Literature DB >> 31611329

Use of High-Cost Cancer Treatments in Academic and Nonacademic Practice.

Aaron P Mitchell1,2,3, Alan C Kinlaw3,4, Sharon Peacock-Hinton5, Stacie B Dusetzina6,7, Hanna K Sanoff2,8, Jennifer L Lund5,8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Academic physicians, such as those affiliated with National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, may have different practice patterns regarding the use of high-cost cancer drugs than nonacademic physicians.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this cohort study, we linked cancer registry, administrative, and demographic data for patients with newly diagnosed cancer in North Carolina from 2004 to 2011. We selected cancer types with multiple U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved, National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended treatment options and large differences in reimbursement between higher-priced and lower-priced options (stage IV colorectal, stage IV lung, and stage II-IV head-and-neck cancers). We assessed whether provider's practice setting-NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center ("NCI") versus other location ("non-NCI")-was associated with use of higher-cost treatment options. We used inverse probability of exposure weighting to control for patient characteristics.
RESULTS: Of 800 eligible patients, 79.6% were treated in non-NCI settings. Patients treated in non-NCI settings were more likely to receive high-cost treatment than patients treated in NCI settings (36.0% vs. 23.2%), with an unadjusted prevalence difference of 12.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1%-20.0%). After controlling for potential confounding factors, non-NCI patients remained more likely to receive high-cost treatment, although the strength of association was attenuated (adjusted prevalence difference, 9.6%; 95% CI -0.1%-18.7%). Exploratory analyses suggested potential heterogeneity across cancer type and insurance status.
CONCLUSION: Use of higher-cost cancer treatments may be more common in non-NCI than NCI settings. This may reflect differential implementation of clinical evidence, local practice variation, or possibly a response to the reimbursement incentives presented by chemotherapy billing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncology care delivery and practice patterns may vary between care settings. By comparing otherwise similar patients treated in National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers with those treated elsewhere, this study suggests that patients may be more likely to receive treatment with certain expensive cancer drugs if treated in the non-NCI setting. These practice differences may result in differences in patient costs and outcomes as a result of where they receive treatment. © AlphaMed Press 2019.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Antineoplastic agents; Drug therapy; Fee-for-service plans; Health services research; Medical overuse; National Cancer Institute; Practice pattern, clinical; Reimbursement, incentive

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31611329      PMCID: PMC6964140          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0338

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


  41 in total

1.  Standardized binomial models for risk or prevalence ratios and differences.

Authors:  David B Richardson; Alan C Kinlaw; Richard F MacLehose; Stephen R Cole
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 7.196

2.  Limits on Medicare's ability to control rising spending on cancer drugs.

Authors:  Peter B Bach
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-01-27       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  Concomitant platinum-based chemotherapy or cetuximab with radiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.

Authors:  Fausto Petrelli; Andrea Coinu; Valentina Riboldi; Karen Borgonovo; Mara Ghilardi; Mary Cabiddu; Veronica Lonati; Enrico Sarti; Sandro Barni
Journal:  Oral Oncol       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 5.337

4.  Cost-effectiveness of pertuzumab combined with trastuzumab and docetaxel as a first-line treatment for HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Henry W C Leung; Agnes L F Chan; Chih-Hsin Muo; John Hang Leung
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 2.217

5.  Impact of the 340B Drug Pricing Program on Cancer Care Site and Spending in Medicare.

Authors:  Jeah Jung; Wendy Y Xu; Yamini Kalidindi
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Are Small Reimbursement Changes Enough to Change Cancer Care? Reimbursement Variation in Prostate Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Shellie D Ellis; Ronald C Chen; Stacie B Dusetzina; Stephanie B Wheeler; George L Jackson; Matthew E Nielsen; William R Carpenter; Morris Weinberger
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 3.840

7.  Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III study.

Authors:  Leonard B Saltz; Stephen Clarke; Eduardo Díaz-Rubio; Werner Scheithauer; Arie Figer; Ralph Wong; Sheryl Koski; Mikhail Lichinitser; Tsai-Shen Yang; Fernando Rivera; Felix Couture; Florin Sirzén; Jim Cassidy
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-04-20       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Economic analysis of bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Authors:  Donna Lawrence; Michael Maschio; Kevin J Leahy; Simon Yunger; Jacob C Easaw; Milton C Weinstein
Journal:  J Med Econ       Date:  2013-10-25       Impact factor: 2.448

9.  Characteristics of urologists predict the use of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Vahakn B Shahinian; Yong-fang Kuo; Jean L Freeman; Eduardo Orihuela; James S Goodwin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-12-01       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Physician-Driven Variation in Nonrecommended Services Among Older Adults Diagnosed With Cancer.

Authors:  Allison Lipitz-Snyderman; Camelia S Sima; Coral L Atoria; Elena B Elkin; Christopher Anderson; Victoria Blinder; Chiaojung Jillian Tsai; Katherine S Panageas; Peter B Bach
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2016-10-01       Impact factor: 21.873

View more
  1 in total

1.  Real-World Use of Bone-Modifying Agents in Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Aaron P Mitchell; Akriti Mishra Meza; Katherine S Panageas; Allison Lipitz-Snyderman; Peter B Bach; Michael J Morris
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 11.816

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.