Medical oncologists' willingness to participate in bundled payment programs.

BACKGROUND: Bundled payment programs play an increasingly important role in transforming reimbursement for oncologic care. We assessed determinants of oncologists' willingness to participate in bundled payment programs for breast cancer. We hypothesized that providers would be more likely to participate in bundled payment programs if offered higher levels of reimbursement for each episode of care. METHODS: Oncologists from Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania were identified in the AMA database or by patients listed in state cancer registries. Providers were randomized to receive one of four versions of a survey describing bundled payment programs offering different levels of compensation for the first year of localized breast cancer treatment ($5000, $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000). Physicians rated their likelihood of participation in a bundled program on a Likert scale. Logistic regression was used to analyze determinants of likelihood of participation in bundling. RESULTS: Among 460 respondents, only 17% of oncologists were highly likely to participate in a bundled program paying $5000 for the first year of care, rising to 41% for the $15,000 program, but falling to 34% for the $20,000 program. Likelihood of participation was higher among oncologists who were male, older, and believed that cancer patients should not be offered high-cost drugs with minimal survival benefit. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that medical oncologists have limited enthusiasm for bundled payments, and higher payments may not overcome resistance to bundling among a substantial proportion of physicians.

Uptake of BRCA 1/2 and oncotype DX testing by medical and surgical oncologists.

PURPOSE: The diffusion of genomic testing is critical to the success of precision medicine, but there is limited information on oncologists' uptake of genetic technology. We aimed to assess the frequency with which medical oncologists and surgeons order BRCA 1/2 and Oncotype DX testing for breast cancer patients. METHODS: We surveyed 732 oncologists and surgeons treating breast cancer patients. Physicians were from Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and were listed in the 2010 AMA Masterfile or identified by patients. RESULTS: 80.6% of providers ordered BRCA 1/2 testing at least sometimes and 85.4% ordered Oncotype DX (p = 0.01). More frequent ordering of BRCA 1/2 was associated with more positive attitudes toward genetic innovation (OR 1.14, p = 0.001), a belief that testing was likely to be covered by patients' insurance (OR 2.84, p < 0.001), and more frequent ordering of Oncotype DX testing (OR 8.69, p < 0.001). More frequent use of Oncotype DX was associated with a belief that testing was likely to be covered by insurance (OR 7.33, p < 0.001), as well as with more frequent ordering of BRCA 1/2 testing (OR 9.48, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one in five providers never or rarely ever ordered BRCA 1/2 testing for their breast cancer patients, and nearly 15% never or rarely ever ordered Oncotype DX. Less frequent ordering of BRCA 1/2 is associated with less frequent use of Oncotype DX testing, and vice versa. Those who do not order BRCA 1/2 testing report less positive attitudes toward genetic innovation. Further education of this subset of providers regarding the benefits of precision medicine may enable more rapid diffusion of genetic technology.

The impact of active mentorship: results from a survey of faculty in the Department of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital.

BACKGROUND: To assess mentorship experiences among the faculty of a large academic department of medicine and to examine how those experiences relate to academic advancement and job satisfaction. METHODS: Among faculty members in the Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Medicine, we assessed personal and professional characteristics as well as job satisfaction and examined their relationship with two mentorship dimensions: (1) currently have a mentor and (2) role as a mentor. We also developed a mentorship quality score and examined the relationship of each mentorship variable to academic advancement and job satisfaction. RESULTS: 553/988 (56.0%) of eligible participants responded. 64.9% reported currently having a mentor, of whom 21.3% provided their mentor a low quality score; 66.6% reported serving as a mentor to others. Faculty with a current mentor had a 3.50-fold increased odds of serving as a mentor to others (OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.84-6.67, p < 0.001). Faculty who reported their mentorship as high quality had a decreased likelihood of being stalled in rank (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10-0.78, p = 0.02) and an increased likelihood of high job satisfaction (OR 3.91, 95% CI 1.77-8.63, p < 0.001) compared with those who reported their mentorship of low quality; further, having a low mentorship score had a similar relationship to job satisfaction as not having a mentor. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of faculty survey respondents had mentorship, though not all of it of high caliber. Because quality mentorship significantly and substantially impacts both academic progress and job satisfaction, efforts devoted to improve the adoption and the quality of mentorship should be prioritized.

Disparities in contralateral prophylactic mastectomy use among women with early-stage breast cancer.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy use has increased over the past decades among women with early-stage breast cancer. Racial differences in contralateral prophylactic mastectomy use are well described, but with unclear causes. This study examined contralateral prophylactic mastectomy use among black and white women and the contribution of differences in perceived risk to differences in use. We surveyed women diagnosed with early-stage unilateral breast cancer between ages 41-64 in Pennsylvania and Florida between 2007-2009 to collect data on breast cancer treatment, family history, education, income, insurance, and perceived risk. Clinical factors-age,stage at diagnosis, receptor status-were obtained from cancer registries. The relationships between patient factors and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were assessed using logistic regression. The interaction between race and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy on the perceived risk of second breast cancers was tested using linear regression. Of 2182 study participants, 18% of whites underwent contralateral prophylactic mastectomy compared with 10% of blacks (p < 0.001). The racial difference remained after adjustment for clinical factors and family history (odds ratio = 2.32, 95% confidence interval 1.76-3.06, p < 0.001). The association between contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and a reduction in the perceived risk of second breast cancers was significantly smaller for blacks than whites. Blacks were less likely than whites to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy even after adjustment for clinical factors. This racial difference in use may relate to the smaller impact of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy on the perceived risk of second breast cancers among blacks than among whites. Future research is needed to understand the overall impact of perceived risk on decisions about contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and how that may explain racial differences in use.

Health Care Segregation, Physician Recommendation, and Racial Disparities in BRCA1/2 Testing Among Women With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Racial disparities in BRCA1/2 testing have been documented, but causes of these disparities are poorly understood. The study objective was to investigate whether the distribution of black and white patients across cancer providers contributes to disparities in BRCA1/2 testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a population-based study of women in Pennsylvania and Florida who were 18 to 64 years old and diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2007 and 2009, linking cancer registry data, the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, and patient and physician surveys. The study included 3,016 women (69% white, 31% black), 808 medical oncologists, and 732 surgeons. RESULTS: Black women were less likely to undergo BRCA1/2 testing than white women (odds ratio [OR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.48; P < .001). This difference was attenuated but not eliminated by adjustment for mutation risk, clinical factors, sociodemographic characteristics, and attitudes about testing (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P < .001). The care of black and white women was highly segregated across surgeons and oncologists (index of dissimilarity 64.1 and 61.9, respectively), but adjusting for clustering within physician or physician characteristics did not change the size of the testing disparity. Black women were less likely to report that they had received physician recommendation for BRCA1/2 testing even after adjusting for mutation risk (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; P < .001). Adjusting for physician recommendation further attenuated the testing disparity (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.02; P = .06). CONCLUSION: Although black and white patients with breast cancer tend to see different surgeons and oncologists, this distribution does not contribute to disparities in BRCA1/2 testing. Instead, residual racial differences in testing after accounting for patient and physician characteristics are largely attributable to differences in physician recommendations. Efforts to address these disparities should focus on ensuring equity in testing recommendations.

Racial differences in false-positive mammogram rates: results from the ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST).

BACKGROUND: Mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality, but false-positive tests are common. Few studies have assessed racial differences in false-positive rates. OBJECTIVES: We compared false-positive mammography rates for black and white women, and the effect of patient and facility characteristics on false positives. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: A prospective cohort study. From a sample of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST), we identified black/African American (N=3176) or white (N=26,446) women with no prior breast surgery or breast cancer. MEASURES: Race, demographics, and breast cancer risk factors were self-reported. Results of initial digital and film mammograms were assessed. False positives were defined as a positive mammogram (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 0, 4, 5) with no cancer diagnosis within 15 months. RESULTS: The false-positive rate for digital mammograms was 9.2% for black women compared with 7.8% for white women (P=0.009). After adjusting for age, black women had 17% increased odds of false-positive digital mammogram compared with whites (OR=1.17; 95% CI, 1.01-1.35; P=0.033). This association was attenuated after adjusting for patient factors, prior films, and study site (OR=1.04; 95% CI, 0.91-1.20; P=0.561). There was no difference in the occurrence of false positives by race for film mammography. CONCLUSIONS: Black women had higher frequency of false-positive digital mammograms explained by lack of prior films and study site.The variation in the disparity between the established technique (film) and the new technology (digital) raises the possibility that racial differences in screening quality may be greatest for new technologies.

The use of the Gail model, body mass index and SNPs to predict breast cancer among women with abnormal (BI-RADS 4) mammograms.

INTRODUCTION: Mammography screening results in a significant number of false-positives. The use of pretest breast cancer risk factors to guide follow-up of abnormal mammograms could improve the positive predictive value of screening. We evaluated the use of the Gail model, body mass index (BMI), and genetic markers to predict cancer diagnosis among women with abnormal mammograms. We also examined the extent to which pretest risk factors could reclassify women without cancer below the biopsy threshold. METHODS: We recruited a prospective cohort of women referred for biopsy with abnormal (BI-RADS 4) mammograms according to the American College of Radiology's Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Breast cancer risk factors were assessed prior to biopsy. A validated panel of 12 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer were measured. Logistic regression was used to assess the association of Gail risk factors, BMI and SNPs with cancer diagnosis (invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ). Model discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The distribution of predicted probabilities of a cancer diagnosis were compared for women with or without breast cancer. RESULTS: In the multivariate model, age (odds ratio (OR)=1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03 to 1.08; P<0.001), SNP panel relative risk (OR=2.30; 95% CI, 1.06 to 4.99, P=0.035) and BMI (≥30 kg/m2 versus <25 kg/m(2); OR=2.20; 95% CI, 1.05 to 4.58; P=0.036) were significantly associated with breast cancer diagnosis. Older women were more likely than younger women to be diagnosed with breast cancer. The SNP panel relative risk remained strongly associated with breast cancer diagnosis after multivariable adjustment. Higher BMI was also strongly associated with increased odds of a breast cancer diagnosis. Obese women (OR=2.20; 95% CI, 1.05 to 4.58; P=0.036) had more than twice the odds of cancer diagnosis compared to women with a BMI<25 kg/m2. The SNP panel appeared to have predictive ability among both white and black women. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer risk factors, including BMI and genetic markers, are predictive of cancer diagnosis among women with BI-RADS 4 mammograms. Using pretest risk factors to guide follow-up of abnormal mammograms could reduce the burden of false-positive mammograms.

Impact of shortages of injectable oncology drugs on patient care.

PURPOSE: Results of a survey regarding shortages of injectable oncology drugs in U.S. hospitals and health systems are presented. METHODS: An online survey was sent to all members of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists self-identified as directors of pharmacy. Survey participants provided information on the extent to which their facilities were affected by oncology drug shortages, strategies for responding to shortages, and the effects of shortages on costs, patient safety, and outcomes. RESULTS: Ninety-eight percent of the 358 survey respondents reported at least one drug shortage during the previous 12 months, with 70% reporting instances of an inadequate supply to treat patients and 63% reporting that their facility had completely run out of at least one injectable oncology drug. Sixty-two percent of respondents reported using alternative drug regimens due to shortages; 46% reported drug dosage changes, 43% reported treatment delays, and 21% reported patient referrals to or from other facilities as a result of shortages. Survey respondents indicated the use of various strategies to manage oncology drug shortages (e.g., increasing inventories of certain drugs, identifying alternatives and substitution protocols, altered purchasing practices), all of which have led to cost increases. Twenty-five percent of respondents reported safety events resulting from oncology drug shortages. Only 40% of respondents agreed that currently available information is useful in mitigating the effects of shortages. CONCLUSION: Shortages of injectable oncology drugs appear to be widespread and to be having a significant impact on patient care. Currently available information about shortages does not meet administrative or clinical needs.

Agreement of self-reported hormone receptor status with cancer registry data in young breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Though breast cancer subtype is a key determinant of treatment choice and prognosis, few studies have assessed breast cancer patients' knowledge of estrogen and progesterone receptor (ER/PR) status. METHODS: Women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at age 18-64 years in 2007 were recruited from the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry, and mailed a questionnaire that asked respondents to identify their ER/PR status. There were 2191 respondents included in the analysis. Agreement between self-report and cancer registry ER/PR status was assessed using kappa statistic. Logistic regression was used to assess the association of demographic, socioeconomic, and tumor factors with inaccurate self-report of ER/PR status. RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent of respondents reported ER/PR positive status, 15% reported ER/PR negative status, 17% responded 'don't know', and 9% did not respond. Overall, there was 69% agreement between self-report and cancer registry data, and fair agreement as measured by kappa (0.36). After excluding women who did not know or did not report their ER/PR status, there was 93% agreement, and substantial agreement as measured by kappa (0.76). Women who were older, non-white, less educated, lower income, and had ER/PR negative disease were significantly more likely to inaccurately report their ER/PR status. CONCLUSIONS: Though a significant proportion of women do not know their hormone receptor status, women who reported their ER/PR status were accurate. Our results suggest room for improvement in patient knowledge of tumor subtypes, but also that self-reported ER/PR status may be a useful surrogate when medical record or cancer registry data is unavailable.

Are physician recommendations for BRCA1/2 testing in patients with breast cancer appropriate? A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: To the best of the authors' knowledge, few population-based studies to date have examined the use of BRCA1/2 testing or patterns of physician recommendations for genetic testing among women diagnosed with breast cancer. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the rates and predictors of physician recommendation for BRCA1/2 testing among patients with breast cancer. METHODS: Women aged 18 years to 64 years who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in 2007 were identified from the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry and mailed a survey regarding their family history of cancer, physician treatment recommendations, and BRCA1/2 testing. Of the 4009 women who were sent surveys, 2258 responded (56%). Based on age at diagnosis and family history, women were categorized as being at high, moderate, or low risk of BRCA1/2 mutations. RESULTS: Nearly 25% of the participants were classified as being at high risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation based on their age at the time of breast cancer diagnosis and family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Physician recommendations for BRCA1/2 testing were found to be strongly associated with risk of carrying a mutation, with 53% of high-risk women reporting a testing recommendation compared with 9% of low-risk women. In addition, physician recommendations were strongly correlated with the use of testing in all risk groups. Among high-risk women, the lack of a recommendation for BRCA1/2 testing was more common among older, low-income, and employed women. CONCLUSIONS: Although BRCA1/2 testing recommendations appear to be appropriately correlated with mutation risk, a significant percentage of patients with breast cancer who meet criteria for BRCA1/2 testing may not receive a recommendation for such testing from their health care providers.

The distribution of outcomes research papers across clinical journals.

This study examines the distribution of health outcomes research (HOR) studies in the clinical literature by clinical areas and journal impact factor. The authors reviewed 535 journals and divided the sample into higher and lower impact journals across four clinical area. Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to examine differences across four categories of outcomes research articles published, specifically the incidence of articles in higher versus lower impact journals and differences across clinical areas. All high-impact journals published more safety and quality articles than process assessment, quality of life, or cost analysis studies. The number of each type of outcomes research study published was highly variable across all clinical areas. Only arthritis and outcomes research journals showed statistically significant differences between higher versus lower impact journals. Authors may benefit from considering these differences in their clinical specialty area when deciding where to submit HOR studies.

Examining faculty awards for gender equity and evolving values.

BACKGROUND: Awards given to medical school faculty are one important mechanism for recognizing what is valued in academic medicine. There have been concerns expressed about the gender distribution of awards, and there is also a growing appreciation for the evolving accomplishments and talents that define academic excellence in the 21st century and that should be considered worthy of award recognition. OBJECTIVE: Examine faculty awards at our institution for gender equity and evolving values. METHODS: Recipient data were collected on awards from 1996 to 2007 inclusively at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine (SOM). Descriptions of each award also were collected. The female-to-male ratio of award recipients over the time span was reviewed for changes and trends. The title and text of each award announcement were reviewed to determine if the award represented a traditional or a newer concept of excellence in academic medicine. MAIN RESULTS: There were 21 annual awards given to a total of 59 clinical award recipients, 60 research award recipients, and 154 teaching award recipients. Women received 28% of research awards, 29% of teaching awards and 10% of clinical awards. Gender distribution of total awards was similar to that of SOM full-time faculty except in the clinical awards category. Only one award reflected a shift in the culture of individual achievement to one of collaboration and team performance. CONCLUSION: Examining both the recipients and content of awards is important to assure they reflect the current composition of diverse faculty and the evolving ideals of leadership and excellence in academic medicine.

Breast cancer screening prior to cosmetic breast surgery: ASPS members' Adherence to American Cancer Society Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to determine the self-reported breast cancer screening practices of American plastic surgeons and the degree to which those practices adhere to the American Cancer Society guidelines. An independent analysis of subgroups divided by gender, years in practice, and practice setting was performed and the implications of the results are discussed. METHODS: The authors conducted an online survey of the members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Questions assessed practice composition, American Cancer Society guideline familiarity, and preoperative breast cancer screening in patients seeking aesthetic breast surgery. Responses were summarized, subgroup comparisons were made, and logistic regression was used to determine predictors of physician practices. RESULTS: The 1066 respondents were predominantly male (82 percent) and consisted largely of private practitioners (73 percent). In total, 47 percent appeared to follow the American Cancer Society guidelines, while 64 percent claimed familiarity. Being male predicted more accurate guideline knowledge, but being female resulted in more aggressive screening and possibly more diagnoses. Number of years in practice and familiarity with the American Cancer Society guidelines also resulted in more perioperative diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the American Cancer Society guidelines is an essential component of effective cancer screening, but only two-thirds of plastic surgeons claim familiarity with them, and fewer than half report concordant practices. As plastic surgeons who often perform surgical procedures on the breast in women with no history of breast disease, we have an obligation to understand and apply consistent, reliable breast cancer screening practices to ensure the well-being of our patients.

