Appropriate Use of Surgical Procedures for Patients with Cancer

Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 479-486

  Lawson, Elise H ^a   Gibbons, Melinda Maggard ^a   Ko, Clifford Y ^a,b  

^a VA GREATER LOS ANGELES HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^b AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS   (United States)

Author keywords

Appropriateness method; Cancer; Overuse; Surgery; Underuse

Indexed keywords

ALPHA2B INTERFERON;

CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; KIDNEY CANCER; MELANOMA; NEPHRECTOMY; ONCOLOGY; PATIENT CARE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SENTINEL LYMPH NODE BIOPSY; SOLID TUMOR; SURGICAL RISK; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT INDICATION;

HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; PATIENT SELECTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES;

EID: 84860868002     PISSN: 10553207     EISSN: 15585042     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.soc.2012.03.008     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Brook R.H., Chassin M.R., Fink A., et al. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1986, 2(1):53-63.
2. Fitch K., Bernstein S., Aguilar M., et al. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user's manual 2001 2001, No. MR-1269-DG-XII/RE:126, RAND Corp, Santa Monica, CA.
3. Park R.E., Fink A., Brook R.H., et al. Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures. Am J Public Health 1986, 76(7):766-772.
4. Burnand B., Vader J.P., Froehlich F., et al. Reliability of panel-based guidelines for colonoscopy: an international comparison. Gastrointest Endosc 1998, 47(2):162-166.
5. Shekelle P.G., Kahan J.P., Bernstein S.J., et al. The reproducibility of a method to identify the overuse and underuse of medical procedures. N Engl J Med 1998, 338(26):1888-1895.
6. Broder M.S., Kanouse D.E., Mittman B.S., et al. The appropriateness of recommendations for hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2000, 95(2):199-205.
7. Yermilov I., McGory M.L., Shekelle P.W., et al. Appropriateness criteria for bariatric surgery: beyond the NIH guidelines. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2009, 17(8):1521-1527.
8. Kahan J.P., Bernstein S.J., Leape L.L., et al. Measuring the necessity of medical procedures. Med Care 1994, 32(4):357-365.
9. Singh K., Lee B.L., Wilson M.R. A panel assessment of glaucoma management: modification of existing RAND-like methodology for consensus in ophthalmology. Part II: results and interpretation. Am J Ophthalmol 2008, 145(3):575-581.
10. Merrick N.J., Fink A., Park R.E., et al. Derivation of clinical indications for carotid endarterectomy by an expert panel. Am J Public Health 1987, 77(2):187-190.
11. Kahan J.P., Park R.E., Leape L.L., et al. Variations by specialty in physician ratings of the appropriateness and necessity of indications for procedures. Med Care 1996, 34(6):512-523.
12. Hemingway H., Crook A.M., Feder G., et al. Underuse of coronary revascularization procedures in patients considered appropriate candidates for revascularization. N Engl J Med 2001, 344(9):645-654.
13. Dubois R.W., Swetter S.M., Atkins M., et al. Developing indications for the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy and adjuvant high-dose interferon alfa-2b in melanoma. Arch Dermatol 2001, 137(9):1217-1224.
14. Halbert R.J., Figlin R.A., Atkins M.B., et al. Treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell cancer: a RAND Appropriateness Panel. Cancer 2006, 107(10):2375-2383.
15. Halm E.A., Tuhrim S., Wang J.J., et al. Has evidence changed practice? Appropriateness of carotid endarterectomy after the clinical trials. Neurology 2007, 68(3):187-194.
16. Matchar D.B., Oddone E.Z., McCrory D.C., et al. Influence of projected complication rates on estimated appropriate use rates for carotid endarterectomy. Appropriateness Project Investigators. Academic Medical Center Consortium. Health Serv Res 1997, 32(3):325-342.
17. Bernstein S.J., McGlynn E.A., Siu A.L., et al. The appropriateness of hysterectomy. A comparison of care in seven health plans. Health Maintenance Organization Quality of Care Consortium. JAMA 1993, 269(18):2398-2402.
18. Epstein A.M., Weissman J.S., Schneider E.C., et al. Race and gender disparities in rates of cardiac revascularization: do they reflect appropriate use of procedures or problems in quality of care?. Med Care 2003, 41(11):1240-1255.
19. Conigliaro J., Whittle J., Good C.B., et al. Understanding racial variation in the use of coronary revascularization procedures: the role of clinical factors. Arch Intern Med 2000, 160(9):1329-1335.
20. The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. Understanding of the efficiency and effectiveness of the health care system. Available at: Accessed August 29, 2011. http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/.
21. Chassin M.R., Kosecoff J., Park R.E., et al. Does inappropriate use explain geographic variations in the use of health care services? A study of three procedures. JAMA 1987, 258(18):2533-2537.
22. Brook R.H. Assessing the appropriateness of care-its time has come. JAMA 2009, 302(9):997-998.
23. Junghans C., Feder G., Timmis A.D., et al. Effect of patient-specific ratings vs conventional guidelines on investigation decisions in angina: Appropriateness of Referral and Investigation in Angina (ARIA) Trial. Arch Intern Med 2007, 167(2):195-202.
24. Brindis R., Goldberg S.D., Turco M.A., et al. President's page: quality and appropriateness of care: the response to allegations and actions needed by the cardiovascular professional. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011, 57(1):111-113.
25. ACE Standards for Catheterization Laboratory Accreditation: Accreditation for Cardiovascular Excellence; 2011. Available at: Accessed March 14, 2012. http://www.cvexcel.org/Default.aspx.