Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Natl Compr Canc Netw ; 17(9): 1100-1108, 2019 09 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31487686

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Population-based studies suggest that patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have better outcomes when treated at high-volume facilities, but the relative contribution of provider expertise and hospital resources to improved outcomes is unknown. This study explored how treating facility, individual provider volume, and patient-sharing between MM specialists and community providers influenced outcomes for patients with MM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A state cancer registry linked to public and private insurance claims was used to identify a cohort of patients diagnosed with MM in 2006 through 2012. Three multivariable Cox models were used to examine how the following factors impacted overall survival: (1) evaluation at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCICCC), (2) the primary oncologist's volume of patients with MM, and (3) patient-sharing between MM specialists and community oncologists. RESULTS: A total of 1,029 patients diagnosed with MM in 2006 through 2012 were identified. Patients who were not evaluated at an NCICCC had an increased risk of mortality compared with those evaluated at an NCICCC (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.86; P<.001). Compared with patients treated by NCICCC MM specialists, those treated by both low-volume community providers (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.14-1.90; P<.01) and high-volume community providers (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04-1.61; P<.05) had a higher risk of mortality. No difference in mortality was seen between patients treated by NCICCC MM specialists and those treated by the highest-volume community oncologists in the ninth and tenth deciles (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.84-1.37; P=.5591). Patients treated by community oncologists had a higher risk of mortality regardless of patient-sharing compared with patients treated by MM specialists (eg, community oncologist with a history of sharing vs NCICCC MM specialist: HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.10-2.02; P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this study add to the accumulating evidence showing that patients with MM benefit from care at high-volume facilities, and suggest that similar outcomes can be achieved by the highest-volume providers in the community.


Assuntos
Institutos de Câncer , Corpo Clínico , Mieloma Múltiplo/epidemiologia , Padrões de Prática Médica , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Gerenciamento Clínico , Feminino , Pesquisas sobre Atenção à Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Mieloma Múltiplo/diagnóstico , Mieloma Múltiplo/mortalidade , Mieloma Múltiplo/terapia , Prognóstico , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Estudos Retrospectivos , Análise de Sobrevida
2.
Cancer ; 122(19): 3041-50, 2016 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27351768

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Population-based studies have demonstrated survival disparities related to socioeconomic factors for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The objective of the current study was to determine whether the local health care infrastructure, represented by Area Health Education Centers (AHEC) region, or treating center experience, represented by National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCICCC) designation, were associated with outcomes among patients with AML in North Carolina. METHODS: Patients who were diagnosed with AML from 2003 to 2009 were identified using the University of North Carolina Lineberger Integrated Cancer Information and Surveillance System, a database linking insurance claims to the North Carolina Cancer Registry. A Cox proportional-hazards model was used to explore survival based on AHEC region. A subset of patients who received inpatient chemotherapy was examined to evaluate the impact of treatment at an NCICCC. RESULTS: Nine hundred patients were identified in the study period, 553 of whom received inpatient chemotherapy therapy within 30 days of diagnosis. Almost one-half of these patients (n = 294) received chemotherapy at a non-NCICCC. Among the patients who received intensive inpatient therapy, residence in 3 of 9 AHEC regions was associated with a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio: range, 1.97-4.03; P < .01) at 1 year in multivariate analysis. Treatment at a non-NCICCC was not associated with an increased risk of mortality at 1 year (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.65). CONCLUSIONS: Survival among patients with AML in North Carolina varies according to geographic region. Further examination of local practice and referral patterns may inform strategies to improve AML outcomes across the state. Cancer 2016;122:3041-3050. © 2016 American Cancer Society.


Assuntos
Institutos de Câncer/normas , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde , Seguro Saúde , Leucemia Mieloide Aguda/mortalidade , Leucemia Mieloide Aguda/terapia , National Cancer Institute (U.S.) , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Terapia Combinada , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Leucemia Mieloide Aguda/patologia , Masculino , Medicare , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , North Carolina , Prognóstico , Sistema de Registros , Estudos Retrospectivos , Taxa de Sobrevida , Estados Unidos , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA