David T Hughes1, David Reyes-Gastelum2, Kevin C Ward3, Ann S Hamilton4, Megan R Haymart2. 1. Department of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 4. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine physician-reported use of and barriers to active surveillance for thyroid cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: It is not clear whether active surveillance for thyroid cancer is widely used. METHODS: Surgeons and endocrinologists identified by thyroid cancer patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County were surveyed between 2018 and 2019. Multivariable weighted logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine physician acceptance and use of active surveillance. Results: Of the 654 eligible physicians identified, 448 responded to the survey (69% response rate). The majority (76%) believed that active surveillance was an appropriate management option, but only 44% used it in their practice. Characteristics of physicians who stated that active surveillance was appropriate management, but did not report using it included more years in practice (reference group <10 years in practice): 10 to 19 years [odds ratio, OR 0.50 [95% confidence interval, CI 0.28-0.92]; 20 to 29 years [OR 0.31 (95% CI 0.15-0.62)]; >30 years [OR 0.30 (95% CI 0.15-0.61)] and higher patient volume 11 to 30 patients per year [OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.21 -0.70)] and >50 patients per year [OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.16-0.71)] compared to < 10, with no significant difference in those seeing 31 to 50 patients. Physicians reported multiple barriers to implementing active surveillance including patient does not want (80.3%), loss to follow-up concern (78.4%), more patient worry (57.6%), and malpractice lawsuit concern (50.9%). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Despite most physicians considering active surveillance to be appropriate management, more than half are not using it. Addressing existing barriers is key to improving uptake.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine physician-reported use of and barriers to active surveillance for thyroid cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: It is not clear whether active surveillance for thyroid cancer is widely used. METHODS: Surgeons and endocrinologists identified by thyroid cancer patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County were surveyed between 2018 and 2019. Multivariable weighted logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine physician acceptance and use of active surveillance. Results: Of the 654 eligible physicians identified, 448 responded to the survey (69% response rate). The majority (76%) believed that active surveillance was an appropriate management option, but only 44% used it in their practice. Characteristics of physicians who stated that active surveillance was appropriate management, but did not report using it included more years in practice (reference group <10 years in practice): 10 to 19 years [odds ratio, OR 0.50 [95% confidence interval, CI 0.28-0.92]; 20 to 29 years [OR 0.31 (95% CI 0.15-0.62)]; >30 years [OR 0.30 (95% CI 0.15-0.61)] and higher patient volume 11 to 30 patients per year [OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.21 -0.70)] and >50 patients per year [OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.16-0.71)] compared to < 10, with no significant difference in those seeing 31 to 50 patients. Physicians reported multiple barriers to implementing active surveillance including patient does not want (80.3%), loss to follow-up concern (78.4%), more patient worry (57.6%), and malpractice lawsuit concern (50.9%). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Despite most physicians considering active surveillance to be appropriate management, more than half are not using it. Addressing existing barriers is key to improving uptake.
Authors: Se Jin Cho; Chong Hyun Suh; Jung Hwan Baek; Sae Rom Chung; Young Jun Choi; Ki-Wook Chung; Young Kee Shong; Jeong Hyun Lee Journal: Thyroid Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Peter R Dixon; George Tomlinson; Jesse David Pasternak; Ozgur Mete; Chaim M Bell; Anna M Sawka; David P Goldstein; David R Urbach Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: R Michael Tuttle; James A Fagin; Gerald Minkowitz; Richard J Wong; Benjamin Roman; Snehal Patel; Brian Untch; Ian Ganly; Ashok R Shaha; Jatin P Shah; Mark Pace; Duan Li; Ariadne Bach; Oscar Lin; Adrian Whiting; Ronald Ghossein; Inigo Landa; Mona Sabra; Laura Boucai; Stephanie Fish; Luc G T Morris Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: David T Hughes; David Reyes-Gastelum; Kevin J Kovatch; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Megan R Haymart Journal: Surgery Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Megan R Haymart; Mousumi Banerjee; Di Yang; Andrew K Stewart; Jennifer J Griggs; James C Sisson; Ronald J Koenig Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Kevin J Kovatch; David Reyes-Gastelum; David T Hughes; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Megan R Haymart Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Brooke Nickel; Juan P Brito; Ray Moynihan; Alexandra Barratt; Susan Jordan; Kirsten McCaffery Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Anna M Sawka; Sangeet Ghai; Tom Yoannidis; Lorne Rotstein; Patrick J Gullane; Ralph W Gilbert; Jesse D Pasternak; Dale H Brown; Antoine Eskander; John R de Almeida; Jonathan C Irish; Kevin Higgins; Danny J Enepekides; Eric Monteiro; Avik Banerjee; Manish Shah; Everton Gooden; Afshan Zahedi; Mark Korman; Shereen Ezzat; Jennifer M Jones; Valeria E Rac; George Tomlinson; Aleksandra Stanimirovic; Amiram Gafni; Nancy N Baxter; David P Goldstein Journal: Thyroid Date: 2020-04-08 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Allen S Ho; Sungjin Kim; Cynthia Zalt; Michelle L Melany; Irene E Chen; Joan Vasquez; Jon Mallen-St Clair; Michelle M Chen; Missael Vasquez; Xuemo Fan; Welmoed K van Deen; Robert W Haile; Timothy J Daskivich; Zachary S Zumsteg; Glenn D Braunstein; Wendy L Sacks Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 33.006
Authors: Elisa Pasqual; Julie Ann Sosa; Yingxi Chen; Sara J Schonfeld; Amy Berrington de González; Cari M Kitahara Journal: Thyroid Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 6.506
Authors: Susan C Pitt; Nan Yang; Megan C Saucke; Nicholas Marka; Bret Hanlon; Kristin L Long; Alexandria D McDow; J P Brito; Benjamin R Roman Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Maria Papaleontiou; Debbie W Chen; Mousumi Banerjee; David Reyes-Gastelum; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Megan R Haymart Journal: Thyroid Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 6.506