Dataset Information

Benchmarks in clinical productivity: a national comprehensive cancer network survey.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Oncologists in academic cancer centers usually generate professional fees that are insufficient to cover salaries and other expenses, despite significant clinical activity; therefore, supplemental funding is frequently required in order to support competitive levels of physician compensation. Relative value units (RVUs) allow comparisons of productivity across institutions and practice locations and provide a reasonable point of reference on which funding decisions can be based.

Methods

We reviewed the clinical productivity and other characteristics of oncology physicians practicing in 13 major academic cancer institutions with membership or shared membership in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). The objectives of this study were to develop tools that would lead to better-informed decision making regarding practice management and physician deployment in comprehensive cancer centers and to determine benchmarks of productivity using RVUs accrued by physicians at each institution. Three hundred fifty-three individual physician practices across the 13 NCCN institutions in the survey provided data describing adult hematology/medical oncology and bone marrow/stem-cell transplantation programs. Data from the member institutions participating in the survey included all American Medical Association Current Procedural Terminology (CPT®) codes generated (billed) by each physician during each organization's fiscal year 2003 as a measure of actual clinical productivity. Physician characteristic data included specialty, clinical full-time equivalent (CFTE) status, faculty rank, faculty track, number of years of experience, and total salary by funding source. The average adult hematologist/medical oncologist in our sample would produce 3,745 RVUs if he/she worked full-time as a clinician (100% CFTE), compared with 4,506 RVUs for a 100% CFTE transplant oncologist.

Results and conclusion

Our results suggest specific clinical productivity targets for academic oncologists and provide a methodology for analyzing potential factors associated with clinical productivity and developing clinical productivity targets specific for physicians with a mix of research, administrative, teaching, and clinical salary support.

SUBMITTER: Stewart FM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2793722 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Benchmarks in clinical productivity: a national comprehensive cancer network survey.

Stewart F Marc FM Wasserman Robert L RL Bloomfield Clara D CD Petersdorf Stephen S Witherspoon Robert P RP Appelbaum Frederick R FR Ziskind Andrew A McKenna Brian B Dodson Jennifer M JM Weeks Jane J Vaughan William P WP Storer Barry B Perkel Sara S Waldinger Marcy M

Journal of oncology practice 20070101 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>Oncologists in academic cancer centers usually generate professional fees that are insufficient to cover salaries and other expenses, despite significant clinical activity; therefore, supplemental funding is frequently required in order to support competitive levels of physician compensation. Relative value units (RVUs) allow comparisons of productivity across institutions and practice locations and provide a reasonable point of reference on which funding decisions can be based.< ...[more]

PMID: 20859362

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical guidelines influence medical practice, payor coverage, and standards of care. The levels of evidence underlying radiation therapy recommendations in NCCN have not been systematically explored. Herein, we aim to systematically investigate the NCCN recommendations pertaining to the categories of consensus and evidence (CE) for radiation therapy.Methods and materialsWe evaluated the distribution of CE underlying current treatment recommendations for the 20 most prevalent cancers in the United States with at least 10 radiation therapy recommendations in the NCCN clinical guidelines. For context, the distribution of evidence in the radiation therapy guidelines was compared with that of systemic therapy using a χ2 test. The proportion of category I CE between radiation and systemic therapy was compared using a 2-proportion, 2-tailed z-test in total and for each disease site. A P value of < .05 was considered significant.ResultsAmong all radiation therapy recommendations, the proportions of category I, IIA, IIB, and III CE were 9.7%, 80.6%, 8.4%, and 1.3%, respectively. When analyzed by disease site, cervix and breast cancer had the highest portion of category I CE (33% and 31%, respectively). There was no radiation therapy category I CE for hepatobiliary, bone, pancreatic, melanoma, and uterine cancers. There was a significant difference in the distribution of CE between the systemic therapy recommendations and the radiation therapy recommendations (χ2 statistic 64.16, P < .001). Overall, there was a significantly higher proportion of category I CE in the systemic therapy recommendations compared with the radiation therapy recommendations (12.3% vs 9.7%, P = .043).ConclusionsOnly 9.7% of radiation therapy recommendations in NCCN guidelines are category I CE. The highest levels of evidence for radiation therapy are in breast and cervical cancers. Despite major advances in the field, these data underline that the majority of NCCN radiation therapy recommendations are based on uniform expert opinion and not on higher level evidence.

Project description:PurposeOutcomes for early-stage breast cancer have improved. First-generation adjuvant chemotherapy trials reported a 0.27% 8-year cumulative incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myelogenous leukemia. Incomplete ascertainment and follow-up may have underestimated subsequent risk of treatment-associated marrow neoplasm (MN).Patients and methodsWe examined the MN frequency in 20,063 patients with stage I to III breast cancer treated at US academic centers between 1998 and 2007. Time-to-event analyses were censored at first date of new cancer event, last contact date, or death and considered competing risks. Cumulative incidence, hazard ratios (HRs), and comparisons with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results estimates were obtained. Marrow cytogenetics data were reviewed.ResultsFifty patients developed MN (myeloid, n = 42; lymphoid, n = 8) after breast cancer (median follow-up, 5.1 years). Patients who developed MN had similar breast cancer stage distribution, race, and chemotherapy exposure but were older compared with patients who did not develop MN (median age, 59.1 v 53.9 years, respectively; P = .03). Two thirds of patients had complex MN cytogenetics. Risk of MN was significantly increased after surgery plus chemotherapy (HR, 6.8; 95% CI, 1.3 to 36.1) or after all modalities (surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation; HR, 7.6; 95% CI, 1.6 to 35.8), compared with no treatment with chemotherapy. MN rates per 1,000 person-years were 0.16 (surgery), 0.43 (plus radiation), 0.46 (plus chemotherapy), and 0.54 (all three modalities). Cumulative incidence of MN doubled between years 5 and 10 (0.24% to 0.48%); 9% of patients were alive at 10 years.ConclusionIn this large early-stage breast cancer cohort, MN risk after radiation and/or adjuvant chemotherapy was low but higher than previously described. Risk continued to increase beyond 5 years. Individual risk of MN must be balanced against the absolute survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Project description:ImportanceThe association of guideline-based decision support with the quality of care in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of exposure to the National Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCCN) guidelines with guideline-concordant care and patients' decisional conflict.Design, setting, and participantsA nonrandomized clinical trial, conducted at a tertiary care academic institution, enrolled patients from February 23, 2015, to September 28, 2017. Data analysis was conducted from July 19, 2019, to April 22, 2020. A cohort of 76 patients with NSCLC seen at diagnosis or disease progression and a retrospective cohort of 157 patients treated before the trial were included. Adherence to 6 NCCN recommendations were evaluated: (1) smoking cessation counseling, (2) adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage IB to IIB NSCLC after surgery, (3) pathologic mediastinal staging in patients with stage III NSCLC before surgery, (4) pathologic mediastinal staging in patients with stage III NSCLC before nonsurgical treatment, (5) definitive chemoradiotherapy for patients with stage III NSCLC not having surgery, and (6) molecular testing for epidermal growth factor receptor and anaplastic lymphoma kinase alterations for patients with stage IV NSCLC. Subgroup analysis was conducted to compare the rates of guideline concordance between the prospective and retrospective cohorts. Secondary end points included decisional conflict and satisfaction.InterventionsAn online tool customizing the NCCN guidelines to patients' clinical and pathologic features was used during consultation, facilitated by a trained coordinator.Main outcomes and measuresConcordance of practice with 6 NCCN treatment recommendations on NSCLC and patients' decisional conflict.ResultsOf the 76 patients with NSCLC, 44 were men (57.9%), median age at diagnosis was 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 41-87 years), and 59 patients (77.6%) had adenocarcinoma. In the retrospective cohort, 91 of 157 patients (58.0%) were men, median age at diagnosis was 66 years (IQR, 61-65 years), and 105 patients (66.9%) had adenocarcinoma. After the intervention, patients received more smoking cessation counseling (4 of 5 [80.0%] vs 1 of 24 [4.2%], P < .001) and less adjuvant chemotherapy (0 of 7 vs 7 of 11 [63.6%]; P = .012). There was no significant change in mutation testing of non-squamous cell stage IV disease (20 of 20 [100%] vs 48 of 57 [84.2%]; P = .10). There was no significant change in pathologic mediastinal staging or initial chemoradiotherapy for patients with stage III disease. After consultation with the tool, decisional conflict scores improved by a median of 20 points (IQR, 3-34; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study suggest that exposure to the NCCN guidelines is associated with increased guideline-concordant care for 2 of 6 preselected recommendations and improvement in decisional conflict.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03982459.

Project description:BackgroundThe National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) recommend testing for EGFR, BRAF, ERBB2, and MET mutations; ALK, ROS1, and RET rearrangements; and MET amplification. We investigated the feasibility and utility of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP), a hybrid capture-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) test, in clinical practice.MethodsCGP was performed to a mean coverage depth of 576× on 6,832 consecutive cases of NSCLC (2012-2015). Genomic alterations (GAs) (point mutations, small indels, copy number changes, and rearrangements) involving EGFR, ALK, BRAF, ERBB2, MET, ROS1, RET, and KRAS were recorded. We also evaluated lung adenocarcinoma (AD) cases without GAs, involving these eight genes.ResultsThe median age of the patients was 64 years (range: 13-88 years) and 53% were female. Among the patients studied, 4,876 (71%) harbored at least one GA involving EGFR (20%), ALK (4.1%), BRAF (5.7%), ERBB2 (6.0%), MET (5.6%), ROS1 (1.5%), RET (2.4%), or KRAS (32%). In the remaining cohort of lung AD without these known drivers, 273 cancer-related genes were altered in at least 0.1% of cases, including STK11 (21%), NF1 (13%), MYC (9.8%), RICTOR (6.4%), PIK3CA (5.4%), CDK4 (4.3%), CCND1 (4.0%), BRCA2 (2.5%), NRAS (2.3%), BRCA1 (1.7%), MAP2K1 (1.2%), HRAS (0.7%), NTRK1 (0.7%), and NTRK3 (0.2%).ConclusionCGP is practical and facilitates implementation of the NCCN guidelines for NSCLC by enabling simultaneous detection of GAs involving all seven driver oncogenes and KRAS. Furthermore, without additional tissue use or cost, CGP identifies patients with "pan-negative" lung AD who may benefit from enrollment in mechanism-driven clinical trials.Implications for practiceNational Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) recommend testing for several genomic alterations (GAs). The feasibility and utility of comprehensive genomic profiling were studied in NSCLC and in lung adenocarcinoma (AD) without GAs. Of patients with NSCLC, 71% harbored at least one GA to a gene listed in the guidelines or KRAS; 273 cancer-related genes were altered in at least 0.1% of the AD cases. Although logistical and administrative hurdles limit the widespread use of next-generation sequencing, the data confirm the feasibility and potential utility of comprehensive genomic profiling in clinical practice.

