Article

Variation in adherence to external beam radiotherapy quality measures among elderly men with localized prostate cancer

Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021, USA.
International Journal of Radiation OncologyBiologyPhysics (Impact Factor: 4.18). 01/2008; 69(5):1456-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.05.020
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To characterize the variation in adherence to quality measures of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer and its relation to patient and provider characteristics in a population-based, representative sample of U.S. men.
We evaluated EBRT quality measures proposed by a RAND expert panel of physicians among men aged >or=65 years diagnosed between 2000 and 2002 with localized prostate cancer and treated with primary EBRT using data from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare program. We assessed the adherence to five EBRT quality measures that were amenable to analysis using SEER-Medicare data: (1) use of conformal RT planning; (2) use of high-energy (>10-MV) photons; (3) use of custom immobilization; (4) completion of two follow-up visits with a radiation oncologist in the year after therapy; and (5) radiation oncologist board certification.
Of the 11,674 patients, 85% had received conformal RT planning, 75% had received high-energy photons, and 97% had received custom immobilization. One-third of patients had completed two follow-up visits with a radiation oncologist, although 91% had at least one visit with a urologist or radiation oncologist. Most patients (85%) had been treated by a board-certified radiation oncologist.
The overall high adherence to EBRT quality measures masked substantial variation in geography, socioeconomic status in the area of residence, and teaching affiliation of the RT facility. Future research should examine the reasons for the variations in these measures and whether the variation is associated with important clinical outcomes.

0 Followers
 · 
52 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The National Radiation Oncology Registry (NROR) is a collaborative initiative of the Radiation Oncology Institute and the American Society of Radiation Oncology, with input and guidance from other major stakeholders in oncology. The overarching mission of the NROR is to improve the care of cancer patients by capturing reliable information on treatment delivery and health outcomes. The NROR will collect patient-specific radiotherapy data electronically to allow for rapid comparison of the many competing treatment modalities and account for effectiveness, outcome, utilization, quality, safety, and cost. It will provide benchmark data and quality improvement tools for individual practitioners. The NROR steering committee has determined that prostate cancer provides an appropriate model to test the concept and the data capturing software in a limited number of sites. The NROR pilot project will begin with this disease-gathering treatment and outcomes data from a limited number of treatment sites across the range of practice; once feasibility is proven, it will scale up to more sites and diseases. When the NROR is fully implemented, all radiotherapy facilities, along with their radiation oncologists, will be solicited to participate in it. With the broader participation of the radiation oncology community, NROR has the potential to serve as a resource for determining national patterns of care, gaps in treatment quality, comparative effectiveness, and hypothesis generation to identify new linkages between therapeutic processes and outcomes. The NROR will benefit radiation oncologists and other care providers, payors, vendors, policy-makers, and, most importantly, cancer patients by capturing reliable information on population-based radiation treatment delivery.
    01/2012; 2(1):10-7. DOI:10.1016/j.prro.2011.06.002
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Radiation therapy (RT) techniques for prostate cancer are evolving rapidly, but the impact of these changes on risk of second cancers, which are an uncommon but serious consequence of RT, are uncertain. We conducted a comprehensive assessment of risks of second cancer according to RT technique (>10 MV vs ≤10 MV and 3-dimensional [3D] vs 2D RT) and modality (external beam RT, brachytherapy, and combined modes) in a large cohort of prostate cancer patients. The cohort was constructed using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database. We included cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in patients 66 to 84 years of age from 1992 to 2004 and followed through 2009. We used Poisson regression analysis to compare rates of second cancer across RT groups with adjustment for age, follow-up, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and comorbidities. Analyses of second solid cancers were based on the number of 5-year survivors (n=38,733), and analyses of leukemia were based on number of 2-year survivors (n=52,515) to account for the minimum latency period for radiation-related cancer. During an average of 4.4 years' follow-up among 5-year prostate cancer survivors (2DRT = 5.5 years; 3DRT = 3.9 years; and brachytherapy = 2.7 years), 2933 second solid cancers were diagnosed. There were no significant differences in second solid cancer rates overall between 3DRT and 2DRT patients (relative risk [RR] = 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-1.09), but second rectal cancer rates were significantly lower after 3DRT (RR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.40-0.88). Rates of second solid cancers for higher- and lower-energy RT were similar overall (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.89-1.06), as were rates for site-specific cancers. There were significant reductions in colon cancer and leukemia rates in the first decade after brachytherapy compared to those after external beam RT. Advanced treatment planning may have reduced rectal cancer risks in prostate cancer survivors by approximately 3 cases per 1000 after 15 years. Despite concerns about the neutron doses, we did not find evidence that higher energy therapy was associated with increased second cancer risks. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 02/2015; 91(2):295-302. DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.10.040 · 4.18 Impact Factor
  • [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

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
20 Downloads
Available from
Jun 4, 2014