Dataset Information

National Trends in Oncologic Diagnostic Imaging.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To characterize national trends in oncologic imaging (OI) utilization.

Methods

This retrospective cross-sectional study used 2004 and 2016 CMS 5% Carrier Claims Research Identifiable Files. Radiologist-performed, primary noninvasive diagnostic imaging examinations were identified from billed Current Procedural Terminology codes; CT, MRI, and PET/CT examinations were categorized as "advanced" imaging. OI examinations were identified from imaging claims' primary International Classification of Diseases-9 and International Classification of Diseases-10 codes. Imaging services were stratified by academic practice status and place of service. State-level correlations of oncologic advanced imaging utilization (examinations per 1,000 beneficiaries) with cancer prevalence and radiologist supply were assessed by Spearman correlation coefficient.

Results

The national Medicare sample included 5,051,095 diagnostic imaging examinations (1,220,224 of them advanced) in 2004 and 5,023,115 diagnostic imaging examinations (1,504,608 of them advanced) in 2016. In 2004 and 2016, OI represented 4.3% and 3.9%, respectively, of all imaging versus 10.8% and 9.5%, respectively, of advanced imaging. The percentage of advanced OI done in academic practices rose from 18.8% in 2004 to 34.1% in 2016, leaving 65.9% outside academia. In 2016, 58.0% of advanced OI was performed in the hospital outpatient setting and 23.9% in the physician office setting. In 2016, state-level oncologic advanced imaging utilization correlated with state-level radiologist supply (r = +0.489, P < .001) but not with state-level cancer prevalence (r = -0.139, P = .329).

Discussion

OI usage varied between practice settings. Although the percentage of advanced OI done in academic settings nearly doubled from 2004 to 2016, the majority remained in nonacademic practices. State-level oncologic advanced imaging utilization correlated with radiologist supply but not cancer prevalence.

SUBMITTER: Rosenkrantz AB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7483645 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Overutilization of computed tomography (CT) is a growing public health concern due to increasing health care costs and exposure to radiation; these must be weighed against the potential benefits of CT for improving diagnoses and treatment plans. The objective of this study was to determine the national trends of CT and ultrasound (US) utilization for assessment of suspected urolithiasis in emergency departments (EDs) and if these trends are accompanied by changes in diagnosis rates for urolithiasis or other significant disorders and hospitalization rates.This was a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of ED visits from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) between 1996 and 2007. The authors determined the proportion of patient visits for flank or kidney pain receiving CT or US testing and calculated the diagnosis and hospitalization rates for urolithiasis and other significant disorders. Patient-specific and hospital-level variables associated with the use of CT were examined.Utilization of CT to assess patients with suspected urolithiasis increased from 4.0% to 42.5% over the study period (p < 0.001). In contrast, the use of US remained low, at about 5%, until it decreased beginning in 2005 to 2007 to 2.4% (p = 0.01). The proportion of patients diagnosed with urolithiasis (approximately 18%, p = 0.55), with other significant diagnoses (p > 0.05), and admitted to the hospital (approximately 11%, p = 0.49) did not change significantly. The following characteristics were associated with a higher likelihood of receiving a CT scan: male sex (odd ratio [OR] = 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.22 to 2.77), patients presenting with severe pain (OR = 2.96, 95% CI = 1.14 to 7.65), and those triaged in 15 minutes or less (OR = 2.41, 95% CI = 1.08 to 5.37). CT utilization was lower for patients presenting to rural hospitals (vs. urban areas; OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.19 to 0.61) and those managed by a nonphysician health care provider (OR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.53).From 1996 to 2007, there was a 10-fold increase in the utilization of CT scan for patients with suspected kidney stone without an associated change in the proportion of diagnosis of kidney stone, diagnosis of significant alternate diagnoses, or admission to the hospital.

Project description:The objective of this study is to identify essential aspects influencing radiation dose in computed tomography [CT] of the chest, abdomen and pelvis by intraindividual comparison of imaging parameters and patient related factors. All patients receiving at least two consecutive CT examinations for tumor staging or follow-up within a period of 22 months were included in this retrospective study. Different CT dose estimates (computed tomography dose index [CTDIvol], dose length product [DLP], size-specific dose estimate [SSDE]) were correlated with patient's body mass index [BMI], scan length and technical parameters (tube current, tube voltage, pitch, noise level, level of iterative reconstruction). Repeated-measures-analysis was initiated with focus on response variables (CTDIvol, DLP, SSDE) and possible factors (age, BMI, noise, scan length, peak kilovoltage [kVp], tube current, pitch, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction [ASIR]). A univariate-linear-mixed-model with repeated-measures-analysis followed by Bonferroni adjustments was used to find associations between CT imaging parameters, BMI and dose estimates followed by a subsequent multivariate-mixed-model with repeated-measures-analysis with Bonferroni adjustments for significant parameters. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. We found all dose estimates in all imaging regions were substantially affected by tube current. The iterative reconstruction significantly influenced all dose estimates in the thoracoabdominopelvic scans as well as DLP and SSDE in chest-CT. Pitch factor affected all dose parameters in the thoracoabdominopelvic CT group. These results provide further evidence that tube current has a pivotal role and potential in radiation dose management. The use of iterative reconstruction algorithms can substantially decrease radiation dose especially in thoracoabdominopelvic and chest-CT-scans. Pitch factor should be kept at a level of ≥1.0 in order to reduce radiation dose.

Project description:ObjectivesTo present the results of a survey on the assessment of treatment response with imaging in oncologic patient, in routine clinical practice. The survey was promoted by the European Society of Oncologic Imaging to gather information for the development of reporting models and recommendations.MethodsThe survey was launched on the European Society of Oncologic Imaging website and was available for 3 weeks. It consisted of 5 sections, including 24 questions related to the following topics: demographic and professional information, methods for lesion measurement, how to deal with diminutive lesions, how to report baseline and follow-up examinations, which previous studies should be used for comparison, and role of RECIST 1.1 criteria in the daily clinical practice.ResultsA total of 286 responses were received. Most responders followed the RECIST 1.1 recommendations for the measurement of target lesions and lymph nodes and for the assessment of tumor response. To assess response, 48.6% used previous and/or best response study in addition to baseline, 25.2% included the evaluation of all main time points, and 35% used as the reference only the previous study. A considerable number of responders used RECIST 1.1 criteria in daily clinical practice (41.6%) or thought that they should be always applied (60.8%).ConclusionSince standardized criteria are mainly a prerogative of clinical trials, in daily routine, reporting strategies are left to radiologists and oncologists, which may issue local and diversified recommendations. The survey emphasizes the need for more generally applicable rules for response assessment in clinical practice.Critical relevance statementCompared to clinical trials which use specific criteria to evaluate response to oncological treatments, the free narrative report usually adopted in daily clinical practice may lack clarity and useful information, and therefore, more structured approaches are needed.Key points· Most radiologists consider standardized reporting strategies essential for an objective assessment of tumor response in clinical practice. · Radiologists increasingly rely on RECIST 1.1 in their daily clinical practice. · Treatment response evaluation should require a complete analysis of all imaging time points and not only of the last.