Technology diffusion and prostate cancer quality of care

Utilization of Prostate Cancer Quality Metrics for Research and Quality Improvement: A Structured Review

BACKGROUND

The shift toward value-based care in the United States emphasizes the role of quality measures in payment models. Many diseases, such as prostate cancer, have a proliferation of quality measures, resulting in resource burden and physician burnout. This study aimed to identify and summarize proposed prostate cancer quality measures and describe their frequency and use in peer-reviewed literature.

METHODS

The PubMed database was used to identify quality measures relevant to prostate cancer care, and included articles in English through April 2018. A gray literature search for other documents was also conducted. After the selection process of the pertinent articles, measure characteristics were abstracted, and uses were summarized for the 10 most frequently utilized measures in the literature.

RESULTS

A total of 26 articles were identified for review. Of the 71 proposed prostate cancer quality measures, only 47 were used, and less than 10% of these were endorsed by the National Quality Forum. Process measures were most frequently reported (84.5%). Only 6 outcome measures (8.5%) were proposed-none of which were among the most frequently utilized.

CONCLUSION

Although a high number of proposed prostate cancer quality measures are reported in the literature, few were assessed, and the majority of these were non-endorsed process measures. Process measures were most commonly assessed; outcome measures were rarely evaluated. In a step to close the quality chasm, a "top 5" core set of quality measures for prostate cancer care, including structure, process, and outcomes measures, is suggested. Future studies should consider this comprehensive set of quality measures.

Contextual effects and cancer outcomes in the United States: a systematic review of characteristics in multilevel analyses

PURPOSE

There is increasing call for the utilization of multilevel modeling to explore the relationship between place-based contextual effects and cancer outcomes in the United States. To gain a better understanding of how contextual factors are being considered, we performed a systematic review.

METHODS

We reviewed studies published between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2016 and assessed the following attributes: (1) contextual considerations such as geographic scale and contextual factors used; (2) methods used to quantify contextual factors; and (3) cancer type and outcomes. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science and initially identified 1060 studies. One hundred twenty-two studies remained after exclusions.

RESULTS

Most studies utilized a two-level structure; census tracts were the most commonly used geographic scale. Socioeconomic factors, health care access, racial/ethnic factors, and rural-urban status were the most common contextual factors addressed in multilevel models. Breast and colorectal cancers were the most common cancer types, and screening and staging were the most common outcomes assessed in these studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Opportunities for future research include deriving contextual factors using more rigorous approaches, considering cross-classified structures and cross-level interactions, and using multilevel modeling to explore understudied cancers and outcomes.

Overuse of Health Care Services in the Management of Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Overuse, the provision of health services for which harms outweigh the benefits, results in suboptimal patient care and may contribute to the rising costs of cancer care. We performed a systematic review of the evidence on overuse in oncology.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS databases, and 2 grey literature sources, for articles published between December 1, 2011 and March 10, 2017. We included publications from December 2011 to evaluate the literature since the inception of the ABIM Foundation's Choosing Wisely initiative in 2012. We included original research articles quantifying overuse of any medical service in patients with a cancer diagnosis when utilizing an acceptable standard to define care appropriateness, excluding studies of cancer screening. One of 4 investigator reviewed titles and abstracts and 2 of 4 reviewed each full-text article and extracted data. Methodology used PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

We identified 59 articles measuring overuse of 154 services related to imaging, procedures, and therapeutics in cancer management. The majority of studies addressed adult or geriatric patients (98%) and focused on US populations (76%); the most studied services were diagnostic imaging in low-risk prostate and breast cancer. Few studies evaluated active cancer therapeutics or interventions aimed at reducing overuse. Rates of overuse varied widely among services and among studies of the same service.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recent attention to overuse in cancer, evidence identifying areas of overuse remains limited. Broader investigation, including assessment of active cancer treatment, is critical for identifying improvement targets to optimize value in cancer care.