Physicians' beliefs about breast cancer surveillance testing are consistent with test overuse

Understanding Healthcare Personnel's Perceptions About Reducing Low-Value Care: A Scoping Review

Objective

To systematically and comprehensively search the studies describing healthcare personnel's perceptions about reducing low-value care.

Design

Scoping review.

Methods

Evidence sources included PubMed, ProQuest and CINAHL databases from inception to 13th September 2023, along with grey literature, expert suggestions and reference lists from the included articles. Studies were included if they contained information about healthcare personnel's perceptions and involvement in reducing low-value care. The extracted data included general study characteristics, the type of low-value care of interest, clinical settings, and main findings related to healthcare personnel's perceptions. Three frameworks were used to guide the data synthesis. First, the main findings from the included studies were mapped onto the Process of De-adoption Framework to capture the aspects of low-value care that healthcare personnel focused on, including the identification of low-value care, barriers and facilitators to reducing low-value care, and intervention strategies. The identified barriers and facilitators were then mapped onto the relevant domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. Finally, the intervention strategies, as informed by healthcare personnel's perceptions, were mapped to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care taxonomy framework.

Results

The 37 included studies were those published since 2011. Of these, 15 studies were conducted in the United States. Most included studies (n = 19) described low-value care not specific to a care measure. Twelve of the included studies described healthcare personnel's perceptions regarding the identification of low-value care, 34 studies described healthcare personnel's perceptions regarding influence factors to reducing low-value care and 18 studies described healthcare personnel's perceptions regarding intervention strategies to reduce low-value care. "Knowledge" (n = 16) and 'environmental context and resources' (n = 16) were the most common influence factors of reducing low-value care. "Education" was the most commonly discussed intervention strategy for reducing low-value care (n = 14).

Conclusion

Healthcare personnel's perceptions focused on identifying low-value care, barriers and facilitators of reducing low-value care and intervention strategies to reduce low-value care. Education was potentially the main effect of the intervention strategies in addressing lack of knowledge, which is the main barrier to reducing low-value care. Future research should develop and implement intervention strategies to reduce low-value care based on healthcare personnel's perceptions.

Adapting and implementing breast cancer follow-up in primary care: protocol for a mixed methods hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized study

BACKGROUND

Advances in detection and treatment for breast cancer have led to an increase in the number of individuals managing significant late and long-term treatment effects. Primary care has a role in caring for patients with a history of cancer, yet there is little guidance on how to effectively implement survivorship care evidence into primary care delivery.

METHODS

This protocol describes a multi-phase, mixed methods, stakeholder-driven research process that prioritizes actionable, evidence-based primary care improvements to enhance breast cancer survivorship care by integrating implementation and primary care transformation frameworks: the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework and the Practice Change Model (PCM). Informed by depth interviews and a four round Delphi panel with diverse stakeholders from primary care and oncology, we will implement and evaluate an iterative clinical intervention in a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized design in twenty-six primary care practices. Multi-component implementation strategies will include facilitation, audit and feedback, and learning collaboratives. Ongoing data collection and analysis will be performed to optimize adoption of the intervention. The primary clinical outcome to test effectiveness is comprehensive breast cancer follow-up care. Implementation will be assessed using mixed methods to explore how organizational and contextual variables affect adoption, implementation, and early sustainability for provision of follow-up care, symptom, and risk management activities at six- and 12-months post implementation.

DISCUSSION

Study findings are poised to inform development of scalable, high impact intervention processes to enhance long-term follow-up care for patients with a history of breast cancer in primary care. If successful, next steps would include working with a national primary care practice-based research network to implement a national dissemination study. Actionable activities and processes identified could also be applied to development of organizational and care delivery interventions for follow-up care for other cancer sites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on June 2, 2022: NCT05400941.

Evaluating potential overuse of surveillance care in cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Survivorship care plans (SCPs) communicate cancer-related information from oncology providers to patients and primary care providers. SCPs may limit overuse testing by specifying necessary follow-up care. From a randomized, controlled trial of SCP delivery, we examined whether cancer-related tests not specified in SCPs, but conducted after SCP receipt, were appropriate or consistent with overuse.

