Advertisement

Temporal trends and regional variation in the utilization of low-value breast cancer care: has the Choosing Wisely campaign made a difference?

  • Joan M. NeunerEmail author
  • Ann B. Nattinger
  • Tina Yen
  • Emily McGinley
  • Michael Nattinger
  • Liliana E. Pezzin
Epidemiology
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Since 2012, about 80 specialty societies have released Choosing Wisely (CW) recommendations aimed at reducing the use of low-value, unproven, or ineffective medical services. The extent to which these recommendations have influenced the behavior of physicians and patients remains largely unknown.

Methods

Using MarketScan Commercial Claims and Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits databases, we identified annual cohorts of women with incident, early-stage breast cancer and estimated the prevalence of four initial treatment and six surveillance metrics deemed as low-value breast cancer care by CW. Multivariable logistic regressions were subsequently used to estimate temporal trends and regional variation in the use of these metrics, with a special focus on the year of CW’s publication.

Results

There were 122,341 women identified as undergoing treatment for incident breast cancer between 2010 and 2014. Two of the four low-value initial treatment metrics and four of the six low-value surveillance metrics declined significantly over time. The temporal trend of declining use, however, preceded the release of CW’s guidelines. Declines ranged from 11.0% for follow-up mammography to 40.6% for receipt of surgical biopsy without an attempted needle biopsy. There were marked regional differences in use of low-value breast cancer care for all metrics, much of which persisted after publication of CW.

Conclusions

With two notable exceptions, use of low-value breast cancer care has declined steadily since 2010. The declines, however, were not accelerated by the publication of CW recommendations.

Keywords

Choosing Wisely Breast cancer Low-value care Disparities 

Notes

Author contributions

JN: conception, design, and interpretation of the data and drafting of the article. AN: provision of study materials, critical revision for important intellectual content. TY: interpretation of the data, critical revision for important intellectual content. EM: analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision for important intellectual content. MN: analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision for important intellectual content. LP: provision of study materials, conception, design and interpretation of data, critical revision for important intellectual content.

Funding

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW) and NIH-NCI grant R01CA190016. While MCW supported this research, the institution did not have a role in the design of the study or preparation of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has a competing or conflicting interest regarding the manuscript.

Ethics approval

Per 45 CFR 46.101 and the MCW Institutional Review Board, this study did not meet criteria for human subjects research as it is a public and deidentified data set.

References

  1. 1.
    Brody H (2010) Medicine’s ethical responsibility for health care reform—the top five list. N Engl J Med 362:283–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fisher ES, Bynum JP, Skinner JS (2009) Slowing the growth of health care costs—lessons from regional variation. N Engl J Med 360:849–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wolfson D, Santa J, Slass L (2014) Engaging physicians and consumers in conversations about treatment overuse and waste: a short history of the choosing wisely campaign. Acad Med 89:990–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morden NE, Colla CH, Sequist TD, Rosenthal MB (2014) Choosing wisely–the politics and economics of labeling low-value services. N Engl J Med 370:589–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Redberg RF S-BR. We are giving ourselves cancer. The New York Times. 01/31/2014 ed: The New York Times; 2014Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tilburt JC, Wynia MK, Sheeler RD et al (2013) Views of us physicians about controlling health care costs. JAMA 310:380–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giordano SH, Duan Z, Kuo YF, Hortobagyi GN, Goodwin JS (2006) Use and outcomes of adjuvant chemotherapy in older women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:2750–2756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shirvani SM, Pan IW, Buchholz TA et al (2011) Impact of evidence-based clinical guidelines on the adoption of postmastectomy radiation in older women. Cancer 117:4595–4605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carman KL, Maurer M, Yegian JM et al (2010) Evidence that consumers are skeptical about evidence-based health care. Health Aff (Millwood) 29:1400–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nattinger AB, Laud PW, Bajorunaite R, Sparapani RA, Freeman JL (2004) An algorithm for the use of Medicare claims data to identify women with incident breast cancer. Health Serv Res 39:1733–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Breast Cancer. V.I.2009. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physicians_gls/f_guidelines.asp. Accessed 25 April 2018
  12. 12.
    The American Society of Breast Surgeons. Official statements. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/new_layout/about/statements/index.php. Accessed 25 April 2018
  13. 13.
    Consensus Statement. Position Statement on Prophylactic Mastectomy. http://surgonc.org/practice-policy/practice-management/consensus-statements. Accessed 25 April 2018
  14. 14.
    Klabunde CN, Legler JM, Warren JL, Baldwin LM, Schrag D (2007) A refined comorbidity measurement algorithm for claims-based studies of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer patients. Ann Epidemiol 17:584–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hahn EE, Hays RD, Kahn KL, Litwin MS, Ganz PA (2013) Use of imaging and biomarker tests for posttreatment care of early-stage breast cancer survivors. Cancer 119:4316–4324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Panageas K, Sima C, Liberman L, Schrag D (2012) Use of high technology imaging for surveillance of early stage breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 131:663–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lipitz-Snyderman A, Sima CS, Atoria CL et al (2016) Physician-driven variation in nonrecommended services among older adults diagnosed with cancer. JAMA Intern Med 176:1541–1548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ramsey SD, Fedorenko C, Chauhan R et al (2015) Baseline estimates of adherence to American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Board of Internal Medicine choosing wisely initiative among patients with cancer enrolled with a large regional commercial health insurer. J Oncol Pract 11:338–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hahn EE, Tang T, Lee JS et al (2016) Use of posttreatment imaging and biomarkers in survivors of early-stage breast cancer: inappropriate surveillance or necessary care? Cancer 122:908–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jagsi R, Jiang J, Momoh AO et al (2014) Trends and variation in use of breast reconstruction in patients with breast cancer undergoing mastectomy in the United States. J Clin Oncol 32:919–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jagsi R, Hawley ST, Griffith KA et al (2017) Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy decisions in a population-based sample of patients with early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg 152:274–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Percutaneous Needle Biopsy for Image Detected Breast Abnormalities. American Society of Breast Surgeons 2006. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/new_layout/about/statements/PDF_Statements/Percutaneous_Needle_Biopsy.pdf. Accessed 25 April 2018
  23. 23.
    Position statement on concordance assessment of image-guided breast biopsies and management of borderline or high-risk lesions. American Society of Breast Surgeons, 2011. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/new_layout/about/statements/PDF_Statements/Concordance_Assessment.pdf. Accessed 25 April 2018
  24. 24.
    Measure submission and evaluation worksheet 5.0. National quality forum 2007. http://www.qualityforum.org/Measuring_Performance/Submitting_Standards.aspx. Acccessed 25 April 2018
  25. 25.
    Theriault RL, Carlson RW, Allred C et al (2013) Breast cancer, version 3.2013: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 11:753–760 (quiz 61) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR et al (2005) American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:7703–7720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lyman GH, Temin S, Edge SB et al (2014) Sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol 32:1365–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Giuliano AE, Boolbol S, Degnim A, Kuerer H, Leitch AM, Morrow M (2007) Society of Surgical Oncology: position statement on prophylactic mastectomy. Approved by the Society of Surgical Oncology Executive Council, March 2007. Ann Surg Oncol 14:2425–2427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Khatcheressian JL, Wolff AC, Smith TJ et al (2006) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 update of the breast cancer follow-up and management guidelines in the adjuvant setting. J Clin Oncol 24:5091–5097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schnipper LE, Smith TJ, Raghavan D et al (2012) American Society of Clinical Oncology identifies five key opportunities to improve care and reduce costs: the top five list for oncology. J Clin Oncol 30:1715–1724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Consensus Guideline on Diagnostic and Screening Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast 2017. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/new_layout/about/statements/PDF_Statements/MRI.pdf. Accessed 25 April 2018
  32. 32.
    Khatcheressian JL, Hurley P, Bantug E et al (2013) Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol 31:961–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MedicineMedical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryMedical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA
  3. 3.Center for Advancing Population ScienceMedical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA
  4. 4.Division of General Internal MedicineMedical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA
  5. 5.Division of Surgical OncologyMedical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA
  6. 6.Department of Medicine, Center for Patient Care and Outcomes ResearchMedical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations