Estimating oncologist variability in prescribing systemic cancer therapies to patients in the last 30 days of life

Author:

George Login S.1,Duberstein Paul R.1ORCID,Keating Nancy L.2,Bates Benjamin1,Bhagianadh Divya1,Lin Haiqun1,Saraiya Biren1,Goel Sanjay1ORCID,Akincigil Ayse1

Affiliation:

1. Rutgers University New Brunswick New Jersey USA

2. Harvard Medical School Boston Massachusetts USA

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionClinical guidelines and quality improvement initiatives have identified reducing the use of end‐of‐life cancer therapies as an opportunity to improve care. We examined the extent to which oncologists differed in prescribing systemic therapies in the last 30 days of life.MethodsUsing Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare data, we identified patients who died of cancer from 2012 to 2017 (N = 17,609), their treating oncologists (N = 960), and the corresponding physician practice (N = 388). We used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy for patients in their last 30 days of life, adjusted for patient characteristics and practice variation.ResultsPatients’ median age at the time of death was 74 years (interquartile range, 69–79); patients had lung (62%), colorectal (17%), breast (13%), and prostate (8%) cancers. We observed substantial variation across oncologists in their adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life: oncologists in the 95th percentile exhibited a 45% adjusted rate of treatment, versus 17% among the 5th percentile. A patient treated by an oncologist with a high end‐of‐life prescribing behavior (top quartile), compared to an oncologist with a low prescribing behavior (bottom quartile), had more than four times greater odds of receiving end‐of‐life cancer therapy (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00–4.89).ConclusionsOncologists show substantial variation in end‐of‐life prescribing behavior. Future research should examine why some oncologists more often continue systemic therapy at the end of life than others, the consequences of this for patient and care outcomes, and whether interventions shaping oncologist decision‐making can reduce overuse of end‐of‐life cancer therapies.

Funder

National Cancer Institute

Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3