Revisiting the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Registry and Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (SEER-MHOS) Linked Data Resource for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research in Older Adults with Cancer.

Researchers and clinicians are increasingly recognizing the value of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data to better characterize people's health and experiences with illness and care. Considering the rising prevalence of cancer in adults aged 65 and older, PRO data are particularly relevant for older adults with cancer, who often require complex cancer care and have additional comorbid conditions. A data linkage between the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry and the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) was created through a partnership between the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that created the opportunity to examine PROs in Medicare Advantage enrollees with and without cancer. The December 2013 linkage of SEER-MHOS data included the linked data for 12 cohorts, bringing the number of individuals in the linked data set to 95,723 with cancer and 1,510,127 without. This article reviews the features of the resource and provides information on some descriptive characteristics of the individuals in the data set (health-related quality of life, body mass index, fall risk management, number of unhealthy days in the past month). Individuals without (n=258,108) and with (n=3,440) cancer (1,311 men with prostate cancer, 982 women with breast cancer, 689 with colorectal cancer, 458 with lung cancer) were included in the current descriptive analysis. Given increasing longevity, advances in effective therapies and earlier detection, and population growth, the number of individuals aged 65 and older with cancer is expected to reach more than 12 million by 2020. SEER-MHOS provides population-level, self-reported, cancer registry-linked data for person-centered surveillance research on this growing population.

Variation in primary care physicians' colorectal cancer screening recommendations by patient age and comorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Screening patterns among primary care physicians (PCPs) may be influenced by patient age and comorbidity. Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has little benefit among patients with limited life expectancy. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the extent to which PCPs modify their recommendations for CRC screening based upon patients' increasing age and/or worsening comorbidity DESIGN: Cross-sectional, nationally representative survey. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised primary care physicians (n = 1,266) including general internal medicine, family practice, and obstetrics-gynecology physicians. MAIN MEASURES: Physician CRC screening recommendations among patients of varying age and comorbidity were measured based upon clinical vignettes. Independent variables in adjusted models included physician and practice characteristics. KEY RESULTS: For an 80-year-old patient with unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 25 % of PCPs recommended CRC screening. For an 80-year-old patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy (New York Heart Association, Class II), 71 % of PCPs recommended CRC screening. PCPs were more likely to recommend fecal occult blood testing than colonoscopy as the preferred screening modality for a healthy 80-year-old, compared to healthy 50- or 65-year-old patients (19 % vs. 5 % vs. 2 % p < 0.001). For an 80-year-old with unresectable NSCLC, PCPs who were an obstetrics-gynecology physician were more likely to recommend CRC screening, while those with a full electronic medical record were less likely to recommend screening. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs consider comorbidity when screening older patients for CRC and may change the screening modality from colonoscopy to FOBT. However, a sizable proportion of PCPs would recommend screening for patients with advanced cancer who would not benefit. Understanding the mechanisms underlying these patterns will facilitate the design of future medical education and policy interventions to reduce unnecessary care.

Screening colonoscopy in the US: attitudes and practices of primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: Rising colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the last decade are attributable almost entirely to increased colonoscopy use. Little is known about factors driving the increase, but primary care physicians (PCPs) play a central role in CRC screening delivery. OBJECTIVE: Explore PCP attitudes toward screening colonoscopy and their associations with CRC screening practice patterns. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of data from a nationally representative survey conducted in 2006-2007. PARTICIPANTS: 1,266 family physicians, general practitioners, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists. MAIN MEASURES: Physician-reported changes in the volume of screening tests ordered, performed or supervised in the past 3 years, attitudes toward colonoscopy, the influence of evidence and perceived norms on their recommendations, challenges to screening, and practice characteristics. RESULTS: The cooperation rate (excludes physicians without valid contact information) was 75%; 28% reported their volume of FOBT ordering had increased substantially or somewhat, and the majority (53%) reported their sigmoidoscopy volume decreased either substantially or somewhat. A majority (73%) reported that colonoscopy volume increased somewhat or substantially. The majority (86%) strongly agreed that colonoscopy was the best of the available CRC screening tests; 69% thought it was readily available for their patients; 59% strongly or somewhat agreed that they might be sued if they did not offer colonoscopy to their patients. All three attitudes were significantly related to substantial increases in colonoscopy ordering. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs report greatly increased colonoscopy recommendation relative to other screening tests, and highly favorable attitudes about colonoscopy. Greater emphasis is needed on informed decision-making with patients about preferences for test options.

