The cost, survival, and quality-of-life implications of guideline-discordant imaging for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for incident prostate cancer staging imaging have been widely circulated and accepted as best practice since 1996. Despite these clear guidelines, wasteful and potentially harmful inappropriate imaging of men with prostate cancer remains prevalent. AIM: To understand changing population-level patterns of imaging among men with incident prostate cancer, we created a state-transition microsimulation model based on existing literature and incident prostate cancer cases. METHODS: To create a cohort of patients, we identified incident prostate cancer cases from 2004 to 2009 that were diagnosed in men ages 65 and older from SEER. A microsimulation model allowed us to explore how this cohort's survival, quality of life, and Medicare costs would be impacted by making imaging consistent with guidelines. We conducted a probabilistic analysis as well as one-way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: When only imaging high-risk men compared to the status quo, we found that the population rate of imaging dropped from 53 to 38% and average per-person spending on imaging dropped from $236 to $157. The discounted and undiscounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios indicated that ideal upfront imaging reduced costs and slightly improved health outcomes compared with current practice patterns, that is, guideline-concordant imaging was less costly and slightly more effective. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the potential reduction in cost through the correction of inappropriate imaging practices. These findings highlight an opportunity within the healthcare system to reduce unnecessary costs and overtreatment through guideline adherence.

Personal Payments from Pharmaceutical Companies to Authors of Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. It is unknown whether participation on clinical practice guideline committees is associated with differences in the amounts of industry money received. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study from August 2013 to December 2018. We manually abstracted membership records of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines committees for the 20 most common cancers and linked to Open Payments. The study sample included medical oncologists selected to join an NCCN Guidelines committee ("joiners") during the study period. Joiners were matched 1:2 to medical oncologists who had no participation on NCCN committees (controls) by gender, NCCN institution, and medical school graduation year. We performed difference-in-differences (DiD) estimation to assess whether selection to an NCCN committee was associated with the dollar value of payments received from industry, using generalized estimating equations to address correlation between matched pairs and between repeated observations of the same pair. RESULTS: During the study period, 54 physicians joined an NCCN Guidelines committee. These physicians received more payments than matched controls in the year prior to joining ($11,259 vs. $3,427; p = .02); this difference did not increase in the year after joining (DiD = $731; p = .45). CONCLUSION: Medical oncologists selected to NCCN Guidelines committees had greater financial ties to industry than their peers. The potential influence of industry in oncology clinical practice guidelines may be reduced through the selection of committee members with fewer ties to industry. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. This creates concern about the potential for industry influence on guidelines. However, it is unknown whether oncologists who author guidelines have greater industry relationships than their peers. This study compared medical oncologists who were newly selected to join a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines panel with medical oncologists at the same institutions and at similar career stages. At the time they joined, oncologists joining NCCN Guidelines panels had received more than three times the dollar value of industry payments than their peers. The potential for industry influence may be reduced by the selection of less-conflicted panel members.

Evaluating the Strength of the Association Between Industry Payments and Prescribing Practices in Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry are common, but factors that may determine whether such relationships result in physician practice changes are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated physician use of orally administered cancer drugs for four cancers: prostate (abiraterone, enzalutamide), renal cell (axitinib, everolimus, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib), lung (afatinib, erlotinib), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML; dasatinib, imatinib, nilotinib). Separate physician cohorts were defined for each cancer type by prescribing history. The primary exposure was the number of calendar years during 2013-2015 in which a physician received payments from the manufacturer of one of the studied drugs; the outcome was relative prescribing of that drug in 2015, compared with the other drugs for that cancer. We evaluated whether practice setting at a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center, receipt of payments for purposes other than education or research (compensation payments), maximum annual dollar value received, and institutional conflict-of-interest policies were associated with the strength of the payment-prescribing association. We used modified Poisson regression to control confounding by other physician characteristics. RESULTS: Physicians who received payments for a drug in all 3 years had increased prescribing of that drug (compared with 0 years), for renal cell (relative risk [RR] 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-2.07), CML (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08-1.39), and lung (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.58-1.82), but not prostate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93-1.02). Physicians who received compensation payments or >$100 annually had increased prescribing compared with those who did not, but NCI setting and institutional conflict-of-interest policies were not consistently associated with the direction of prescribing change. CONCLUSION: The association between industry payments and cancer drug prescribing was greatest among physicians who received payments consistently (within each calendar year). Receipt of payments for compensation purposes, such as for consulting or travel, and higher dollar value of payments were also associated with increased prescribing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Financial payments from pharmaceutical companies are common among oncologists. It is known from prior work that oncologists tend to prescribe more of the drugs made by companies that have given them money. By combining records of industry gifts with prescribing records, this study identifies the consistency of payments over time, the dollar value of payments, and payments for compensation as factors that may strengthen the association between receiving payments and increased prescribing of that company's drug.

Quantifying downstream impact of inappropriate staging imaging in a cohort of veterans with low- and intermediate-risk incident prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: According to current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, routine imagining for staging low-risk prostate cancer is not recommended. However, extensive overuse of guideline-discordant imaging continues to persist. Incidental findings are common on imaging and little is known about the optimal management. Rates of incidental findings vs. false positive diagnosis from inappropriate imaging are poorly understood and have yet to be quantified for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of positive radiologic findings in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer during initial staging at VA New York Harbor Healthcare System. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients' medical records from the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System for diagnosis from 2005 to 2015. We reviewed each individual's prebiopsy prostate specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score, and clinical stage. We also determined if imaging obtained yielded a false positive, incidental finding, or if metastatic disease occurred within the 6 months following initial diagnosis. RESULTS: There were 414 men, who were classified as low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer and underwent inappropriate staging imaging of 4,306 men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Of these 414 men, 178 (43%) had additional follow-up imaging for positive findings. We calculated an incidental finding rate of 10% and a false positive rate of 38% for patients. Five (1%) patients had metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: Despite guideline recommendations, imaging overuse remains an issue for low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. The false positive rate found in this analysis is alarmingly high at 38%. This use of scans is burdensome to the healthcare system and patient. This study highlights the frequency of inappropriate imaging and its negative consequences.