Project description:Purpose To establish performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography and assess performance trends over time in U.S. community practice. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved study measured the performance of digital screening mammography interpreted by 359 radiologists across 95 facilities in six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. The study included 1 682 504 digital screening mammograms performed between 2007 and 2013 in 792 808 women. Performance measures were calculated according to the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, 5th edition, and were compared with published benchmarks by the BCSC, the National Mammography Database, and performance recommendations by expert opinion. Benchmarks were derived from the distribution of performance metrics across radiologists and were presented as 50th (median), 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles, with graphic presentations using smoothed curves. Results Mean screening performance measures were as follows: abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), 11.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.5, 11.6); cancers detected per 1000 screens, or cancer detection rate (CDR), 5.1 (95% CI: 5.0, 5.2); sensitivity, 86.9% (95% CI: 86.3%, 87.6%); specificity, 88.9% (95% CI: 88.8%, 88.9%); false-negative rate per 1000 screens, 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7, 0.8); positive predictive value (PPV) 1, 4.4% (95% CI: 4.3%, 4.5%); PPV2, 25.6% (95% CI: 25.1%, 26.1%); PPV3, 28.6% (95% CI: 28.0%, 29.3%); cancers stage 0 or 1, 76.9%; minimal cancers, 57.7%; and node-negative invasive cancers, 79.4%. Recommended CDRs were achieved by 92.1% of radiologists in community practice, and 97.1% achieved recommended ranges for sensitivity. Only 59.0% of radiologists achieved recommended AIRs, and only 63.0% achieved recommended levels of specificity. Conclusion The majority of radiologists in the BCSC surpass cancer detection recommendations for screening mammography; however, AIRs continue to be higher than the recommended rate for almost half of radiologists interpreting screening mammograms. © RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Project description:Purpose To establish contemporary performance benchmarks for diagnostic digital mammography with use of recent data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). Materials and Methods Institutional review board approval was obtained for active or passive consenting processes or to obtain a waiver of consent to enroll participants, link data, and perform analyses. Data were obtained from six BCSC registries (418 radiologists, 92 radiology facilities). Mammogram indication and assessments were prospectively collected for women undergoing diagnostic digital mammography and linked with cancer diagnoses from state cancer registries. The study included 401 548 examinations conducted from 2007 to 2013 in 265 360 women. Results Overall diagnostic performance measures were as follows: cancer detection rate, 34.7 per 1000 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.1, 35.2); abnormal interpretation rate, 12.6% (95% CI: 12.5%, 12.7%); positive predictive value (PPV) of a biopsy recommendation (PPV2), 27.5% (95% CI: 27.1%, 27.9%); PPV of biopsies performed (PPV3), 30.4% (95% CI: 29.9%, 30.9%); false-negative rate, 4.8 per 1000 (95% CI: 4.6, 5.0); sensitivity, 87.8% (95% CI: 87.3%, 88.4%); and specificity, 90.5% (95% CI: 90.4%, 90.6%). Among cancers detected, 63.4% were stage 0 or 1 cancers, 45.6% were minimal cancers, the mean size of invasive cancers was 21.2 mm, and 69.6% of invasive cancers were node negative. Performance metrics varied widely across diagnostic indications, with cancer detection rate (64.5 per 1000) and abnormal interpretation rate (18.7%) highest for diagnostic mammograms obtained to evaluate a breast problem with a lump. Compared with performance during the screen-film mammography era, diagnostic digital performance showed increased abnormal interpretation and cancer detection rates and decreasing PPVs, with less than 70% of radiologists within acceptable ranges for PPV2 and PPV3. Conclusion These performance measures can serve as national benchmarks that may help transform the marked variation in radiologists' diagnostic performance into targeted quality improvement efforts. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Dataset Information

Benchmarks in clinical productivity: a national comprehensive cancer network survey.

Purpose

Methods

Results and conclusion

Publications

Benchmarks in clinical productivity: a national comprehensive cancer network survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets