Intended versus inferred care after PET performed for initial staging in the national oncologic PET registry

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 54, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 2024-2031

  Hillner, Bruce E ^a   Tosteson, Anna N ^b   Tosteson, Tor D ^b   Wang, Qianfei ^b   Song, Yunjie ^b   Hanna, Lucy G ^c   Siegel, Barry A ^d  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b DARTMOUTH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH POLICY AND CLINICAL PRACTICE   (United States)

^c BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cohort studies; Health services research; Medical record linkage; Medicare; Neoplasm staging; Positron emission tomography

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BLADDER CANCER; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER THERAPY; CHEMORADIOTHERAPY; COMORBIDITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; LUNG SMALL CELL CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICARE; METASTASIS; MONOTHERAPY; OVARY CANCER; PANCREAS CANCER; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STOMACH CANCER; SYSTEMIC THERAPY; TREATMENT PLANNING; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COHORT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; MEDICAL RECORD; NEOPLASM; PATHOLOGY; REGISTER; SCINTISCANNING; SPECIALIZATION; STATISTICS; TIME; UNITED STATES; VERY ELDERLY; NEOPLASMS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

COHORT STUDIES; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; MEDICAL RECORD LINKAGE; MEDICARE; NEOPLASM STAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; FEMALE; HUMANS; MEDICARE; NEOPLASM STAGING; NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REGISTRIES; SPECIALIZATION; TIME FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84893389285     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.113.123430     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Hillman BJ, Goldsmith JC. The Sorcerer's Apprentice: How Medical Imaging Is Changing Health Care. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2011.
2. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Decision Memo for Positron Emission Tomography (FDG) (CAG-0065N). Available at: http://www.cms.gov/ medicarecoverage- database/details/nca-decision-memo.aspx?NCAId585&NcaName5 Positron1Emission1Tomography1(FDG)&bc5ACAAAAAACAAAAA%83D% 83D&. Accessed October 17, 2013.
3. Hillner BE, Tosteson AN, Song Y, et al. Growth in the use of PET for six cancer types after coverage by Medicare: additive or replacement? J Am Coll Radiol. 2012;9:33-41.
4. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National Coverage Determinations with Data Collection as a Condition of Coverage: Coverage with Evidence Development. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coverage/ DeterminationProcess/ Downloads/ced.pdf. Accessed October 17, 2013.
5. Hillner BE, Liu D, Coleman RE, et al. The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR): design and analysis plan. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1901-1908.
6. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Hanna L, et al. Impact of 18F-FDG PET used after initial treatment of cancer: comparison of the National Oncologic PET Registry 2006 and 2009 Cohorts. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:831-837.
7. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Shields AF, et al. Relationship between cancer type and impact of PET and PET/CT on intended management: findings of the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1928-1935.
8. Levine MN, Julian JA. Registries that show efficacy: good, but not good enough. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5316-5319.
9. Tunis S, Whicher D. The National Oncologic PET Registry: lessons learned for coverage with evidence development. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:360-365.
10. Hershman DL, Kushi LH, Shao T, et al. Early discontinuation and nonadherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy in a cohort of 8,769 early-stage breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4120-4128.
11. Partridge AH, Avorn J, Wang PS, Winer EP. Adherence to therapy with oral antineoplastic agents. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:652-661.
12. Elena JW, Travis LB, Simonds NI, et al. Leveraging epidemiology and clinical studies of cancer outcomes: recommendations and opportunities for translational research. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:85-94.
13. Hillner BE, Tosteson TD, Tosteson AN, et al. Intended versus inferred management after PET for cancer restaging: analysis of Medicare claims linked to a coverage with evidence development registry. Med Care. 2013;51:361-367.
14. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/ computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2155-2161.
15. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National Coverage Determination (NCD) for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Scans (220.6). Available at: http://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/ncd-details. aspx?NCDId5 211&ncdver54&NCAId592&ver519& NcaName5Positron1Emission1 Tomography1&bc5BEAAAAAAIAAA&. Accessed October 17, 2013.
16. Klabunde CN. SEER-Medicare Calculation of Comorbidity Weights. Available at: http://healthservices.cancer.gov/seermedicare/program/comorbidity.html. Accessed October 17, 2013.
17. McAuliffe PF, Danoff S, Shapiro SD, Davidson NE. Treatment for breast cancer: is time really of the essence? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:80-82.
18. Bilimoria KY, Ko CY, Tomlinson JS, et al. Wait times for cancer surgery in the United States: trends and predictors of delays. Ann Surg. 2011;253:779-785.
19. Hershman D, Hall MJ, Wang X, et al. Timing of adjuvant chemotherapy initiation after surgery for stage III colon cancer. Cancer. 2006;107:2581-2588.
20. Szklo M, Nieto F. Epidemiology: Beyond the Basics. 3rd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2014.
21. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Fact Sheets SEER. Available at: http:// seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/urinb.html. Accessed October 17, 2013.
22. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:794-810.
23. Hirsch A, Windhausen F, Tijssen JG, et al. Diverging associations of an intended early invasive strategy compared with actual revascularization, and outcome in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: the problem of treatment selection bias. Eur Heart J. 2009;30:645-654.
24. Velazquez EJ, Lee KL, Deja MA, et al. Coronary-artery bypass surgery in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1607-1616.
25. Buckley CJ, Rutherford RB, Diethrich EB, Buckley SD. Inherent problems with randomized clinical trials with observational/no treatment arms. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52:237-241.
26. Elkin EB, Kim SH, Casper ES, Kissane DW, Schrag D. Desire for information and involvement in treatment decisions: elderly cancer patients' preferences and their physicians' perceptions. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5275-5280.
27. Mandelblatt JS, Faul LA, Luta G, et al. Patient and physician decision styles and breast cancer chemotherapy use in older women: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Protocol 369901. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2609-2614.
28. Keating NL, Beth Landrum M, Arora NK, et al. Cancer patients' roles in treatment decisions: do characteristics of the decision influence roles? J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4364-4370.
29. German RR, Wike JM, Bauer KR, et al. Quality of cancer registry data: findings from CDC-NPCR's Breast and Prostate Cancer Data Quality and Patterns of Care Study. J Registry Manag. 2011;38:75-86.
30. Lamont EB, Lan L. Sensitivity of Medicare claims data for measuring use of standard multiagent chemotherapy regimens. Med Care. March 14, 2012 [Epub ahead of print].
31. Lamont EB, Herndon JE 2nd, Weeks JC, et al. Criterion validity of Medicare chemotherapy claims in Cancer and Leukemia Group B Breast and Lung Cancer trial participants. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1080-1083.
32. Liang SY, Phillips KA, Wang G, et al. Tradeoffs of using administrative claims and medical records to identify the use of personalized medicine for patients with breast cancer. Med Care. 2011;49:e1-e8.
33. Cooper GS, Virnig B, Klabunde CN, Schussler N, Freeman J, Warren JL. Use of SEER-Medicare data for measuring cancer surgery. Med Care. 2002;40:IV- 43-IV-48.
34. Smith BD, Pan I-W, Shih Y-CT, et al. Adoption of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for breast cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103: 798-809.
35. Lund JL, Sturmer T, Harlan LC, et al. Identifying specific chemotherapeutic agents in Medicare data: a validation study. Med Care. November 15, 2011 [Epub ahead of print].
36. Chatterton BE, Ho Shon I, Baldey A, et al. Positron emission tomography changes management and prognostic stratification in patients with oesophageal cancer: results of a multicentre prospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:354-361.
37. Scott AM, Gunawardana DH, Bartholomeusz D, Ramshaw JE, Lin P. PET changes management and improves prognostic stratification in patients with head and neck cancer: results of a multicenter prospective study. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1593-1600.
38. Scott AM, Gunawardana DH, Wong J, et al. Positron emission tomography changes management, improves prognostic stratification and is superior to gallium scintigraphy in patients with low-grade lymphoma: results of a multicentre prospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:347-353.
39. Staub LP, Lord SJ, Simes RJ, et al. Using patient management as a surrogate for patient health outcomes in diagnostic test evaluation. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:12.