cancers, and 58.9% (298/506) prostate cancer. Claims confirmed chemotherapy plans after NaF PET done for IS or FOM in 81.0% and 73.5% for lung cancer (n = 148 and 136) and 69.4% and 67.5% for other cancers (n = 111 and 228). For radiotherapy plans, agreement ranged from 80.0% to 84.4% after IS and 68.4% to 74.0% for suspected FOM. Concordance was greatest for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (86.0%, n = 308) alone or combined with radiotherapy in prostate cancer IS (80.8%, n = 517). In prostate FOM, the concordance across all treatment plans was lower if the patients had ADT claims within 180 d before NaF PET. Agreement with nontreatment plans was high for FOM (87.2% in other cancers and 78.6% if no prior ADT in prostate) and low after IS (40.7%-62.5%). Conclusion: Concordance of post-NaF PET plans and claims was substantial and higher overall for IS than for FOM.
We have previously reported that PET with 18F-fluoride (NaF PET) for assessment of osseous metastatic disease led to changes in intended management in a substantial fraction of patients with prostate or other types of cancer participating in the National Oncologic PET Registry. This study was performed to assess the concordance of intended patient management after NaF PET and inferred management based on analysis of Medicare claims. Methods: We analyzed linked post-NaF PET data of consenting National Oncologic PET Registry participants age 65 y or older from 2011 to 2014 and their corresponding Medicare claims. Post-NaF PET treatment plans, including combinations of 2 modes of therapy, were assessed for their concordance with clinical actions inferred from Medicare claims. NaF PET studies were stratified by indication (initial staging [IS] or suspected first osseous metastasis [FOM]) and cancer type (prostate, lung, or other cancers). Agreement was assessed between post-NaF PET intended management plans for treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, or systemic therapy) within 90 d for lung and 180 d for prostate or other cancers, and for watching (the absence of treatment claims for ≥60 d) as compared with claims-inferred care. Results: Actions after 9,898 scans were assessed. After NaF PET for IS, there was claims agreement for planned surgery in 76.0% (19/25) lung, 75.4% (98/130) other cancers, and 58.9% (298/506) prostate cancer. Claims confirmed chemotherapy plans after NaF PET done for IS or FOM in 81.0% and 73.5% for lung cancer (n = 148 and 136) and 69.4% and 67.5% for other cancers (n = 111 and 228). For radiotherapy plans, agreement ranged from 80.0% to 84.4% after IS and 68.4% to 74.0% for suspected FOM. Concordance was greatest for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (86.0%, n = 308) alone or combined with radiotherapy in prostate cancer IS (80.8%, n = 517). In prostate FOM, the concordance across all treatment plans was lower if the patients had ADT claims within 180 d before NaF PET. Agreement with nontreatment plans was high for FOM (87.2% in other cancers and 78.6% if no prior ADT in prostate) and low after IS (40.7%-62.5%). Conclusion: Concordance of post-NaF PET plans and claims was substantial and higher overall for IS than for FOM.
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Barry A Siegel; Anthony F Shields; Dawei Liu; Ilana F Gareen; Ed Hunt; R Edward Coleman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-11-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Qianfei Wang; Yunjie Song; Tracy Onega; Lucy G Hanna; Barry A Siegel Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Barry A Siegel; Lucy Hanna; Fenghai Duan; Anthony F Shields; R Edward Coleman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andrew M Scott; Dishan H Gunawardana; Ben Kelley; John G Stuckey; Amanda J Byrne; Jayne E Ramshaw; Michael J Fulham Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-08-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andrew M Scott; Dishan H Gunawardana; Dylan Bartholomeusz; Jayne E Ramshaw; Peter Lin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-09-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Barry A Siegel; Dawei Liu; Anthony F Shields; Ilana F Gareen; Lucy Hanna; Sharon Hartson Stine; R Edward Coleman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Anna N Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; Qianfei Wang; Yunjie Song; Lucy G Hanna; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lukas P Staub; Sarah J Lord; R John Simes; Suzanne Dyer; Nehmat Houssami; Robert Y M Chen; Les Irwig Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Anne-Michelle Noone; Jennifer L Lund; Angela Mariotto; Kathleen Cronin; Timothy McNeel; Dennis Deapen; Joan L Warren Journal: Med Care Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: Anna Winther Mogensen; Lars J Petersen; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Mette Nørgaard; Marie T Pank; Helle D Zacho Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Silvia N Ghobrial; Yusuf Menda; Gideon K Zamba; Sarah L Mott; Kristin Gaimari-Varner; David Dick; Joseph Dillon; James R Howe; Michael Graham; John Sunderland; Andrew Bellizzi; Thomas M O'Dorisio; M Sue O'Dorisio Journal: Pancreas Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 3.243