Influence of NCI Cancer Center Attendance on Mortality in Lung, Breast, Colorectal, and Prostate Cancer Patients

The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH 03756, USA.
Medical Care Research and Review (Impact Factor: 2.57). 06/2009; 66(5):542-60. DOI: 10.1177/1077558709335536
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Some evidence links cancer outcomes to place of service, but the influence of NCI (National Cancer Institute) cancer centers on outcomes has not been established. We compared mortality for NCI cancer center attendees versus nonattendees. This retrospective cohort study included individuals with incident cancers of the lung, breast, colon/rectum, or prostate from 1998 to 2002 (N = 211,084) from SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare linked data, with claims through 2003. We examined the relation of NCI cancer center attendance with 1- and 3-year all-cause and cancer-specific mortality using multilevel logistic regression models. NCI cancer center attendance was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of 1- and 3-year all-cause and cancer-specific mortality. The mortality risk reduction associated with NCI cancer center attendance was most apparent in late-stage cancers and was evident across all levels of comorbidities. Attendance at NCI cancer centers is associated with a significant survival benefit for the four major cancers among Medicare beneficiaries.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim: Although PET imaging is sometimes used in follow-up of pancreatic cancer, evidence regarding comparative effectiveness of PET and older imaging modalities is limited. Patients & methods: Linked cancer registry and Medicare claims data were analyzed to examine patterns of imaging and effects on treatment patterns and survival among newly diagnosed pancreatic cancer patients from 2003 to 2007. Results: 12% of patients received PET during follow-up. In a time-varying exposure model, computed tomography/MRI was associated with lower mortality risk relative to PET in surgical patients (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.52-0.83). In a subset analysis, type of follow-up imaging before 180 days was not associated with mortality after 180 days (computed tomography/MRI vs PET; hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.84-1.16). Conclusion: Follow-up PET is uncommon among Medicare beneficiaries with pancreatic cancer, and is generally used late in the disease course. This pattern of PET use was not associated with decreased mortality risk compared with conventional imaging.
    09/2014; 3(5):491-502. DOI:10.2217/cer.14.35
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives Variation in care within and across geographic areas remains poorly understood. The goal of this article was to examine whether physician social networks—as defined by shared patients—are associated with rates of complications after radical prostatectomy. Methods In five cities, we constructed networks of physicians on the basis of their shared patients in 2004-2005 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data. From these networks, we identified subgroups of urologists who most frequently shared patients with one another. Among men with localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy, we used multilevel analysis with generalized linear mixed-effect models to examine whether physician network structure—along with specific characteristics of the network subgroups—was associated with rates of 30-day and late urinary complications, and long-term incontinence after accounting for patient-level sociodemographic, clinical factors, and urologist patient volume. Results Networks included 2677 men in five cities who underwent radical prostatectomy. The unadjusted rate of 30-day surgical complications varied across network subgroups from an 18.8 percentage-point difference in the rate of complications across network subgroups in city 1 to a 26.9 percentage-point difference in city 5. Large differences in unadjusted rates of late urinary complications and long-term incontinence across subgroups were similarly found. Network subgroup characteristics—average urologist centrality and patient racial composition—were significantly associated with rates of surgical complications. Conclusions Analysis of physician networks using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data provides insight into observed variation in rates of complications for localized prostate cancer. If validated, such approaches may be used to target future quality improvement interventions.
    Value in Health 07/2014; 17(5). DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.011 · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research-oriented cancer hospitals in the United States treat and study patients with a range of diseases. Measures of disease specific research productivity, and comparison to overall productivity, are currently lacking. Different institutions are specialized in research of particular diseases. To report disease specific productivity of American cancer hospitals, and propose a summary measure. We conducted a retrospective observational survey of the 50 highest ranked cancer hospitals in the 2013 US News and World Report rankings. We performed an automated search of PubMed and for published reports and registrations of clinical trials (respectively) addressing specific cancers between 2008 and 2013. We calculated the summed impact factor for the publications. We generated a summary measure of productivity based on the number of Phase II clinical trials registered and the impact factor of Phase II clinical trials published for each institution and disease pair. We generated rankings based on this summary measure. We identified 6076 registered trials and 6516 published trials with a combined impact factor of 44280.4, involving 32 different diseases over the 50 institutions. Using a summary measure based on registered and published clinical trails, we ranked institutions in specific diseases. As expected, different institutions were highly ranked in disease-specific productivity for different diseases. 43 institutions appeared in the top 10 ranks for at least 1 disease (vs 10 in the overall list), while 6 different institutions were ranked number 1 in at least 1 disease (vs 1 in the overall list). Research productivity varies considerably among the sample. Overall cancer productivity conceals great variation between diseases. Disease specific rankings identify sites of high academic productivity, which may be of interest to physicians, patients and researchers.
    PLoS ONE 10(3):e0121233. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0121233 · 3.53 Impact Factor