METHODS

Survivors of breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer treated at urban-academic or rural-community health systems were randomized to one of three SCP delivery arms. Tests during 18 months after SCP receipt were classified as consistent with overuse if they were (1) not included in SCPs and (2) on a guideline-based predetermined list of "not recommended surveillance." After chart abstraction, physicians performed review and adjudication of potential overuse. Descriptive analyses were conducted of tests consistent with overuse. Negative binomial regression models determined if testing consistent with overuse differed across study arms.

RESULTS

Among 316 patients (137 breast, 67 colorectal, 112 prostate), 140 individual tests were identified as potential overuse. Upon review, 98 were deemed to be consistent with overuse: 78 tumor markers and 20 imaging tests. The majority of overuse testing was breast cancer-related (95%). Across sites, 27 patients (9%) received ≥1 test consistent with overuse; most were breast cancer patients (22/27). Exploratory analyses of overuse test frequency by study arm showed no significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis identified practice patterns consistent with overuse of surveillance testing and can inform efforts to improve guideline-concordant care. Future interventions may include individual practice patterns and provider education.

Low-Value Care: Convergence and Challenges Comment on "Key Factors That Promote Low-Value Care: Views From Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands"

Interest has increased in the topic of de-implementation, ie, reducing so-called low-value care (LVC). The article "Key Factors That Promote Low-Value Care: Views From Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands" by Verkerk and colleagues identifies national-level factors affecting LVC use in those three countries. This commentary raises three critical points regarding the study. First, the study does not clearly define the national level. Secondly, national-level factors might not be relevant for all types of LVCs and thirdly, the study's rather limited sample makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. We also include some critical comments related to some of the study's findings in relation to results of our recently published scoping review of the international literature on de-implementation and use of LVC and an interview study with primary care physicians on LVC use. Finally, we provide some suggestions for further research that we believe is needed to improve understanding of LVC use and facilitate its de-implementation.

Determinants for the use and de-implementation of low-value care in health care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

A considerable proportion of interventions provided to patients lack evidence of their effectiveness. This implies that patients may receive ineffective, unnecessary or even harmful care. However, despite some empirical studies in the field, there has been no synthesis of determinants impacting the use of low-value care (LVC) and the process of de-implementing LVC.

AIM

The aim was to identify determinants influencing the use of LVC, as well as determinants for de-implementation of LVC practices in health care.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed based on the framework by Arksey and O'Malley. We searched four scientific databases, conducted snowball searches of relevant articles and hand searched the journal Implementation Science for peer-reviewed journal articles in English. Articles were included if they were empirical studies reporting on determinants for the use of LVC or de-implementation of LVC. The abstract review and the full-text review were conducted in duplicate and conflicting decisions were discussed until consensus was reached. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form and the determinants were inductively coded and categorised in an iterative process conducted by the project group.

RESULTS

In total, 101 citations were included in the review. Of these, 92 reported on determinants for the use of LVC and nine on determinants for de-implementation. The studies were conducted in a range of health care settings and investigated a variety of LVC practices with LVC medication prescriptions, imaging and screening procedures being the most common. The identified determinants for the use of LVC as well as for de-implementation of LVC practices broadly concerned: patients, professionals, outer context, inner context, process and evidence and LVC practice. The results were discussed in relation to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

CONCLUSION

The identified determinants largely overlap with existing implementation frameworks, although patient expectations and professionals' fear of malpractice appear to be more prominent determinants for the use and de-implementation of LVC. Thus, existing implementation determinant frameworks may require adaptation to be transferable to de-implementation. Strategies to reduce the use of LVC should specifically consider determinants for the use and de-implementation of LVC.

REGISTRATION

The review has not been registered.

Why clinicians overtest: development of a thematic framework

BACKGROUND

Medical tests provide important information to guide clinical management. Overtesting, however, may cause harm to patients and the healthcare system, including through misdiagnosis, false positives, false negatives and overdiagnosis. Clinicians are ultimately responsible for test requests, and are therefore ideally positioned to prevent overtesting and its unintended consequences. Through this narrative literature review and workshop discussion with experts at the Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference (Sydney, 2019), we aimed to identify and establish a thematic framework of factors that influence clinicians to request non-recommended and unnecessary tests.