The brief CV review session: one component of a mosaic of mentorship for women in academic medicine.

BACKGROUND: In the current climate of increasing demands on a disproportionately small number of senior female faculty, we implemented a brief curriculum vitae (CV) review session as an opportunity to expand the professional network of junior women faculty and provide them with additional formal career advice. METHODS: For 3 years, junior (mentees) and senior (mentors) faculty from different departments were paired in half-hour CV review sessions, as part of an annual conference focused on professional development for faculty women. Participating faculty received questionnaires to assess their experience with the sessions, and their feedback was combined over all 3 years and compared using chi2 and Fisher's tests. RESULTS: During the 3 years, there were 93 CV review sessions. Although 84% of the mentees reported having a mentor, only 62% of mentees reported that any previous mentoring experience was helpful. Most (90%) participated in the CV review to determine if their career was "on track." The mentees reported that the CV review session was helpful (93%), provided new information (87%), and identified that they were "on track" for promotion (75%). The mentors felt that their mentees were progressing appropriately in their career (78%) and provided specific recommendations for the mentees (100%). The majority (78%) of mentors felt comfortable mentoring junior faculty outside their department. CONCLUSIONS: Brief interventions, such as a CV review session, can provide additional counsel to junior faculty, helping them assess their career progress as part of a mosaic of mentorship.

Work-life policies for faculty at the top ten medical schools.

PURPOSE: There exists a growing consensus that career flexibility is critical to recruiting and retaining talented faculty, especially women faculty. This study was designed to determine both accessibility and content of work-life policies for faculty at leading medical schools in the United States. METHODS: The sample includes the top ten medical schools in the United States published by U.S. News and World Report in August 2006. We followed a standardized protocol to collect seven work-life policies at each school: maternity leave, paternity leave, adoption leave, extension of the probationary period for family responsibilities, part-time faculty appointments, job sharing, and child care. A review of information provided on school websites was followed by e-mail or phone contact if needed. A rating system of 0-3 (low to high flexibility) developed by the authors was applied to these policies. Rating reflected flexibility and existing opinions in published literature. RESULTS: Policies were often difficult to access. Individual scores ranged from 7 to 15 out of a possible 21 points. Extension of the probationary period received the highest cumulative score across schools, and job sharing received the lowest cumulative score. For each policy, there were important differences among schools. CONCLUSIONS: Work-life policies showed considerable variation across schools. Policy information is difficult to access, often requiring multiple sources. Institutions that develop flexible work-life policies that are widely promoted, implemented, monitored, and reassessed are likely at an advantage in attracting and retaining faculty while advancing institutional excellence.

A head-to-head comparison between the muscle-sparing free TRAM and the SIEA flaps: is the rate of flap loss worth the gain in abdominal wall function?

BACKGROUND: Attempts to limit the impact of autogenous breast reconstruction on the abdominal wall have led to the use of the muscle-sparing free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM), the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP), and the superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flaps. The purpose of this study was to compare the SIEA flap with the muscle-sparing free TRAM flap to determine whether gains in abdominal wall function are offset by flap-related complications. METHODS: Seventy-two consecutive SIEA flaps were compared with 569 consecutive muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps. Outcomes included arterial and venous thrombosis, reoperation, abdominal hernia/bulge, seroma, hematoma, fat necrosis, delayed wound healing, infection, partial flap loss, and total flap loss. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to determine significant differences. RESULTS: In the SIEA group, there was a higher percentage of overweight patients (p = 0.0001), bilateral cases (p = 0.0001), and smokers (p = 0.0003). Among SIEA flaps, there were two total flap losses (2.9 percent) and no abdominal morbidity. In the muscle-sparing free TRAM flap group, there was one total flap loss (0.18 percent), and a hernia/bulge rate of 1.9 percent (n = 11). The difference in flap loss rate was significant (p = 0.03). There was a higher incidence of vessel thrombosis requiring anastomotic revision in the SIEA group, 17.4 percent (n = 12), compared with the free TRAM group, 6.0 percent (n = 34) (p = 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: The SIEA flap has a lower rate of hernia/bulge and a higher rate of thrombotic complications. Because of the emotional and financial cost of these complications, the SIEA flap should be undertaken only if strict criteria are met.