Guideline discordance in the use of radiographic imaging during initial workup of patients with prostate cancer (CaP).

Authors

null

Aaron David Falchook

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC

Aaron David Falchook, Laura H. Hendrix, Ronald C. Chen

Organizations

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC

Research Funding

No funding sources reported

Background: Overuse of imaging in patients unlikely to have metastatic disease is costly and can lead to patient harm from unnecessary procedures. However, underuse of imaging leads to undiagnosed metastatic disease, resulting in aggressive treatments in incurable patients. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends bone scans and computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during initial work-up of select patients with intermediate or high risk CaP. We quantify the proportion of patients who received work-up discordant with NCCN guidelines. Methods: Patients in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database diagnosed from 2004-2007 were included. We report bone scan and CT/MRI from date of diagnosis to the earlier of treatment or 6 months. Results: 65% of patients for whom bone scan is recommended received it, and 49% received recommended CT/MRI. Further, 43% of patients for whom bone scan is not recommended received it, and 38% received unnecessary CT/MRI. Age and race were significantly associated with discordance on multivariate models (Table). Underuse of recommended bone and CT/MRI scans decreased in more recent years, but overuse of unnecessary CT/MRI increased. There was significant regional variation. Conclusions: There is a high prevalence of both overuse and underuse of guideline-recommended imaging in CaP.

Odds ratio (OR) > 1 indicates higher discordance.
Scan not performed when recommended
“Underuse”
Scan performed when not recommended
“Overuse”
Bone scan
CT/MRI
Bone scan
CT/MRI
OR p value OR p value OR p value OR p value
Age <70 * * * *
70-74 1.02 .77 1.02 .80 1.09 .01 1.00 .91
75-79 1.02 .74 1.18 .08 1.14 <.01 .96 .29
>79 1.47 <.01 1.54 <.01 1.52 <.01 .89 .005
Race White * * * *
Black 1.07 .38 .92 .55 1.23 <.01 1.18 <.01
Diagnosis year 2004 * * * *
2005 .85 .004 .93 .42 1.05 .19 1.14 <.01
2006 .78 <.01 .84 .05 1.06 .13 1.22 <.01
2007 .77 <.01 .75 .002 1.00 .92 1.28 <.01
Region Northeast * * * *
Central 1.34 <.01 2.25 <.01 .53 <.01 .46 <.01
South 1.57 <.01 2.78 <.01 .55 <.01 .41 <.01
West 1.25 <.01 2.52 <.01 .49 <.01 .39 <.01

Also controlled for marital status, regional income, regional education level, urban/rural, first treatment, comorbidity.

*Referent.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2013 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

General Poster Session A: Science of Quality

Track

Science of Quality,Health Reform: Implications for Costs and Quality ,Practice of Quality

Sub Track

Studies Using Registries or Combining Large Databases

Citation

J Clin Oncol 31, 2013 (suppl 31; abstr 109)

Abstract #

109

Poster Bd #

F9

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts

First Author: Edward Christopher Dee

First Author: Thorgerdur Palsdottir

First Author: Alberto Carretero-González

First Author: Abhishek Kumar