METHODS

Articles exploring factors affecting clinician test ordering behaviour were identified through a systematic search of MedLine in April 2019, forward and backward citation searches and content experts. Two authors screened abstract titles and abstracts, and two authors screened full text for inclusion. Identified factors were categorised into a preliminary framework which was subsequently presented at the PODC for iterative development.

RESULTS

The MedLine search yielded 542 articles; 55 were included. Another 10 articles identified by forward-backward citation and content experts were included, resulting in 65 articles in total. Following small group discussion with workshop participants, a revised thematic framework of factors was developed: "Intrapersonal" - fear of malpractice and litigation; clinician knowledge and understanding; intolerance of uncertainty and risk aversion; cognitive biases and experiences; sense of medical obligation "Interpersonal" - pressure from patients and doctor-patient relationship; pressure from colleagues and medical culture; "Environment/context" - guidelines, protocols and policies; financial incentives and ownership of tests; time constraints, physical vulnerabilities and language barriers; availability and ease of access to tests; pre-emptive testing to facilitate subsequent care; contemporary medical practice and new technology CONCLUSION: This thematic framework may raise awareness of overtesting and prompt clinicians to change their test request behaviour. The development of a scale to assess clinician knowledge, attitudes and practices is planned to allow evaluation of clinician-targeted interventions to reduce overtesting.

Why do they do it? A grounded theory study of the use of low-value care among primary health care physicians

Background

The use of low-value care (LVC) is widespread and has an impact on both the use of resources and the quality of care. However, few studies have thus far studied the factors influencing the use of LVC from the perspective of the practitioners themselves. The aim of this study is to understand why physicians within primary care use LVC.

Methods

Six primary health care centers in the Stockholm Region were purposively selected. Focus group discussions were conducted with physicians (n = 31) working in the centers. The discussions were coded inductively using a grounded theory approach.

Results

Three main reasons for performing LVC were identified. Uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do was related to being unaware of the LVC status of a practice, guidelines perceived as conflicting, guidelines perceived to be irrelevant for the target patient population, or a lack of trust in the guidelines. Perceived pressure from others concerned patient pressure, pressure from other physicians, or pressure from the health care system. A desire to do something for the patients was associated with the fact that the visit in itself prompts action, symptoms to relieve, or that patients' emotions need to be reassured. The three reasons are interdependent. Uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do have made it more difficult to handle the pressure from others and to refrain from doing something for the patients. The pressure from others and the desire to do something for the patients enhanced the uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do. Furthermore, the pressure from others influenced the desire to do something for the patients.

Conclusions

Three reasons work together to explain primary care physicians’ use of LVC: uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do, perceived pressure from others, and the desire to do something for the patients. The reasons may, in turn, be influenced by the health care system, but the decision nevertheless seemed to be up to the individual physician. The findings suggest that the de-implementation of LVC needs to address the three reasons from a systems perspective.

Perceived value drives use of routine asymptomatic surveillance PET/CT by physicians who treat head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

Why physicians use surveillance imaging for asymptomatic cancer survivors despite recommendations against this is not known.

METHODS

Physicians surveilling head and neck cancer survivors were surveyed to determine relationships among attitudes, beliefs, guideline familiarity, and self-reported surveillance positron-emission-tomography/computed-tomography use.

RESULTS

Among 459 responses, 79% reported using PET/CT on some asymptomatic patients; 39% reported using PET/CT on more than half of patients. Among attitudes/beliefs, perceived value of surveillance imaging (O.R. 3.57, C.I. 2.42-5.27, P = <.0001) was the strongest predictor of high imaging, including beliefs about outcome (improved survival) and psychological benefits (reassurance, better communication). Twenty-four percent of physicians were unfamiliar with guideline recommendations against routine surveillance imaging. Among physicians with high perceived-value scores, those less familiar with guidelines imaged more (O.R. 3.55, C.I. 1.08-11.67, P = .037).

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to decrease routine surveillance PET/CT use for asymptomatic patients must overcome physicians' misperceptions of its value. Education about guidelines may modify the effect of perceived value.

Understanding Long-Term Cancer Survivors' Preferences for Ongoing Medical Care

BACKGROUND

Due to risk for treatment-related late effects and concerns about cancer recurrence, long-term cancer survivors have unique medical needs. Survivors' preferences for care may influence adherence and care utilization.

