Requests for tumor marker tests in Turkey without indications and frequency of elevation in benign conditions

Are Tumor Marker Tests Applied Appropriately in Clinical Practice? A Healthcare Claims Data Analysis

Tumor markers (TM) are crucial in the monitoring of cancer treatment. However, inappropriate requests for screening reasons have a high risk of false positive and negative findings, which can lead to patient anxiety and unnecessary follow-up examinations. We aimed to assess the appropriateness of TM testing in outpatient practice in Switzerland. We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on healthcare claims data. Patients who had received at least one out of seven TM tests (CEA, CA19-9, CA125, CA15-3, CA72-4, Calcitonin, or NSE) between 2018 and 2021 were analyzed. Appropriate determinations were defined as a request with a corresponding cancer-related diagnosis or intervention. Appropriateness of TM determination by patient characteristics and prescriber specialty was estimated by using multivariate analyses. A total of 51,395 TM determinations in 36,537 patients were included. An amount of 41.6% of all TM were determined appropriately. General practitioners most often determined TM (44.3%) and had the lowest number of appropriate requests (27.8%). A strong predictor for appropriate determinations were requests by medical oncologists. A remarkable proportion of TM testing was performed inappropriately, particularly in the primary care setting. Our results suggest that a considerable proportion of the population is at risk for various harms associated with misinterpretations of TM test results.

Inappropriate requests for tumor markers in patients aged 50 years and older: lessons not learned

OBJECTIVE: To investigate, within a private health insurance, the ordering frequency and the costs related to inappropriate TM test orders. METHODS: This study analyzed data regarding TM requests within a private health insurance between 2010 and 2017. Patients included in this analysis were ≥ 50 years old, had available medical records, and had at least 1 TM tested within the study period. Tests were considered inappropriate when TMs were used in screening for neoplasms, ie, when there was no previous diagnosis. We evaluated data regarding age, sex, the ordering physician’s medical specialty, and test costs. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2017, 1,112 TM tests were performed and increased from 52 to 262 per year. Our sample consisted mostly of women (69.50%) with a mean age of 59.40 (SD, 8.20) years. Most orders were inappropriate (87.80%) and represented 79.40% of all expenses with TM tests. Cardiology professionals were the medical specialty that requested the most TM tests (23.90%), followed by internal medicine specialists (22.70%) and gynecologists (19.20%). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a high percentage of inappropriate test orders in the study period, resulting in elevated costs. Studies of this nature deserve the attention of health care managers, and interventions should be performed in order to reduce the inappropriate use of TM tests in clinical practice.

Should cut-off values of the risk of malignancy index be changed for evaluation of adnexal masses in Asian and Pacific populations?

BACKGROUND

The risk of malignancy index (RMI) for the evaluation of adnexal masses is a sensitive tool in certain populations. The best cut off value for RMI 1, 2 and 3 is 200. The cut off value of RMI-4 to differentiate benign from malignant lesions is 450. Our aim was to evaluate the efficiency of four different malignancy indexes (RMI1-4) in a homogeneous population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated a total of 153 non-pregnant women with adnexal masses who did not have a history of malignancy and who were above 18 years of age.

RESULTS

A cut-off value of 250 for RMI-1 provided 95.9% inter-observer agreement, yielding 95.9% specificity, 93.5% negative predictive value, 75.0% sensitivity and 82.8% positive predictive value. A cut-off value of 250 for RMI-1 showed high performance in preoperative diagnosis of invasive malignant lesions than cut-off value of 200 in our population. A cut-off value of 350 for RMI-2 provided 94.5% inter-observed agreement, yielding 94.2% specificity, 93.4% negative predictive value, 75.0% sensitivity and 77.4% positive predictive value. RMI-2 showed the higher performance when the cut-off value was set at 350 in our population. A cut-off value of 250 provided 95.2% inter-observer agreement, yielding 95.0% specificity, 93.2% negative predictive value, 75.0% sensitivity, and 88.0% positive predictive value. RMI-3 showed the highest performance to diagnose malignant adnexal masses when the cut-off value was set at 250. In our study, RMI-4 showed similar statistical performance when the cut-off value was set at 400 [(Kappa: 0.684/p=0.000), yielding 93.8% inter-observer agreement, 93.4% specificity, 93.4% negative predictive value, 75.0% sensitivity, and 75.0% negative predictive value].

CONCLUSIONS

We showed successful utilization of RMIs in preoperative differentiation of benign from malignant masses. Many studies conducted in Asian and Pacific countries have reported different cut-off values as was the case in our study. We think that it is difficult to determine universally accepted cut-off values for RMIs for common use around the globe.