Lung cancer screening practices of primary care physicians: results from a national survey.

PURPOSE: Although current practice guidelines do not recommend screening asymptomatic patients for lung cancer, physicians may still order lung cancer screening tests. No recent national survey of health care professionals has focused on lung cancer screening. In this study, we examined the lung cancer screening practices of US primary care physicians and characteristics of those who order lung cancer screening tests. METHODS: We conducted a nationally representative survey of practicing primary care physicians in 2006-2007. Mailed questionnaires assessed the physicians' knowledge of lung cancer screening guidelines, beliefs about the effectiveness of screening tests, and ordering of screening chest radiograph, low-dose spiral computed tomography, or sputum cytology in the past 12 months. Clinical vignettes were used to assess the physicians' intentions to screen asymptomatic 50-year-old patients with varying smoking histories for lung cancer. RESULTS: A total of 962 family physicians, general practitioners, and general internists completed questionnaires (cooperation rate = 76.8%). Overall, 38% had ordered no lung cancer screening tests; 55% had ordered chest radiograph, 22% low-dose spiral computed tomography, and less than 5% sputum cytology. In multivariate modeling, physicians were more likely to have ordered lung cancer screening tests if they believed that expert groups recommend lung cancer screening or that screening tests are effective; if they would recommend screening for asymptomatic patients, including patients without substantial smoking exposure; and if their patients had asked them about screening. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians in the United States frequently order lung cancer screening tests for asymptomatic patients, even though expert groups do not recommend it. Primary care physicians and patients need more information about lung cancer screening's evidence base, guidelines, potential harms, and costs to avert inappropriate ordering.

Systems strategies to support cancer screening in U.S. primary care practice.

BACKGROUND: Although systems strategies are effective in improving health care delivery, little is known about their use for cancer screening in U.S. primary care practice. METHODS: We assessed primary care physicians' (N = 2,475) use of systems strategies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a national survey conducted in 2007. Systems strategies included patient and physician screening reminders, performance reports of screening rates, electronic medical records, implementation of in-practice guidelines, and use of nurse practitioners/physician assistants. We evaluated use of both patient and physician screening reminders with other strategies in separate models by screening type, adjusted for the effects of physician and practice characteristics with multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Fewer than 10% of physicians used a comprehensive set of systems strategies to support cancer screening; use was greater for mammography and Pap testing than for CRC screening. In adjusted analyses, performance reports of cancer screening rates, medical record type, and in-practice guidelines were associated with use of both patient and physician screening reminders for mammography, Pap testing, and CRC screening (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Despite evidence supporting use of systems strategies in primary care, few physicians report using a comprehensive set of strategies to support cancer screening. IMPACT: Current health policy initiatives underscore the importance of increased implementation of systems strategies in primary care to improve the use and quality of cancer screening in the United States.

Multiple clinical practice guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening: perceptions of US primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: Multiple clinical practice guidelines exist for breast and cervical cancer screening, and differ in aggressiveness with respect to the recommended frequency and target populations for screening. OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) US primary care physicians' (PCPs) perceptions of the influence of different clinical practice guidelines; (2) the relationship between the number, aggressiveness, and agreement of influential guidelines and the aggressiveness of physicians' screening recommendations; and (3) factors associated with guideline perceptions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A nationally representative sample of 1212 PCPs was surveyed in 2006-2007. Cross-sectional analyses examined physicians' perceptions of the influence of different breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines, the relationship of guideline perceptions to screening recommendations in response to hypothetical vignettes, and the predictors of guideline perceptions. RESULTS: American Cancer Society and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines were perceived as more influential than other guidelines. Most physicians (62%) valued multiple guidelines, and conflicting and aggressive rather than conservative guideline combinations. The number, aggressiveness, and agreement of influential guidelines were associated with the aggressiveness of screening recommendations (P < 0.01)-which was highest for physicians valuing multiple-aggressive, lowest for physicians valuing multiple-conservative, and intermediate for physicians valuing multiple-conflicting, single, and no guidelines. Obstetrician/gynecologists specialty predicted valuation of aggressive guidelines (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs' perceptions of cancer screening guidelines vary, relate to screening recommendations in logically-consistent ways, and are predicted by specialty and other factors. The number, aggressiveness, and agreement of valued guidelines are associated with screening recommendations, suggesting that guideline multiplicity is an important problem in clinical decision-making.