OBJECTIVE

To describe survivors' preferences for care and factors associated with preferred and actual care.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of participants in a longitudinal study using mailed questionnaires.

PARTICIPANTS

Survivors of ten common cancers (n = 2,107, mean years from diagnosis 8.9).

MAIN MEASURES

(1) Survivors' preferences for primary care physician (PCP) and oncologist responsibilities across four types of care: cancer follow-up, cancer screening, preventive health, and comorbid conditions. (2) Survivor-reported visits to PCPs and oncologists.

KEY RESULTS

The response rate was 42.1%. Most long-term survivors preferred PCPs and oncologists share care for cancer follow-up (63%) and subsequent screening (65%), while preferring PCP-led preventive health (77%) and comorbid condition (83%) care. Most survivors (88%) preferred oncologists involved in cancer follow-up care, but only 60% reported an oncologist visit in the previous 4 years, and 96% reported a PCP visit in the previous 4 years. In multivariable regressions, those with higher fear of cancer recurrence were less likely to prefer PCP-led cancer follow-up care (OR = 0.96, CI = 0.93-0.98), as did survivors with advanced cancer stage (OR = 0.56, CI = 0.39-0.79). Those with higher fear of recurrence (OR = 1.03, CI = 1.01-1.04) or who preferred oncologist-led cancer follow-up care (OR = 2.08, CI = 1.63-2.65) had greater odds of seeing an oncologist in the last 4 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Most cancer survivors preferred PCPs and oncologists share care for cancer follow-up and screening, yet many had not seen an oncologist recently. Survivors preferred PCP-led care for other preventive services and management of comorbid conditions. These findings highlight the important role PCPs could play in survivor care, suggesting the need for PCP-oriented education and health system policies that support high-quality PCP-led survivor care.

Low-Value Back Imaging in the Care of Medicare Beneficiaries: A Comparison of Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants

Little is known about practice pattern differences between nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). We compared the rates of low-value back images ordered by NPs and PAs. For this comparison, we used 2012-2013 Medicare Part B claims for all beneficiaries in 18 hospital referral regions and a measure of low-value back imaging from the Choosing Wisely recommendations. Models included a random clinician effect and fixed effects for beneficiary age, disability, Elixhauser comorbidities, clinician type, the emergency department setting, and region. NPs (N = 234) order low-value back images significantly less than PAs (N = 204) (NPs 25.5% vs. PAs 39.2%, p < .0001). Controlling for relevant factors, NPs are 10.0 percentage points (p < .0001) less likely to order a low-value back image than PAs. NPs and PAs have distinct patterns of low-value back imaging, which is likely a reflection of their different practice settings.

Provider Perspectives of Patient Experiences in Primary Care Imaging

BACKGROUND

Imaging tests are a widely used tool in primary care with many known benefits. Without an understanding of which outcomes matter the most to patients, clinicians are challenged to balance the benefits and harms of imaging tests. This study aimed to explore the perceived impacts imaging tests have on patients from the perspective of the primary care providers (PCPs) and determine PCPs' understanding of patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) from imaging tests.

METHODS

Recruitment of PCPs occurred at 4 family medicine clinics in Washington and Idaho. Primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants who order imaging tests were eligible to participate. Semistructured interviews explored providers' perceptions of patient experiences during the process of ordering, performing and following up on imaging tests. Classic content analysis generated themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Sixteen PCPs, including 11 physicians, 3 physician assistants, and 2 nurse practitioners, completed interviews. Two themes were identified: 1) perceived PCOs, and 2) factors influencing the incorporation of PCOs into clinical management. Perceived outcomes included emotions related to the answer a test provides and costs to the patient such as monetary, physical, and added risk. Patient expectations, provider-patient communication, and inadequate knowledge all contributed as barriers to incorporating PCOs into clinical management.

DISCUSSION

PCPs recognize different outcomes of imaging tests that they consider important for patients. While providers are perceptive to patient outcomes there remains a challenge to how patient outcomes are used to improve care. Communication with patients and improving provider knowledge are needed to incorporate identified PCOs.

