Dataset Information

Interinstitutional variation in management decisions for treatment of 4 common types of cancer: A multi-institutional cohort study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:When clinical practice is governed by evidence-based guidelines and there is consensus about their validity, practice variation should be minimal. For areas in which evidence gaps exist, greater variation is expected. OBJECTIVE:To systematically assess interinstitutional variation in management decisions for 4 common types of cancer. DESIGN:Multi-institutional, observational cohort study of patients with cancer diagnosed between July 2006 through May 2011 and observed through 31 December 2011. SETTING:18 cancer centers participating in the formulation of treatment guidelines and systematic outcomes assessment through the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. PATIENTS:25 589 patients with incident breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. MEASUREMENTS:Interinstitutional variation for 171 binary management decisions with varying levels of supporting evidence. For each decision, variation was characterized by the median absolute deviation of the center-specific proportions. RESULTS:Interinstitutional variation was high (median absolute deviation >10%) for 35 of 171 (20%) oncology management decisions, including 9 of 22 (41%) decisions for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 16 of 76 (21%) for breast cancer, 7 of 47 (15%) for lung cancer, and 3 of 26 (12%) for colorectal cancer. Forty-six percent of high-variance decisions involved imaging or diagnostic procedures and 37% involved choice of chemotherapy regimen. The evidence grade underpinning the 35 high-variance decisions was category 1 for 0%, 2A for 49%, and 2B/other for 51%. LIMITATION:Physician identifiers were unavailable, and results may not generalize outside of major cancer centers. CONCLUSION:The substantial variation in institutional practice manifest among cancer centers reveals a lack of consensus about optimal management for common clinical scenarios. For clinicians, awareness of management decisions with high variation should prompt attention to patient preferences. For health systems, high variation can be used to prioritize comparative effectiveness research, patient-provider education, or pathway development. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:National Cancer Institute and National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

SUBMITTER: Weeks JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4479196 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interinstitutional variation in management decisions for treatment of 4 common types of cancer: A multi-institutional cohort study.

Weeks Jane C JC Uno Hajime H Taback Nathan N Ting Gladys G Cronin Angel A D'Amico Thomas A TA Friedberg Jonathan W JW Schrag Deborah D

Annals of internal medicine 20140701 1

<h4>Background</h4>When clinical practice is governed by evidence-based guidelines and there is consensus about their validity, practice variation should be minimal. For areas in which evidence gaps exist, greater variation is expected.<h4>Objective</h4>To systematically assess interinstitutional variation in management decisions for 4 common types of cancer.<h4>Design</h4>Multi-institutional, observational cohort study of patients with cancer diagnosed between July 2006 through May 2011 and obs ...[more]

PMID: 24979447

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose: The primary objective of the current study was to validate biomarkers to identify the 10% to 27% of patients with stage I and 35% of patients with stage IIA squamous cell carcinoma of lung (SC) who are likely to recur following surgical resection, so that these patients may be offered enrollment in clinical trials evaluating directed ACT. A secondary objective was to identify patients with stage IIB SC who are unlikely to develop recurrences and might thereby be spared the potential significant toxicity and expense of ACT. Methods: Two-stage validation used independent core laboratories, objective quality control standards, locked test parameters, and large multi-institutional specimen/data sets. First stage validation confirmed a signature’s ability to stratify patient survival. Second stage validation determined which signature(s) optimally improved risk discrimination when added to baseline clinical predictors. Participants were prospectively enrolled on institutional (Cohort I) or cooperative group (Cohort II) biospecimen/data collection protocols. All cases underwent central review of clinical, pathologic and biospecimen parameters using objective criteria to determine final inclusion (Cohort I: n=249; Cohort II: n=234). Primary selection required that a signature significantly predict 3-years survival after surgery in Cohort I. Signatures meeting this criterion were further tested in Cohort II, comparing risk prediction using baseline risk factors alone versus in combination with the signature. Results: Male sex, advanced age, and higher stage were associated with shorter survival in Cohort I and established a baseline clinical model. Of three signatures validated in Cohort I, one signature was validated in Cohort II and statistically significantly enhanced prognosis relative to the baseline model (C-index difference 0.122; p<0.05). Conclusions: These results represent the first rigorous validation of a test appropriate to direct adjuvant treatment or clinical trials for patients with lung squamous cell carcinoma.

Project description:Patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) often develop hydrocephalus requiring an external ventricular drain (EVD). The best available evidence suggests that a rapid EVD wean and intermittent CSF drainage is safe, reduces complications, and shortens ICU and hospital length of stay as compared to a gradual wean and continuous drainage. However, optimal EVD management remains controversial and the baseline practice among neurological ICUs is unclear. Therefore, we sought to determine current institutional practices of EVD management for patients with aneurysmal SAH.An e-mail survey was sent to attending intensivists and neurosurgeons from 72 neurocritical care units that are registered with the Neurocritical Care Research Network or have been previously associated with the existing literature on the management of EVDs in critically ill patients. Only one response was counted per institution.There were 45 out of 72 institutional responses (63%). The majority of responding institutions (80%) had a single predominant EVD management approach. Of these, 78% favored a gradual EVD weaning strategy. For unsecured aneurysms, 81% kept the EVD continuously open and 19% used intermittent drainage. For secured aneurysms, 94% kept the EVD continuously open and 6% used intermittent drainage. Among continuously drained patients, the EVD was leveled at 18 (unsecured) and 11 cm H2O (secured) (p < 0.0001). When accounting for whether the EVD strategy was to enhance or minimize CSF drainage, there was a significant difference in the management of unsecured versus secured aneurysms with 42% using an enhance drainage approach in unsecured patients and 92% using an enhance drainage approach in secured patients (p < 0.0001).Most institutions utilize a single predominant EVD management approach, with a consensus toward a continuously open EVD to enhance CSF drainage in secured aneurysm patients coupled with a gradual weaning strategy. This finding is surprising given that the best available evidence suggests that the opposite approach is safe and can reduce ICU and hospital length of stay. We recommend a critical reassessment of the approach to the management of EVDs. Given the potential impact on patient outcomes and length of stay, more research needs to be done to reach a threshold for practice change, ideally via multicenter and randomized trials.

Dataset Information

Interinstitutional variation in management decisions for treatment of 4 common types of cancer: A multi-institutional cohort study.

Publications

Interinstitutional variation in management decisions for treatment of 4 common types of cancer: A multi-institutional cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets