Dataset Information

Variation in Practice Patterns of Korean Radiation Oncologists for Spine Metastasis between 2009 and 2014.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The Korean Society of Radiation Oncologists (KOSRO) conducted the Patterns of Care Study (PCS) of radiotherapy (RT) for spine metastases in 2009. The current study was conducted to investigate current practice patterns and compare them with the results of the PCS.

Materials and methods

The survey questionnaire was composed of 10 questions regarding general information and seven questions for each of two clinical scenarios.

Results

Fifty-four members of the KOSRO answered at least one question on the web-based questionnaire. The yearly number of patients treated who underwent palliative spine RT was greater than 200 in 14 (25.9%), 51 to 100 in 13 (24.1%), and 31 to 50 in 11 respondents (20.4%). Scenario 1 described a patient presenting with cord compressive spine metastasis in multiple bones and liver metastasis from non-small cell lung cancer. Thirty gray (Gy) in 10 fractions was chosen by 35 respondents (64.8%). Scenario 2 described a case of a single spine metastasis without progression after targeted therapy. Thirty Gy in 10 fractions was chosen by 19 respondents (35.2%), and a single fraction or less than four fractions of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) were selected by 18 respondents (33.3%). When compared with the 2009 PCS, practice patterns of Korean radiation oncologists had not changed significantly over 5 years, except that SABR emerged as a new treatment modality in the selected population.

Conclusion

The 2014 PCS demonstrated that multiple fraction RT is still preferred in a considerable proportion of Korean radiation oncologists.

SUBMITTER: Yu JI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4946360 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Variation in Practice Patterns of Korean Radiation Oncologists for Spine Metastasis between 2009 and 2014.

Yu Jeong Il JI Park Hee Chul HC Ahn Yong Chan YC Chung Yoonsun Y Koom Woong Sub WS Song Si Yeol SY

Cancer research and treatment 20151202 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>The Korean Society of Radiation Oncologists (KOSRO) conducted the Patterns of Care Study (PCS) of radiotherapy (RT) for spine metastases in 2009. The current study was conducted to investigate current practice patterns and compare them with the results of the PCS.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>The survey questionnaire was composed of 10 questions regarding general information and seven questions for each of two clinical scenarios.<h4>Results</h4>Fifty-four members of the KOSRO ans ...[more]

PMID: 26639199

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIndustry-physician collaboration is critical for anticancer therapeutic development, but financial relationships introduce conflicts of interest. We examined the specialty variation and context of physician payments and ownership interest among oncologists.MethodsWe performed a population-based multivariable analysis of 2014 Open Payments reports of industry payments to US physicians matched to physician and practice data, including sex, specialty, practice location, and sole proprietor status. Payment data were aggregated per physician and compared by specialty (medical, radiation, surgical, and nononcology), and practice location linked with spending level (low, average, and high). Primary outcomes included likelihood, mean annual amount, and number of general payments. Secondary outcomes included likelihood of holding ownership interests and receipt of royalty/license payments. Estimates for each outcome were determined using multivariable models, including logistic regression for likelihood and linear regression with gamma distribution and log-link for value, adjusted for physician specialty, sex, sole proprietor status, and practice spending. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsIn 2014, there were 883 438 physicians, including 22 712 oncologists, licensed to practice in the United States. Among oncology specialties, 52.4% to 63.0% of physicians received a general payment in 2014, totaling $76 million, $4 million, and $5 million to medical, radiation, and surgical oncology, respectively. The median annual per-physician payment to medical oncologists was $632 (IQR = 136-2500), compared with $124 (IQR = 39-323) in radiation oncology and $250 (IQR = 84-1369) in surgical oncology. After controlling for physician and practice characteristics, oncologists were 1.09 to 1.75 times as likely to receive a general payment compared with nononcologists (overall P < 001). There was a 67.6% difference (95% confidence interval [CI] = 63.6 to 71.5, P < .001) in the mean annual value of payments between medical oncology and nononcology specialties (vs -92.7%, 95%CI = -100.2 to -85.0, P < .001] for radiation oncology). Medical and radiation oncologists were more likely to hold ownership interest (adjusted OR = 3.72, 95% CI = 3.22 to 4.27, and 2.27, 95% CI = 1.65 to 3.03, respectively, P < .001 both comparisons).ConclusionsIn 2014, industry-oncologist financial relationships were common, and their impact on oncology practice should be further explored.