Intensive Imaging Surveillance of Survivors of Breast Cancer May Increase Risk of Radiation-induced Malignancy

BACKGROUND

Current clinical guidelines recommend mammography as the only imaging method for surveillance in asymptomatic survivors of early breast cancer (EBC). However, non-recommended tests are commonly used. We estimated the imaging radiation-induced malignancies (IRIM) risks in survivors of EBC undergoing different imaging surveillance models.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We built 5 theoretical models of imaging surveillance, from annual mammography only (model 1) to increasingly imaging-intensive approaches, including computed tomography (CT) scan, positron emission tomography-CT, bone scan, and multigated acquisition scan (models 2 through 5). Using the National Cancer Institute's Radiation Risk Assessment Tool, we compared the excess lifetime attributable cancer risk (LAR) for hypothetical survivors of EBC starting surveillance at the ages of 30, 60, or 75 years and ending at 81 years.

RESULTS

For all age groups analyzed, there is a statistically significant increase in LAR when comparing model 1 with more intensive models. As an example, in a patient beginning surveillance at the age of 60 years, there is a 28.5-fold increase in the IRIM risk when comparing mammography only versus a schedule with mammography plus CT scan of chest-abdomen and bone scan. We found no differences when comparing models 2 through 5. LAR is higher when surveillance starts at a younger age, although the age effect was only statistically significant in model 1.

CONCLUSION

Non-recommended imaging during EBC surveillance can be associated with a significant increase in LAR. In addition to the lack of survival benefit, additional tests may have significant IRIM risks and should be avoided.

Extent and cost of inappropriate use of tumour markers in patients with pulmonary disease: a multicentre retrospective study in Shanghai, China

OBJECTIVES

The currently implemented healthcare reform in China requires substantial capital investment. Although overtreatment results in serious waste, inappropriate laboratory use is widespread, and overuse of tumour markers (TMs) has attracted increasing attention.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

The respiratory, thoracic surgery and oncology departments of three hospitals in Shanghai from 2014 to 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and primary bronchogenic lung cancer (PLC). Based on clinical guidelines and physician experience, the criteria of suitability of TM examinations were determined, and the number, cost and proportion of inappropriate TM requests were analysed.

RESULTS

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for carcinoembryonic antigen+cytokeratin fragment 21-1+squamous cell carcinoma antigen+neuron-specific enolase in patients with COPD and PLC was 0.813, in accordance with the cost-effectiveness principle, indicating good clinical and health economics values. In the 2706 patients, 12 496-16 956 (58.27%-79.06%) of TM requests were inappropriate. Furthermore, the involved expense was 650 200-1 014 156 yuan, accounting for 7.69%-12.00% of examination expenses and 1.35%-2.11% of hospitalisation costs.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the inappropriate use of TMs was widespread for patients with pulmonary disease. Clinicians should use TMs strictly according to the guidelines to effectively manage laboratory resources and control costs.

Nurses' Perceptions on the Overuse of Health Services: A Qualitative Study

PURPOSE

To examine whether nurses in Israel think there is overuse of health services, the reasons behind the issue, and ways to reduce the overuse.

DESIGN

This was a qualitative study using semistructured interviews. A convenience sample of community care nurses from health clinics across Israel was interviewed. Interviews focused on common areas of overuse, outcomes of overuse, causes of overuse, and potential ways to address the issue. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically.

FINDINGS

Overuse of antibiotics, imaging, blood tests, and prenatal surveillance were cited as main areas of health service overuse. Participants stated that negative outcomes of overuse could be seen at patient, health system, and population levels. Factors influencing overuse included patient satisfaction, physician fears, and insecurities. Potential interventions included improving physicians' diagnostic confidence, increasing appointment times, providing patients with more treatment information, and implementing a unified computerized system across medical institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses mentioned physicians and patients as main actors in influencing overuse; hence, those populations should be researched further. The health system was identified as the responsible party to address the issue. Health system leaders must consider potential barriers, and investigate interventions that match current culture and context within the health system.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Nurses can play an essential role in limiting overuse and mitigating subsequent harms to patients.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Stage I Breast Cancer: Initial Workup and Surveillance for Local Recurrence and Distant Metastases in Asymptomatic Women

Women and health care professionals generally prefer intensive follow-up after a diagnosis of breast cancer. However, there are no survival differences between women who obtain intensive surveillance with imaging and laboratory studies compared with women who only undergo testing because of the development of symptoms or findings on clinical examinations. American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that annual mammography is the only imaging examination that should be performed to detect a localized breast recurrence in asymptomatic patients; more imaging may be needed if the patient has locoregional symptoms (eg, palpable abnormality). Women with other risk factors that increase their lifetime risk for breast cancer may warrant evaluation with breast MRI. Furthermore, the quality of life is similar for women who undergo intensive surveillance compared with those who do not. There is little justification for imaging to detect or rule out metastasis in asymptomatic women with newly diagnosed stage I breast cancer. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Patterns of computed tomography surveillance in survivors of colorectal cancer at Veterans Health Administration facilities

BACKGROUND

Annual computed tomography (CT) scans are a component of the current standard of care for the posttreatment surveillance of survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC) after curative-intent resection. The authors conducted a retrospective study with the primary aim of assessing patient, physician, and organizational characteristics associated with the receipt of CT surveillance among veterans.

METHODS

The Department of Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry was used to identify patients diagnosed with AJCC collaborative stage I to III CRC between 2001 and 2009. Patient sociodemographic and clinical (ie, CRC stage and comorbidity) characteristics, provider specialty, and organizational characteristics were measured. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association between patient, provider, and organizational characteristics on receipt of 1) consistently guideline-concordant care (at least 1 CT every 12 months for both of the first 2 years of CRC surveillance) versus no CT receipt and 2) potential overuse (>1 CT every 12 months during the first 2 years of CRC surveillance) of CRC surveillance using CT. The authors also analyzed the impact of the 2005 American Society of Clinical Oncology update in CRC surveillance guidelines on care received over time.

RESULTS

For 2263 survivors of stage II/III CRC who were diagnosed after 2005, 19.4% of patients received no surveillance CT, whereas potential overuse occurred in both surveillance years for 14.9% of patients. Guideline-concordant care was associated with younger age, higher stage of disease (stage III vs stage II), and geographic region. In adjusted analyses, younger age and higher stage of disease (stage III vs stage II) were found to be associated with overuse. There was no significant difference in the annual rate of CT scanning noted across time periods (year ≤ 2005 vs year > 2005).

CONCLUSIONS

Among a minority of veteran survivors of CRC, both underuse and potential overuse of CT surveillance were present. Patient factors, but no provider or organizational characteristics, were found to be significantly associated with patterns of care. The 2005 change in American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines did not appear to have an impact on rates of surveillance CT. Cancer 2017;123:2338-2351. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Imaging in the evaluation and follow-up of early and advanced breast cancer: When, why, and how often?

Imaging in the evaluation and follow-up of patients with early or advanced breast cancer is an important aspect of cancer care. The role of imaging in breast cancer depends on the goal and should only be performed to guide clinical decisions. Imaging is valuable if a finding will change the course of treatment and improve outcomes, whether this is disease-free survival, overall survival or quality-of-life. In the last decade, imaging is often overused in oncology and contributes to rising healthcare costs. In this context, we review the data that supports the appropriate use of imaging for breast cancer patients. We will discuss: 1) the optimal use of staging imaging in both early (Stage 0-II) and locally advanced (Stage III) breast cancer, 2) the role of surveillance imaging to detect recurrent disease in Stage 0-III breast cancer and 3) how patients with metastatic breast cancer should be followed with advanced imaging.

Trends in the Use of (18)F-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET Imaging in Surveillance of Non-Small-Cell Lung and Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Surveillance PET after curative-intent treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) is not clearly supported by available evidence or the Choosing Wisely campaign. However, the frequency of PET imaging during the surveillance period is relatively unknown.

METHODS

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, 65,748 patients aged 66 years or older who were diagnosed with stage I to IIIA NSCLC or stage I to III CRC from 2001 through 2009 and who underwent surgical resection were identified. Trends in "any PET" or "PET-only" use 6 to 18 months postoperatively were assessed.

RESULTS

Any PET use more than doubled over the study period. Eleven percent of patients with NSCLC and 4% of those with CRC diagnosed in 2001 received any PET, compared with 25% of patients with NSCLC and 13% of those with CRC in 2009 (P < .001 for both). Higher stage disease was correlated with higher PET utilization and faster growth in use over the study period. PET-only use also increased over the study period, especially in higher stage disease. Fewer than 2% of patients diagnosed with stage IIIA NSCLC in 2001 received PET only, compared with 15% of patients diagnosed in 2009 (P = .014). Similarly, 1% of patients diagnosed with stage III CRC in 2001 received PET only, compared with 8% of patients diagnosed in 2009 (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

PET utilization during the surveillance period increased between 2001 and 2009. Further research is needed to determine the factors driving use of surveillance PET and to examine relationships between PET and patient outcomes.

Early detection of cancer: past, present, and future

Screening in both healthy and high-risk populations offers the opportunity to detect cancer early and with an increased opportunity for treatment and curative intent. Currently, a defined role for screening exists in some cancer types, but each screening test has limitations, and improved screening methods are urgently needed. Unfortunately, many cancers still lack effective screening recommendations, or in some cases, the benefits from screening are marginal when weighed against the potential for harm. Here we review the current status of cancer screening: we examine the role of traditional tumor biomarkers, describe recommended imaging for early tumor surveillance, and explore the potential of promising novel cancer markers such as circulating tumor cells (CTC) and circulating tumor DNA. Consistent challenges for all of these screening tests include limited sensitivity and specificity. The risk for overdiagnosis remains a particular concern in screening, whereby lesions of no clinical consequence may be detected and thus create difficult management decisions for the clinician and patient. If treatment is pursued following overdiagnosis, patients may be exposed to morbidity from a treatment that may not provide any true benefit. The cost-effectiveness of screening tests also needs to be an ongoing focus. The improvement of genomic and surveillance technologies, which leads to more precise imaging and the ability to characterize blood-based tumor markers of greater specificity, offers opportunities for major progress in cancer screening.

Provider Attitudes and Screening Practices Following Changes in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Changes to national guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening have created confusion and controversy for women and their primary care providers.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize women's primary health care provider attitudes towards screening and changes in practice in response to recent revisions in guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

In 2014, we distributed a confidential web and mail survey to 668 women's health care providers affiliated with the four clinical care networks participating in the three PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium breast cancer research centers (385 respondents; response rate 57.6 %).

MAIN MEASURES

We assessed self-reported attitudes toward breast and cervical cancer screening, as well as practice changes in response to the most recent revisions of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations.

KEY RESULTS

The majority of providers believed that mammography screening was effective for reducing cancer mortality among women ages 40-74 years, and that Papanicolaou (Pap) testing was very effective for women ages 21-64 years. While the USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations were widely perceived by the respondents as influential, 75.7 and 41.2 % of providers (for mammography and cervical cancer screening, respectively) reported screening practices in excess of those recommended by USPSTF. Provider-reported barriers to concordance with guideline recommendations included: patient concerns (74 and 36 % for breast and cervical, respectively), provider disagreement with the recommendations (50 and 14 %), health system measurement of a provider's screening practices that use conflicting measurement criteria (40 and 21 %), concern about malpractice risk (33 and 11 %), and lack of time to discuss the benefits and harms with their patients (17 and 8 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care providers do not consistently follow recent USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations, despite noting that these guidelines are influential.

Surveillance and beliefs about follow-up care among long-term breast cancer survivors: a comparison of primary care and oncology providers

PURPOSE

Delivery of follow-up care to breast cancer survivors is an important public health issue due to their increasing number and the anticipated shortage of oncology providers. This study evaluated adherence to American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-recommended surveillance tests in a bi-ethnic cohort of long-term breast cancer survivors.

