Dataset Information

Shared-patient physician networks and their impact on the uptake of genomic testing in breast cancer.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Factors influencing the adoption of genomic testing are poorly understood, which may lead to inequitable and suboptimal treatment in cancer patients. Oncotype DX (ODX) is one of the first and most widely used genomic assays to stratify risk in women with early-stage breast cancer (BC). Physician networks have emerged as a significant and modifiable driver of emerging medical technology adoption. OBJECTIVE:To investigate the association between physician network connections and the use of ODX testing. METHODS:A retrospective study of women diagnosed with BC using SEER-Medicare from 2008 to 2012 was used. Medical oncologists were "connected" if they shared two or more patients during the early-adoption period (2008-2009). Parallel physician- and patient-level analyses employed logistic mixed models to determine the impact of being "connected" to an early-adopting oncologist on ODX use in 2011-2012. RESULTS:24,463 women met study criteria; 12,874 were diagnosed with BC in the early-adoption time period. 2129 medical oncologists treated these patients from 2008 to 2009. Medical oncologists had a median number of peer connections of 4 (IQR: 2-7). Peer connection to an early-adopting provider in 2008-2009 was associated with a 1.7-fold increase in providers' adopting ODX (95% CI: 1.1-2.6) and a 1.5-fold increase in their patients receiving ODX (95% CI: 1.1-2.0) in 2010-2012. CONCLUSIONS:Peer connectedness to an early-adopting physician predicts ODX adoption in both physician-level and patient-level analyses. Provider networks may provide a potent and modifiable means to modulate the diffusion of emerging medical technologies. Efforts to increase testing, where appropriate, may benefit from peer-to-peer-based connection strategies.

SUBMITTER: Rotter J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6556129 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Shared-patient physician networks and their impact on the uptake of genomic testing in breast cancer.

Rotter Jason J Wilson Lauren L Greiner Melissa A MA Pollack Craig E CE Dinan Michaela M

Breast cancer research and treatment 20190426 2

<h4>Background</h4>Factors influencing the adoption of genomic testing are poorly understood, which may lead to inequitable and suboptimal treatment in cancer patients. Oncotype DX (ODX) is one of the first and most widely used genomic assays to stratify risk in women with early-stage breast cancer (BC). Physician networks have emerged as a significant and modifiable driver of emerging medical technology adoption.<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate the association between physician network connecti ...[more]

PMID: 31028607

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo assess metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patient psychological factors, perceptions, and comprehension of tumor genomic testing.MethodsIn a prospective, single institution, single-arm trial, patients with MBC underwent next-generation sequencing at study entry with sequencing results released at progression. Patients who completed surveys before undergoing sequencing were included in the present secondary analysis (n = 58). We administered four validated psychosocial measures: Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Trust in Physician Scale, and Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for Cancer. Genetic comprehension was assessed using 7-question objective and 6-question subjective measures. Longitudinal data were assessed (n = 40) using paired Wilcoxon signed rank and McNemar's test of agreement.ResultsThere were no significant differences between the beginning and end of study in depression, anxiety, physician trust, or self-efficacy (median time on study: 7.6 months). Depression and anxiety were positively associated with each other and both negatively associated with self-efficacy. Self-efficacy decreased from pre- to post-genomic testing (p = 0.05). Objective genetics comprehension did not significantly change from pre- to post-genomic testing, but patients expressed increased confidence in their ability to teach others about genetics (p = 0.04). Objective comprehension was significantly lower in non-white patients (p = 0.02) and patients with lower income (p = 0.04).ConclusionsThis is the only study, to our knowledge, to longitudinally evaluate multiple psychological metrics in MBC as patients undergo tumor genomic testing. Overall, psychological dimensions remained stable over the duration of tumor genomic testing. Among patients with MBC, depression and anxiety metrics were negatively correlated with patient self-efficacy. Patients undergoing somatic genomic testing had limited genomic knowledge, which varied by demographic groups and may warrant additional educational intervention.Clinical trial informationNCT01987726, registered November 13, 2013.

Project description:PURPOSE:To evaluate the impact of targeted DNA sequencing on selection of cancer therapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS:In this prospective, single-center, single-arm trial, patients with MBC were enrolled within 10 weeks of starting a new therapy. At enrollment, tumor samples underwent next-generation sequencing for any of 315 cancer-related genes to high depth (> 500×) using FoundationOne CDx. Sequencing results were released to providers at the time of disease progression, and physician treatment recommendations were assessed via questionnaire. We evaluated three prespecified questions to assess patients' perceptions of genomic testing. RESULTS:In all, 100 patients underwent genomic testing, with a median of five mutations (range, 0 to 13 mutations) detected per patient. Genomic testing revealed one or more potential therapies in 98% of patients (98 of 100), and 60% of patients (60 of 100) had one or more recommended treatments with level I/II evidence for actionability. Among the 94 genomic text reports that were released, there was physician questionnaire data for 87 patients (response rate, 92.6%) and 31.0% of patients (27 of 87) had treatment change recommended by their physician. Of these, 37.0% (10 of 27) received the treatment supported by genomic testing. We did not detect a statistically significant difference in time-to-treatment failure (log-rank P = .87) or overall survival (P = .71) among patients who had treatment change supported by genomic testing versus those who had no treatment change. For patients who completed surveys before and after genomic testing, there was a significant decrease in confidence of treatment success, specifically among patients who did not have treatment change supported by genomic testing (McNemar's test of agreement P = .001). CONCLUSION:In this prospective study, genomic profiling of tumors in patients with MBC frequently identified potential treatments and resulted in treatment change in a minority of patients. Patients whose therapy was not changed on the basis of genomic testing seemed to have a decrease in confidence of treatment success.

Project description:BackgroundMeasuring care coordination in administrative data facilitates important research to improve care quality.ObjectiveTo compare shared patient networks constructed from administrative claims data across multiple payers.DesignSocial network analysis of pooled cross sections of physicians treating prevalent colorectal cancer patients between 2003 and 2013.ParticipantsSurgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists identified from North Carolina Central Cancer Registry data linked to Medicare claims (N = 1735) and private insurance claims (N = 1321).Main measuresProvider-level measures included the number of patients treated, the number of providers with whom they share patients (by specialty), the extent of patient sharing with each specialty, and network centrality. Network-level measures included the number of providers and shared patients, the density of shared-patient relationships among providers, and the size and composition of clusters of providers with a high level of patient sharing.ResultsFor 24.5% of providers, total patient volume rank differed by at least one quintile group between payers. Medicare claims missed 14.6% of all shared patient relationships between providers, but captured a greater number of patient-sharing relationships per provider compared with the private insurance database, even after controlling for the total number of patients (27.242 vs 26.044, p < 0.001). Providers in the private network shared a higher fraction of patients with other providers (0.226 vs 0.127, p < 0.001) compared to the Medicare network. Clustering coefficients for providers, weighted betweenness, and eigenvector centrality varied greatly across payers. Network differences led to some clusters of providers that existed in the combined network not being detected in Medicare alone.ConclusionMany features of shared patient networks constructed from a single-payer database differed from similar networks constructed from other payers' data. Depending on a study's goals, shortcomings of single-payer networks should be considered when using claims data to draw conclusions about provider behavior.

Dataset Information

Shared-patient physician networks and their impact on the uptake of genomic testing in breast cancer.

Publications

Shared-patient physician networks and their impact on the uptake of genomic testing in breast cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets