Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: To evaluate diffusion of brachytherapy-based accelerated partial breast radiotherapy (RT) in the United States, a new breast cancer treatment requiring 5 days twice daily, rather than daily treatment for 6-7 weeks. It has limited long-term effectiveness data compared with standard whole breast RT. DATA AND METHODS: We used 2005-2008 Medicare claims for female Medicare beneficiaries receiving RT after breast-conserving surgery merged with physician and area-based data (n=74,254 patient-subjects; n=1901 physicians), applying logistic regression to estimate: (1) proportion of patients for whom the radiation oncologist used brachytherapy-based accelerated RT, and (2) probability a patient received brachytherapy-based accelerated RT, clustering on physician. RESULTS: Use of accelerated partial breast RT increased over time (8% in 2005 to 17% in 2008). Physician-level analysis indicates rural physicians were less likely to perform accelerated RT [odds ratio (OR): 0.35-0.49; P<0.002)]; as were those licensed 20+years [OR: 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39-0.74]. Overall, 11.7% of patients received accelerated RT. Treatment post 2005 was associated with increasing odds of receiving accelerated RT (P<0.0001). Older age was associated with lower odds of receiving accelerated RT (reference, 66-69 years old, OR: 0.90, P<0.006), as was black (OR: 0.73;95% CI, 0.63-0.85) or other race (OR: 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-1.00), living in rural areas (OR: 0.8; P<0.0001), or seeing an older physician [20+years postgraduation (OR: 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9)]. Patients living in counties with more hospitals with advanced RT facilities were more likely to undergo accelerated RT (OR: 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8). DISCUSSION: This new technology appears to be in the early phase of diffusion across the United States and is more rapidly being taken up in younger, white patients living in urban and suburban areas with availability of advanced RT facilities. Rural and older patient populations are not tending to undergo the treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To understand decision making concerning adoption and nonadoption of accelerated partial breast radiotherapy (RT) prior to long-term randomized trial evidence. METHODS: A total of 36 radiation oncologists and surgeons were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling strategies from September 2010 through January 2013. Semistructured phone interviews were conducted and audio-recorded and lasted 20-45 minutes. Qualitative analysis was conducted using a framework approach, iteratively exploring key concepts and emerging issues raised by subjects. Interviews were transcribed and imported into Atlas.ti v6. Transcripts were independently coded by 3 researchers shortly after each interview, followed by consensus development on each coded transcript. Barriers and facilitators of adoption, practice patterns, and informational/educational sources concerning accelerated partial breast RT were all assessed to determine major themes. RESULTS: Nearly half of physicians were surgeons (47%), and half were radiation oncologists (53%), with 61% overall in urban settings. Twenty-nine of the 36 physicians interviewed used brachytherapy-based partial breast RT. Five major factors were involved in physicians' decisions to adopt accelerated partial breast RT: facilitators encouraging adoption (e.g., enthusiastic colleagues and patient convenience), financial and prestige incentives, pressures to adopt (e.g., potential declines in referrals), judgment concerning acceptable level of scientific evidence, and barriers (e.g., not having appropriate machinery or referral mechanism in place). If technology was adopted, clinical guideline adherence varied. CONCLUSIONS: Technology adoption is based on financial and social pressures, along with often-limited scientific evidence and what seems "best" for patients. For technology adoption and diffusion to be rational and evidence-based, we must encourage appropriate financial payment models to curb use outside of research studies and promote development of additional treatment registries until sufficient evidence is gathered.

BACKGROUND: The surgical robot has been widely adopted in the United States in spite of its high cost and controversy surrounding its benefit. Some have suggested that a "medical arms race" influences technology adoption. We wanted to determine whether a hospital would acquire a surgical robot if its nearest neighboring hospital already owned one. METHODS: We identified 554 hospitals performing radical prostatectomy from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Statewide Inpatient Databases for seven states. We used publicly available data from the website of the surgical robot's sole manufacturer (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) combined with data collected from the hospitals to ascertain the timing of robot acquisition during year 2001 to 2008. One hundred thirty four hospitals (24%) had acquired a surgical robot by the end of 2008. We geocoded the address of each hospital and determined a hospital's likelihood to acquire a surgical robot based on whether its nearest neighbor owned a surgical robot. We developed a Markov chain method to model the acquisition process spatially and temporally and quantified the "neighborhood effect" on the acquisition of the surgical robot while adjusting simultaneously for known confounders. RESULTS: After adjusting for hospital teaching status, surgical volume, urban status and number of hospital beds, the Markov chain analysis demonstrated that a hospital whose nearest neighbor had acquired a surgical robot had a higher likelihood itself acquiring a surgical robot. (OR=1.71, 95% CI: 1.07-2.72, p=0.02). CONCLUSION: There is a significant spatial and temporal association for hospitals acquiring surgical robots during the study period. Hospitals were more likely to acquire a surgical robot during the robot's early adoption phase if their nearest neighbor had already done so.

Effective breast cancer management is more complex with diabetes present and may contribute to poor outcomes. Therefore, we conducted two simultaneous systematic reviews to address the association of diabetes with (1) treatment patterns in breast cancer patients and (2) breast cancer recurrence rates or breast cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. We searched major databases for English language peer-reviewed studies through November 2013, which addressed either of the above research questions, following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) method. Analyses compared treatment patterns or health outcomes for breast cancer subjects with and without diabetes. We used STROBE quality criteria and conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of all-cause mortality. The review yielded 11 publications for question 1 and 26 for question 2, with nine overlapping. Treatment studies showed chemotherapy was less likely in patients with diabetes. Of 22 studies, 21 assessing all-cause mortality indicated a statistically significant increased overall mortality for patients with diabetes (hazard ratios: 0.33-5.40), with meta-analysis of eligible studies indicating a 52 % increased risk. Nine studies assessing breast cancer-specific mortality had inconsistent results, with five showing significantly increased risk for diabetes patients. Results were inconsistent for recurrence and metastases. The majority of studies reported detrimental associations between diabetes and optimal treatment or all-cause mortality among women with breast cancer. Divergence in variable and outcomes inclusion and definitions, potential participation bias in individual studies, and differing analytic methods make inferences difficult. This review illuminates the importance of the impact of diabetes on breast cancer patients and explicitly recognizes that co-management of conditions is necessary to prevent excess morbidity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Recent debate about prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based testing for prostate cancer screening among older men has rarely considered the cost of screening. METHODS: A population-based cohort of male Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years, who had never been diagnosed with prostate cancer at the end of 2006 (n = 94,652), was assembled, and they were followed for 3 years to assess the cost of PSA screening and downstream procedures (biopsy, pathologic analysis, and hospitalization due to biopsy complications) at both the national and the hospital referral region (HRR) level. RESULTS: Approximately 51.2% of men received PSA screening tests during the 3-year period, with 2.9% undergoing biopsy. The annual expenditures on prostate cancer screening by the national fee-for-service Medicare program were $447 million in 2009 US dollars. The mean annual screening cost at the HRR level ranged from $17 to $62 per beneficiary. Downstream biopsy-related procedures accounted for 72% of the overall screening costs and varied significantly across regions. Compared with men residing in HRRs that were in the lowest quartile for screening expenditures, men living in the highest HRR quartile were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer of any stage (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-1.35) and localized cancer (IRR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.15-1.47). The IRR for regional/metastasized cancer was also elevated, although not statistically significant (IRR = 1.31, 95% CI = 0.81-2.11). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare prostate cancer screening-related expenditures are substantial, vary considerably across regions, and are positively associated with rates of cancer diagnosis. Cancer 2014;120:96-102. (c) 2013 American Cancer Society.

Annual surveillance mammograms in older long-term breast cancer survivors are recommended, but this recommendation is based on little evidence and with no guidelines on when to stop. Surveillance mammograms should decrease breast cancer mortality by detecting second breast cancer events at an earlier stage. We examined the association between surveillance mammography beyond 5 years after diagnosis on breast cancer-specific mortality in a cohort of women aged >/=65 years diagnosed 1990-1994 with early stage breast cancer. Our cohort included women who survived disease free for >/=5 years (N = 1,235) and were followed from year 6 through death, disenrollment, or 15 years after diagnosis. Asymptomatic surveillance mammograms were ascertained through medical record review. We used Cox proportional hazards regression stratified by follow-up year to calculate the association between time-varying surveillance mammography and breast cancer-specific and other-than-breast mortality adjusting for site, stage, primary surgery type, age and time-varying Charlson Comorbidity Index. The majority (85 %) of the 1,235 5-year breast cancer survivors received >/=1 surveillance mammogram in years 5-9 (yearly proportions ranged from 48 to 58 %); 82 % of women received >/=1 surveillance mammogram in years 10-14. A total of 120 women died of breast cancer and 393 women died from other causes (average follow-up 7.3 years). Multivariable models and lasagna plots suggested a modest reduction in breast cancer-specific mortality with surveillance mammogram receipt in the preceding year (IRR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.56-1.19, p = 0.29); the association with other-cause mortality was 0.95 (95 % CI 0.78-1.17, p = 0.64). Among older breast cancer survivors, surveillance mammography may reduce breast cancer-specific mortality even after 5 years of disease-free survival. Continuing surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors likely requires physician-patient discussions similar to those recommended for screening, taking into account comorbid conditions and life-expectancy.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the cost to Medicare of breast cancer screening or whether regional-level screening expenditures are associated with cancer stage at diagnosis or treatment costs, particularly because newer breast cancer screening technologies, like digital mammography and computer-aided detection (CAD), have diffused into the care of older women. METHODS: Using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, we identified 137 274 women ages 66 to 100 years who had not had breast cancer and assessed the cost to fee-for-service Medicare of breast cancer screening and workup during 2006 to 2007. For women who developed cancer, we calculated initial treatment cost. We then assessed screening-related cost at the Hospital Referral Region (HRR) level and evaluated the association between regional expenditures and workup test utilization, cancer incidence, and treatment costs. RESULTS: In the United States, the annual costs to fee-for-service Medicare for breast cancer screening-related procedures (comprising screening plus workup) and treatment expenditures were $1.08 billion and $1.36 billion, respectively. For women 75 years or older, annual screening-related expenditures exceeded $410 million. Age-standardized screening-related cost per beneficiary varied more than 2-fold across regions (from $42 to $107 per beneficiary); digital screening mammography and CAD accounted for 65% of the difference in screening-related cost between HRRs in the highest and lowest quartiles of cost. Women residing in HRRs with high screening costs were more likely to be diagnosed as having early-stage cancer (incidence rate ratio, 1.78 [95% CI, 1.40-2.26]). There was no significant difference in the cost of initial cancer treatment per beneficiary between the highest and lowest screening cost HRRs ($151 vs $115; P = .20). CONCLUSIONS: The cost to Medicare of breast cancer screening exceeds $1 billion annually in the fee-for-service program. Regional variation is substantial and driven by the use of newer and more expensive technologies; it is unclear whether higher screening expenditures are achieving better breast cancer outcomes.