Dataset Information

Physician's peer exposure and the adoption of a new cancer treatment modality.

ABSTRACT: New technologies, often with limited evidence to support their effectiveness, frequently diffuse into clinical practice and increase the costs of cancer care. The authors studied whether physician peer exposure was associated with the subsequent adoption of a new approach to adjuvant radiotherapy (brachytherapy) for the treatment of women with early-stage breast cancer.A retrospective cohort study was performed using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Data from 2003 through 2004 were used to classify surgeons as early brachytherapy adopters and, among non-early adopters, whether they shared patients with early adopters (peer exposure). Data from 2005 through 2006 were used to examine whether women were more likely to receive brachytherapy if their surgeons were exposed to early adopters.Overall, the percentage of women receiving brachytherapy increased from 3.2% in 2003 through 2004 to 4.7% in 2005 through 2006. In this latter period, a total of 2087 patients were assigned to 328 non-early adopting surgeons. In unadjusted analyses, patients whose surgeons were connected to early adopters during 2003 through 2004 were found to be significantly more likely to receive brachytherapy in 2005 through 2006 compared with those whose surgeons were not connected to early adopters (8.0% vs 4.1%; P = .003). In adjusted analyses, the predicted probability of receiving brachytherapy among patients whose surgeon did have an early-adopting peer was 3.9% versus 1.0% among those whose surgeons did not have an early-adopting peer (P = .03).Exposure to peers who were early adopters of brachytherapy was found to be associated with a surgeon's subsequent uptake of brachytherapy. The results of the current study provide an example of a novel approach to examining the diffusion of innovation in cancer care.

SUBMITTER: Pollack CE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4529814 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Physician's peer exposure and the adoption of a new cancer treatment modality.

Pollack Craig Evan CE Soulos Pamela R PR Gross Cary P CP

Cancer 20150422 16

<h4>Background</h4>New technologies, often with limited evidence to support their effectiveness, frequently diffuse into clinical practice and increase the costs of cancer care. The authors studied whether physician peer exposure was associated with the subsequent adoption of a new approach to adjuvant radiotherapy (brachytherapy) for the treatment of women with early-stage breast cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>A retrospective cohort study was performed using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results ...[more]

PMID: 25903304

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although physicians learn about new medical technologies from their peers, the magnitude and source of peer influence is unknown. We estimate the effect of peer adoption of three first-in-class medications (dabigatran, sitigliptin, and aliskiren) on physicians' own adoption of those medications. We included 11,958 physicians in Pennsylvania prescribing anticoagulant, antidiabetic, and antihypertensive medications. We constructed 4 types of peer networks based on shared Medicare and Medicaid patients, medical group affiliation, hospital affiliation, and medical school/residency training. Instrumental variables analysis was used to estimate the causal effect of peer adoption (fraction of peers in each network adopting the new drug) on physician adoption (prescribing at least the median number prescriptions within 15 months of the new drug's introduction). We illustrate how physician network position can inform targeting of interventions to physicians by computing a social multiplier. Dabigatran was adopted by 25.2%, sitagliptin by 24.5% and aliskiren by 8.3% of physicians. A 10-percentage point increase in peer adoption in the patient-sharing network led to a 5.90% (SE = 1.50%, p<0.001) increase in physician adoption of dabigatran, 8.32% (SE = 1.51%, p<0.001) increase in sitagliptin, and 7.84% increase in aliskiren adoption (SE = 2.93%, p<0.001). Peer effects through shared hospital affiliation were positive but not significant, and medical group and training network effects were not reliably estimated. Physicians in the top decile of patient-sharing network peers were estimated to have nearly 2-fold stronger influence on their peers' adoption compared to physicians in the top decile of prescribing volume. Limitations include lack of detailed clinical information and pharmaceutical promotion, variables which may influence physician adoption but which are unlikely to bias our peer effect estimates. Peer adoption, especially by those with whom physicians share patients, strongly influenced physician adoption of new drugs. Our study shows the potential for using information on physician peer networks to improve technology diffusion.

Project description:BackgroundDetailed cost estimates are not widely available for esophageal cancer. Our study estimates phase-specific costs for esophageal cancer by age, year, histology, stage, and treatment for older patients in the United States and compares these costs within stage and treatment modalities.MethodsWe identified 8061 esophageal cancer patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database for years 1998-2013. Total, cancer-attributable, and patient-liability costs were calculated based on separate phases of care-staging (or surgery), initial, continuing, and terminal. We estimated costs by treatment modality within stage and phase for esophageal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma separately. We fit linear regression models using log transformation to determine cost by age and calendar year. All costs are reported in 2018 US dollars.ResultsOverall, mean (95% CI) monthly total cost estimates were high during the staging ($8953 [$8385-$9485]) and initial phases ($7731 [$7492-$7970]), decreased over the continuing phase ($2984 [$2814-$3154]), and increased substantially during the 6-month terminal phase ($18 150 [$17 211-$19 089]). This pattern of high staging and initial phase costs, decreasing continuing phase costs, and increasing terminal phase costs was seen in all stages. The highest staging costs were in stages III ($9249, $8025-$10 474) and II ($9171, $7642-$10 699). The highest initial phase cost was in stage IV, $9263 ($8758-49 768), the lowest continuing phase cost was in stage I, $2338 ($2160-$2517), and the highest terminal phase costs were in stages II ($20 533, $17 772-$23 293) and III ($20 599, $18 268-$22 929). The linear regression models showed that cancer-attributable costs remained stable over the study period and were unaffected by age for most histology, stage, and treatment modality subgroups.ConclusionsOur estimates demonstrate that esophageal cancer costs can vary widely by histology, stage, and treatment. These cost estimates can be used to guide future resource allocation for esophageal cancer care and research.

Dataset Information

Physician's peer exposure and the adoption of a new cancer treatment modality.

Publications

Physician's peer exposure and the adoption of a new cancer treatment modality.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets