Jason Rotter1, Lauren Wilson2, Melissa A Greiner2, Craig E Pollack3, Michaela Dinan2. 1. Department of Population Health Science, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, USA. jrotter@live.unc.edu. 2. Department of Population Health Science, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, USA. 3. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Factors influencing the adoption of genomic testing are poorly understood, which may lead to inequitable and suboptimal treatment in cancer patients. Oncotype DX (ODX) is one of the first and most widely used genomic assays to stratify risk in women with early-stage breast cancer (BC). Physician networks have emerged as a significant and modifiable driver of emerging medical technology adoption. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between physician network connections and the use of ODX testing. METHODS: A retrospective study of women diagnosed with BC using SEER-Medicare from 2008 to 2012 was used. Medical oncologists were "connected" if they shared two or more patients during the early-adoption period (2008-2009). Parallel physician- and patient-level analyses employed logistic mixed models to determine the impact of being "connected" to an early-adopting oncologist on ODX use in 2011-2012. RESULTS: 24,463 women met study criteria; 12,874 were diagnosed with BC in the early-adoption time period. 2129 medical oncologists treated these patients from 2008 to 2009. Medical oncologists had a median number of peer connections of 4 (IQR: 2-7). Peer connection to an early-adopting provider in 2008-2009 was associated with a 1.7-fold increase in providers' adopting ODX (95% CI: 1.1-2.6) and a 1.5-fold increase in their patients receiving ODX (95% CI: 1.1-2.0) in 2010-2012. CONCLUSIONS: Peer connectedness to an early-adopting physician predicts ODX adoption in both physician-level and patient-level analyses. Provider networks may provide a potent and modifiable means to modulate the diffusion of emerging medical technologies. Efforts to increase testing, where appropriate, may benefit from peer-to-peer-based connection strategies.
BACKGROUND: Factors influencing the adoption of genomic testing are poorly understood, which may lead to inequitable and suboptimal treatment in cancerpatients. Oncotype DX (ODX) is one of the first and most widely used genomic assays to stratify risk in women with early-stage breast cancer (BC). Physician networks have emerged as a significant and modifiable driver of emerging medical technology adoption. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between physician network connections and the use of ODX testing. METHODS: A retrospective study of women diagnosed with BC using SEER-Medicare from 2008 to 2012 was used. Medical oncologists were "connected" if they shared two or more patients during the early-adoption period (2008-2009). Parallel physician- and patient-level analyses employed logistic mixed models to determine the impact of being "connected" to an early-adopting oncologist on ODX use in 2011-2012. RESULTS: 24,463 women met study criteria; 12,874 were diagnosed with BC in the early-adoption time period. 2129 medical oncologists treated these patients from 2008 to 2009. Medical oncologists had a median number of peer connections of 4 (IQR: 2-7). Peer connection to an early-adopting provider in 2008-2009 was associated with a 1.7-fold increase in providers' adopting ODX (95% CI: 1.1-2.6) and a 1.5-fold increase in their patients receiving ODX (95% CI: 1.1-2.0) in 2010-2012. CONCLUSIONS: Peer connectedness to an early-adopting physician predicts ODX adoption in both physician-level and patient-level analyses. Provider networks may provide a potent and modifiable means to modulate the diffusion of emerging medical technologies. Efforts to increase testing, where appropriate, may benefit from peer-to-peer-based connection strategies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Genetic testing; Oncotype DX; Provider network
Authors: Mary Jo Lund; Marina Mosunjac; Kelly M Davis; Sheryl Gabram-Mendola; Monica Rizzo; Harvey L Bumpers; Sherita Hearn; Amelia Zelnak; Toncred Styblo; Ruth M O'Regan Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-06-30 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lyndsay N Harris; Nofisat Ismaila; Lisa M McShane; Fabrice Andre; Deborah E Collyar; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Elizabeth H Hammond; Nicole M Kuderer; Minetta C Liu; Robert G Mennel; Catherine Van Poznak; Robert C Bast; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael L Barnett; Bruce E Landon; A James O'Malley; Nancy L Keating; Nicholas A Christakis Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2011-04-26 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Joseph A Sparano; Robert J Gray; Della F Makower; Kathleen I Pritchard; Kathy S Albain; Daniel F Hayes; Charles E Geyer; Elizabeth C Dees; Edith A Perez; John A Olson; JoAnne Zujewski; Tracy Lively; Sunil S Badve; Thomas J Saphner; Lynne I Wagner; Timothy J Whelan; Matthew J Ellis; Soonmyung Paik; William C Wood; Peter Ravdin; Maccon M Keane; Henry L Gomez Moreno; Pavan S Reddy; Timothy F Goggins; Ingrid A Mayer; Adam M Brufsky; Deborah L Toppmeyer; Virginia G Kaklamani; James N Atkins; Jeffrey L Berenberg; George W Sledge Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Douglas F Easton; Paul D P Pharoah; Antonis C Antoniou; Marc Tischkowitz; Sean V Tavtigian; Katherine L Nathanson; Peter Devilee; Alfons Meindl; Fergus J Couch; Melissa Southey; David E Goldgar; D Gareth R Evans; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Nazneen Rahman; Mark Robson; Susan M Domchek; William D Foulkes Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Antonio C Wolff; M Elizabeth H Hammond; David G Hicks; Mitch Dowsett; Lisa M McShane; Kimberly H Allison; Donald C Allred; John M S Bartlett; Michael Bilous; Patrick Fitzgibbons; Wedad Hanna; Robert B Jenkins; Pamela B Mangu; Soonmyung Paik; Edith A Perez; Michael F Press; Patricia A Spears; Gail H Vance; Giuseppe Viale; Daniel F Hayes Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Ronnie Zipkin; Andrew Schaefer; Mary Chamberlin; Tracy Onega; Alistair J O'Malley; Erika L Moen Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-01-16 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Danielle Riley; Mary Charlton; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Ingrid M Lizarraga; Sneha Phadke; Brian J Smith; Adam Skibbe; Charles F Lynch Journal: Breast J Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 2.269