METHODS

Women (n = 298) in Arizona and Colorado who had previously participated in a population-based study of breast cancer were enrolled into a follow-up survey approximately 6 years post-diagnosis. ASCO-recommended surveillance (mammogram, clinical breast, and physical exam), other non-recommended tests (e.g. tumor markers, imaging scans), and patients' beliefs were compared by provider type using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

No significant differences in patient self-report of physical exam or mammography prevalence by provider type was observed after adjustment for covariates. Receipt of surveillance tests not recommended by ASCO was higher among survivors who saw an oncologist (tumor marker tests: OR = 3.0, 95 % CI 1.5-5.8; and other blood tests: OR = 2.0, 95 % CI 1.1-3.5) as compared to those who routinely see a primary care physician. These observed differences persisted after adjustment for age, stage, lapse in insurance, education, or ethnicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Although overutilization of non-recommended tests was observed among women who saw an oncologist, the majority of breast cancer survivors received ASCO-recommended surveillance regardless of provider type.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Most breast cancer survivors receive recommended surveillance tests, whether their care is managed by a primary care physician or an oncologist, but some women receive unnecessary testing. Women should talk with their providers about tests recommended based on their past breast cancer diagnosis.

Physician perspectives on colorectal cancer surveillance care in a changing environment

The purpose of this formative qualitatively driven mixed-methods study was to refine a measurement tool for use in interventions to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance care. We employed key informant interviews to explore the attitudes, practices, and preferences of four physician specialties. A national survey, literature review, and expert consultation also informed survey development. Cognitive pretesting obtained participant feedback to improve the survey's face and content validity and reliability. Results showed that additional domains were needed to reflect contemporary interdisciplinary trends in survivorship care, evolving practice changes and current health policy. Observed dissonance in specialists' perspectives poses challenges for the development of interventions and psychometrically sound measurement. Implications for future research include need for a flexible care model with enhanced communication and role definitions among clinical specialists, improvements in surveillance at multilevels (patients, providers, and systems), and measurement tools that focus on multispecialty involvement and the changing practice and policy environment.

Quality of Care, Including Survivorship Care Plans

With the expectation of prolonged survival in the vast majority of women diagnosed with breast cancer, making initial treatment decisions that minimize or prevent late complications, and maximize the quality as well as quantity of life, is absolutely critical. Unfortunately, such care is not uniformly delivered. Patient, provider, and system barriers contribute to delays in cancer care, lower quality of care, and poorer outcomes in vulnerable populations, including low income, underinsured, and racial/ethnic minority populations. Covering the costs of cancer care is a major concern for many cancer survivors, and as a result, a major challenge will be to provide cost-effective follow-up care by reducing overuse of unnecessary tests and procedures so that access to effective medications can be preserved. One of the recently promoted means of improving the coordination of care for breast cancer survivors has been the use of survivorship care planning, as coordination of care will be absolutely essential to deliver high-quality care. Patient navigation is another approach to help overcome healthcare system barriers and facilitate timely access to quality medical care. Understanding the challenges and opportunities in delivering high-quality cancer care is one of the most critical issues of the day. With the large numbers of breast cancer patients and the tremendous advances in our understanding of the disease and treatments (leading to large numbers of survivors), breast cancer will likely be the focus of new models for the delivery of better and more efficient cancer care.

Tumor marker usage and medical care costs among older early-stage breast cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Although American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines discourage the use of tumor marker assessment for routine surveillance in nonmetastatic breast cancer, their use in practice is uncertain. Our objective was to determine use of tumor marker tests such as carcinoembryonic antigen and CA 15-3/CA 27.29 and associated Medicare costs in early-stage breast cancer survivors.

METHODS

By using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare records for patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer between 2001 and 2007, tumor marker usage within 2 years after diagnosis was identified by billing codes. Logistic regression models were used to identify clinical and demographic factors associated with use of tumor markers. To determine impact on costs of care, we used multivariable regression, controlling for other factors known to influence total medical costs.

RESULTS

We identified 39,650 eligible patients. Of these, 16,653 (42%) received at least one tumor marker assessment, averaging 5.7 tests over 2 years, with rates of use per person increasing over time. Factors significantly associated with use included age at diagnosis, diagnosis year, stage at diagnosis, race/ethnicity, geographic region, and urban/rural status. Rates of advanced imaging, but not biopsies, were significantly higher in the assessment group. Medical costs for patients who received at least one test were approximately 29% greater than costs for those who did not, adjusting for other factors.

CONCLUSION

Breast cancer tumor markers are frequently used among women with early-stage disease and are associated with an increase in both diagnostic procedures and total cost of care. A better understanding of factors driving the use of and the potential benefits and harms of surveillance-based tumor marker testing is needed.