Project description:BackgroundRadiation oncologists (ROs) play an important role in managing cancer pain; however, their opioid prescribing patterns remain poorly described.MethodsThe 2016 Medicare Physician Compare National Downloadable and the 2016 Medicare Part D Prescriber Data files were cross-linked to identify RO-written opioid prescriptions.ResultsOf 4,627 identified ROs, 1,360 (29.3%) wrote >10 opioid prescriptions. The average number of opioid prescriptions written was significantly (P ? .05) associated with the following RO characteristics: sex [13.1 ± 36.5 male vs 7.5 ± 16.9 female]; years since medical school graduation [4.5 ± 11.5 1-10 years vs 12.6 ± 26.0 11-24 years vs 13.3 ± 40.9 ?25 years]; practice size [15.5 ± 44.6 size ?10 vs 13.3 ± 25.9 size 11-49 vs 8.5 ± 12.7 size 50-99 vs 8.8 ± 26.9 size ?100]; Medicare Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) participation [12.6 ± 31.8 yes vs 7.0 ± 35.4 no]; and practice location [17.4 ± 47.0 South vs 10.6 ± 29.4 Midwest vs 8.1 ± 13.9 West vs 6.9 ± 15.2 Northeast]. On multivariable regression modeling, male sex (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.22-1.35, P < .001), ?25 years since graduation (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.70, 1-10 years vs ?25 years; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 - 1.04, 11-24 years vs ?25 years; P < .001), practice size <10 members (RR 1.51, CI 1.44-1.59, ?10 vs ?100 members, RR 1.27, CI 1.20-1.34, 10-49 vs ?100 members, RR 0.86, CI 0.80-0.92, 50-99 vs ?100 members, P < .001), PQRS participation (RR 1.12, CI 1.04-1.19, P < .002), and Southern location (RR 0.67, CI 0.64-0.70, Midwest vs South; RR 0.39, CI 0.37-0.41, Northeast vs South; RR 0.43, CI 0.41-0.46, West vs South; P < .001) were predictive of higher opioid prescription rates.ConclusionsFactors associated with increased number of RO-written opioid prescriptions were male sex, ?25 years since graduation, group practice <10, PQRS participation, and Southern location. Additional research is required to establish optimal opioid prescribing practices for ROs.

Project description:PurposeTo assess US radiation oncologists' views on practice scope and the ideal role of the radiation oncologist (RO), the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) conducted a scope of practice survey.Methods and materialsIn spring 2019, ASTRO distributed an online survey to 3822 US RO members. The survey generated 984 complete responses (26% response rate) for analysis. Face validity testing confirmed respondents were representative of ASTRO's RO membership.ResultsNearly all respondents agreed that "ROs should be leaders in oncologic care." Respondents indicated the ideal approach to patient care was to provide "an independent opinion on radiation therapy and other treatment options" (82.5%) or "an independent opinion on radiation therapy but not outside of it" (16.1%), with only 1.4% favoring provision of "radiation therapy at the request of the referring physician" as the ideal approach. Actual practice fully matched the ideal approach in 18.2% of respondents. For the remaining majority, actual practice did not always match the ideal and comprised a mix of approaches that included providing radiation at the referring physician's request 24.0% of the time on average. Reasons for the mismatch included fear of alienating referring physicians and concern for offering an unwelcome opinion. One-fifth of respondents expressed a desire to expand the scope of service though interspecialty politics and insufficient training were potential barriers. Respondents interested in expanding scope of practice were on average earlier in their career (average years in practice 13.3) than those who were not interested (average years in practice 17.2, P < .001). Radiopharmaceuticals administration, medical marijuana and anticancer medications prescribing, and RO inpatient service represented areas of interest for expansion but also knowledge gaps.ConclusionsThese results provide insight regarding US ROs' scope of practice and attitudes on the ideal role of the RO. For most ROs, to provide an independent opinion on treatment options represented the ideal approach to care, but barriers such as concern of alienating referring physicians prevented many from fully adhering to their ideal in practice. Actual practice commonly comprised a mixed approach, including the least favored scenario of delivering radiation at the referring physician's request one-quarter of the time, highlighting the influence of interspecialty politics on practice behavior. Advocacy for open communication and meaningful interdisciplinary collaboration presents an actionable solution toward a more balanced relationship with other specialties as ROs strive to better fulfill the vision of being leaders in oncologic care and being our best for our patients. The study also identified interest in expanding into nontraditional domains that offer opportunities to address unmet needs in the cancer patient's journey and elevate radiation oncology within the increasingly value-based US health care system.

Project description:Importance:Health insurers reimburse clinicians in many ways, including the ubiquitous fee-for-service model and the emergent shared-savings models. Evidence on the effects of these emergent models in oncological treatment remains limited. Objectives:To analyze the early use and cost associations of a recent Medicare payment program, the Oncology Care Model (OCM), which included a shared savings-like component. Design, Setting, and Participants:This nonrandomized controlled study used a difference-in-differences approach on 2 years of data, from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2017-1 year before and 1 year after launch of the OCM-to compare the differences between participating and nonparticipating practices, controlling for patient, clinician, and practice factors. Participation in the OCM began on July 1, 2016. Associations of participation with care use and cost were estimated for care directly managed by clinicians from a large network within their Medicare populations for breast, lung, colon, and prostate cancers. Data were analyzed from September 2019 to March 2020. Exposures:Participating practices were paid a monthly management fee of $160 per beneficiary and a potential risk-adjusted performance-based payment for eligible patients who received chemotherapy treatment, in addition to standard fee-for-service payments. Main Outcomes and Measures:Office visits, drug administrations, patient hydrations, drug costs, and total costs. Results:Monthly means data at the physician-level were evaluated for 11 869 physician-months for breast cancers, 11 135 physician-months for lung cancers, 8592 physician-months for colon cancers, and 9045 physician-months for prostate cancers. Patients at OCM practices had a mean (SD) age of 63.4 (3.1) years, and a mean (SD) of 59% (7 percentage points) of their patients were women. Participation in the OCM was associated with less physician-administered prostate cancer drug use (difference, 0.29 [95% CI, -0.47 to -0.11] percentage points, or 24.0%) translating to a mean of $706 (95% CI, -$1383 to -$29) less in drug costs per month. Monthly drug costs were also lower, at $558 (95% CI, -$1173 to $58) less for treatment for lung cancer. Total costs were lower by 9.7% or $233 (95% CI, -$495 to $30) for breast cancer, 9.9% or $337 (95% CI, -$618 to -$55) for lung cancer, 14.2% or $385 (95% CI, -$780 to $10) for colon cancer, and 29.2% or $610 (95% CI, -$1095 to -$125) for prostate cancer; however, these differences were largely offset by program costs. Clinician visits were also lower by 11.2% or 0.11 (95% CI, -0.20 to -0.01) percentage points among patients with breast cancer and by 14.4% or 0.19 (95% CI, -0.37 to -0.02) among patients with colon cancer. Conclusions and Relevance:These findings suggest that payment models with shared-savings components can be associated with fewer visits and lower costs in certain cancer settings in the first year, but the savings can be modest given the costs of program administration.

Dataset Information

Variation in Practice Patterns of Korean Radiation Oncologists for Spine Metastasis between 2009 and 2014.

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Variation in Practice Patterns of Korean Radiation Oncologists for Spine Metastasis between 2009 and 2014.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets