Search

ObjectiveThis study evaluates the impact of individual surgeons and institutions on the use of mastectomy or breast conserving surgery (BCS) among elderly women with breast cancer.Summary of background dataCurrent literature characterizes patient clinical and demographic factors that increase likelihood of mastectomy use. However, the impact of the individual provider or institution is not well understood, and could provide key insights to biases in the decision-making process.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of 29,358 women 65 years or older derived from the SEER-Medicare linked database with localized breast cancer diagnosed from 2000 to 2009. Multilevel, multivariable logistic models were employed, with odds ratios (ORs) used to describe the impact of demographic or clinical covariates, and the median OR (MOR) used to describe the relative impact of the surgeon and institution.ResultsSix thousand five hundred ninety-four women (22.4%) underwent mastectomy. Unadjusted rates of mastectomy ranged from 0% in the bottom quintile of surgeons to 58.0% in the top quintile. On multivariable analysis, the individual surgeon (MOR 1.97) had a greater impact on mastectomy than did the institution (MOR 1.71) or all other clinical and demographic variables except tumor size (OR 3.06) and nodal status (OR 2.95). Surgeons with more years in practice, or those with a lower case volume were more likely to perform mastectomy (P < 0.05).ConclusionThe individual surgeon influences the likelihood of mastectomy for the treatment of localized breast cancer. Further research should focus on physician-related biases that influence this decision to ensure patient autonomy.

PurposeDespite multiple randomized trials showing the efficacy of hypofractionated radiation therapy in early-stage breast cancer, the United States has been slow to adopt this treatment. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of individual radiation oncologists on the early adoption of hypofractionated radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer.MethodsWe identified 22,233 Medicare beneficiaries with localized breast cancer that was diagnosed from 2004 to 2011 who underwent breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiation. Multilevel, multivariable logistic models clustered by radiation oncologist and geographic practice area were used to determine the impact of the provider and geographic region on the likelihood of receiving hypofractionated compared with standard fractionated radiation therapy while controlling for a patient's clinical and demographic covariates. Odds ratios (OR) describe the impact of demographic or clinical covariates, and the median OR (MOR) describes the relative impact of the individual radiation oncologist and geographic region on the likelihood of undergoing hypofractionated radiation therapy.ResultsAmong the entire cohort, 2333 women (10.4%) were treated with hypofractionated radiation therapy, with unadjusted rates ranging from 0.0% in the bottom quintile of radiation oncologists to 30.4% in the top quintile. Multivariable analysis found that the individual radiation oncologist (MOR 3.08) had a greater impact on the use of hypofractionation than did geographic region (MOR 2.10) or clinical and demographic variables. The impact of the provider increased from the year 2004 to 2005 (MOR 2.82) to the year 2010 to 2011 (MOR 3.16) despite the publication of long-term randomized trial results in early 2010. Male physician and radiation oncologists treating the highest volume of breast cancer patients were less likely to perform hypofractionation (P

PurposeOver the past decade, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has replaced conventional radiation techniques in the management of head-and-neck cancers (HNCs). We conducted this population-based study to evaluate the influence of radiation oncologist experience on outcomes in patients with HNC treated with IMRT compared with patients with HNC treated with conventional radiation therapy.MethodsWe identified radiation providers from Medicare claims of 6,212 Medicare beneficiaries with HNC treated between 2000 and 2009. We analyzed the impact of provider volume on all-cause mortality, HNC mortality, and toxicity end points after treatment with either conventional radiation therapy or IMRT. All analyses were performed by using either multivariable Cox proportional hazards or Fine-Gray regression models controlling for potential confounding variables.ResultsAmong patients treated with conventional radiation, we found no significant relationship between provider volume and patient survival or any toxicity end point. Among patients receiving IMRT, those treated by higher-volume radiation oncologists had improved survival compared with those treated by low-volume providers. The risk of all-cause mortality decreased by 21% for every additional five patients treated per provider per year (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.94). Patients treated with IMRT by higher-volume providers had decreased HNC-specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.91) and decreased risk of aspiration pneumonia (subdistribution HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.99).ConclusionPatients receiving IMRT for HNC had improved outcomes when treated by higher-volume providers. These findings will better inform patients and providers when making decisions about treatment, and emphasize the critical importance of high-quality radiation therapy for optimal treatment of HNC.

PurposeAdjuvant radiation therapy, which has proven benefit against breast cancer, has historically been associated with an increased incidence of ischemic heart disease. Modern techniques have reduced this risk, but a detailed evaluation has not recently been conducted. The present study evaluated the effect of current radiation practices on ischemia-related cardiac events and procedures in a population-based study of older women with nonmetastatic breast cancer.Methods and materialsA total of 29,102 patients diagnosed from 2000 to 2009 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. Medicare claims were used to identify the radiation therapy and cardiac outcomes. Competing risk models were used to assess the effect of radiation on these outcomes.ResultsPatients with left-sided breast cancer had a small increase in their risk of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after radiation therapy-the 10-year cumulative incidence for these patients was 5.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.9%-6.2%) and 4.5% (95% CI 4.0%-5.0%) for right-sided patients. This risk was limited to women with previous cardiac disease. For patients who underwent PCI, those with left-sided breast cancer had a significantly increased risk of cardiac mortality with a subdistribution hazard ratio of 2.02 (95% CI 1.23-3.34). No other outcome, including cardiac mortality for the entire cohort, showed a significant relationship with tumor laterality.ConclusionsFor women with a history of cardiac disease, those with left-sided breast cancer who underwent radiation therapy had increased rates of PCI and a survival decrement if treated with PCI. The results of the present study could help cardiologists and radiation oncologists better stratify patients who need more aggressive cardioprotective techniques.

Background and purposeIn cost-effective healthcare systems, the cost of services should parallel patient complexity or quality of care. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the cost of radiotherapy correlates with patient-related outcomes among a large cohort of breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant breast radiation.Materials and methods23,127 women with non-metastatic breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2000 to 2009. Medicare reimbursements were used as a proxy for cost of radiotherapy, and Medicare claims were examined to identify local toxicities, and breast cancer-related endpoints. The impact of cost on these outcomes was studied with multivariable Fine-Gray models to account for competing risks.ResultsThe median cost (and interquartile range) of a course of breast radiation was $8100 ($6700-9700). Increased radiation costs were not associated with the occurrence of treatment-related toxicities (all p-values>0.05), ipsilateral breast recurrence (p=0.55), or breast cancer-related mortality (p=0.55).ConclusionHigher costs for adjuvant radiation in breast cancer were not associated with a decreased risk of patient-related outcomes suggesting inefficiency in Medicare reimbursements. Future efforts should focus on prospective evaluation of alternative payment models for radiotherapy.

PurposeRadiation therapy represents a major source of health care expenditure for patients with cancer. Understanding the sources of variability in the cost of radiation therapy is critical to evaluating the efficiency of the current reimbursement system and could shape future policy reform. This study defines the magnitude and sources of variation in the cost of radiation therapy for a large cohort of Medicare beneficiaries.Patients and methodsWe identified 55,288 patients within the SEER database diagnosed with breast, lung, or prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009. The cost of radiation therapy was estimated from Medicare reimbursements. Multivariable linear regression models were used to assess the influence of patient, tumor, and radiation therapy provider characteristics on variation in cost of radiation therapy.ResultsFor breast, lung, and prostate cancers, the median cost (interquartile range) of a course of radiation therapy was $8,600 ($7,300 to $10,300), $9,000 ($7,500 to $11,100), and $18,000 ($11,300 to $25,500), respectively. For all three cancer subtypes, patient- or tumor-related factors accounted for < 3% of the variation in cost. Factors unrelated to the patient, including practice type, geography, and individual radiation therapy provider, accounted for a substantial proportion of the variation in cost, ranging from 44% with breast, 43% with lung, and 61% with prostate cancer.ConclusionIn this study, factors unrelated to the individual patient accounted for the majority of variation in the cost of radiation therapy, suggesting potential inefficiency in health care expenditure. Future research should determine whether this variability translates into improved patient outcomes for further evaluation of current reimbursement practices.