Physicians' colorectal cancer screening discussion and recommendation patterns.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physician (PCP) actions are pivotal to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening performance, and guidelines recommend discussion with patients about test options and potential benefits and harms. This article profiles patterns of discussion about and recommendations for screening and explores potential associations with multilevel factors (patient, clinician, practice, and environment). METHODS: In 2009, we analyzed data from 1,266 physicians responding to the 2006-2007 National Survey of Primary Care Physicians' Recommendations and Practices for Breast, Cervical, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer Screening (absolute response rate=69.3%; cooperation rate=75.0%). Descriptive statistics examined physicians' reports of discussion and recommendations. Multivariate analyses assessed the associations of these practices with multilevel factors. RESULTS: Although few respondents reported discussion of all options, 46% usually discuss more than one option; the vast majority of these respondents discuss fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and colonoscopy (49%) or FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy (32%). Of physicians who discuss more than one option, a majority reported usually recommending one or more test options, most commonly colonoscopy alone (43%) and FOBT and colonoscopy (43%). Several personal characteristics (specialty), perceived patient characteristics (prefer physician to decide), practice characteristics (geographic location), and community barriers (specialist availability) were independently associated with discussion and/or recommendation patterns. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs do not discuss the full menu of test options, but many report selecting one or two options for discussion and recommendation. To ensure that patients' perspectives and concerns are elicited and considered, patient decision-making approaches should be considered. IMPACT: Attention to informed decision making in CRC screening will be important for enhancing patient-centered quality care.

Are physicians' recommendations for colorectal cancer screening guideline-consistent?

BACKGROUND: Many older adults in the U.S. do not receive appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Although primary care physicians' recommendations to their patients are central to the screening process, little information is available about their recommendations in relation to guidelines for the menu of CRC screening modalities, including fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), colonoscopy, and double contrast barium enema (DCBE). The objective of this study was to explore potentially modifiable physician and practice factors associated with guideline-consistent recommendations for the menu of CRC screening modalities. METHODS: We examined data from a nationally representative sample of 1266 physicians in the U.S. surveyed in 2007. The survey included questions about physician and practice characteristics, perceptions about screening, and recommendations for age of initiation and screening interval for FOBT, FS, colonoscopy and DCBE in average risk adults. Physicians' screening recommendations were classified as guideline consistent for all, some, or none of the CRC screening modalities recommended. Analyses used descriptive statistics and polytomous logit regression models. RESULTS: Few (19.1%; 95% CI:16.9%, 21.5%) physicians made guideline-consistent recommendations across all CRC screening modalities that they recommended. In multivariate analysis, younger physician age, board certification, north central geographic region, single specialty or multi-specialty practice type, fewer patients per week, higher number of recommended modalities, use of electronic medical records, greater influence of patient preferences for screening, and published clinical evidence were associated with guideline-consistent screening recommendations (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' CRC screening recommendations reflect both overuse and underuse, and few made guideline-consistent CRC screening recommendations across all modalities they recommended. Interventions that focus on potentially modifiable physician and practice factors that influence overuse and underuse and address the menu of recommended screening modalities will be important for improving screening practice.

U.S. primary care physicians' lung cancer screening beliefs and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: No high-quality study to date has shown that screening reduces lung cancer mortality, and expert groups do not recommend screening for asymptomatic individuals. Nevertheless, lung cancer screening tests are available in the U.S., and primary care physicians (PCPs) may have a role in recommending them to patients. PURPOSE: This study describes U.S. PCPs' beliefs about and recommendations for lung cancer screening and examines characteristics of PCPs who recommend screening. METHODS: A nationally representative survey of practicing PCPs was conducted in 2006-2007. Mailed questionnaires were used to assess PCPs' beliefs about lung cancer screening guidelines and the effectiveness of screening tests and to determine whether PCPs would recommend screening for asymptomatic patients. Data were analyzed in 2009. RESULTS: Nine hundred sixty-two PCPs completed the survey (absolute response rate=70.6%; cooperation rate=76.8%). One quarter said that major guidelines support lung cancer screening. Two thirds said that low-radiation dose spiral computed tomography (LDCT) screening is very or somewhat effective in reducing lung cancer mortality in current smokers; LDCT was perceived as more effective than chest x-ray or sputum cytology. Responding to vignettes describing asymptomatic patients of varying smoking exposure, 67% of PCPs recommended lung cancer screening for at least one of the vignettes. Most PCPs recommending screening said they would use chest x-ray; up to 26% would use LDCT. In adjusted analyses, PCPs' beliefs and practice style were strongly associated with their lung cancer screening recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Many PCPs' lung cancer screening beliefs and recommendations are inconsistent with current evidence and guidelines. Provider education regarding the evidence base and guideline content of lung cancer screening is indicated.

Specialty differences in primary care physician reports of papanicolaou test screening practices: a national survey, 2006 to 2007.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer screening guidelines were substantially revised in 2002 and 2003. Little information is available about primary care physicians' current Papanicolaou (Pap) test screening practices, including initiation, frequency, and stopping. OBJECTIVE: To assess current Pap test screening practices in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Nationally representative sample of physicians during 2006 to 2007. PARTICIPANTS: 1212 primary care physicians. MEASUREMENTS: The survey included questions about physician and practice characteristics and recommendations for Pap screening presented as clinical vignettes describing women by age and by sexual and screening histories. A composite measure-guideline-consistent recommendations-was created by using responses to vignettes in which major guidelines were uniform. RESULTS: Most physicians reported providing Pap tests to their eligible patients (91.0% [95% CI, 89.0% to 92.6%]). Among Pap test providers (n = 1114), screening practices, including number of tests ordered or performed, use of patient reminder systems, and cytology method used, varied by physician specialty (P < 0.001). Although most Pap test providers reported that screening guidelines were very influential in their clinical practice, few had guideline-consistent recommendations for starting and stopping Pap screening across multiple vignettes (22.3% [CI, 19.9% to 25.0%]). Guideline-consistent recommendations varied by specialty (obstetrics/gynecology, 16.4%; internal medicine, 27.5%; and family or general practice, 21.1%). Compared with obstetricians/gynecologists, internal medicine specialists and family or general practice specialists were more likely to have guideline-consistent screening recommendations (odds ratio, 1.98 [CI, 1.22 to 3.23] and 1.45 [CI, 0.99 to 2.13], respectively) in multivariate analysis. LIMITATION: Physician self-report may reflect idealized rather than actual practice. CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians' recommendations for Pap test screening are not consistent with screening guidelines, reflecting overuse of screening. Implementation of effective interventions that focus on potentially modifiable physician and practice factors is needed to improve screening practice. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Colorectal cancer screening by primary care physicians: recommendations and practices, 2006-2007.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians (hereafter, physicians) play a critical role in the delivery of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the U.S. This study describes the CRC screening recommendations and practices of U.S. physicians and compares them to findings from a 1999-2000 national provider survey. METHODS: Data from 1266 physicians responding to the 2006-2007 National Survey of Primary Care Physicians' Recommendations and Practices for Breast, Cervical, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer Screening (cooperation rate=75%) were analyzed in 2008. Descriptive statistics were used to examine physicians' CRC screening recommendations and practices as well as the office systems used to support screening activities. Sample weights were applied in the analyses to obtain national estimates. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent of physicians routinely recommend screening colonoscopy to asymptomatic, average-risk patients; 80% recommend fecal occult blood testing (FOBT). Only a minority recommend sigmoidoscopy, double-contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, or fecal DNA testing. Fifty-six percent recommend two screening modalities; 17% recommend one. Nearly all physicians who recommend endoscopy refer their patients for the procedure. Four percent perform sigmoidoscopy, a 25-percentage-point decline from 1999-2000. Although 61% of physicians reported that their practice had guidelines for CRC screening, only 30% use provider reminders; 15% use patient reminders. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' CRC screening recommendations and practices have changed substantially since 1999-2000. Colonoscopy is now the most frequently recommended test. Most physicians do not recommend the full menu of test options prescribed in national guidelines. Few perform sigmoidoscopy. Office systems to support CRC screening are lacking in many physicians' practices. Given ongoing changes in CRC screening technologies and guidelines, the continued monitoring of physicians' CRC screening recommendations and practices is imperative.

Patterns of care in a population-based random sample of patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

New therapies have enhanced treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), but extent of treatment use in community practice is unknown. We conducted a population-based study of NHL patients diagnosed in 1999 with histologically confirmed NHL (n = 947) residing in areas covered by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. We performed analyses to study factors associated with receipt of chemotherapy, radiation, and rituximab, and examine factors associated with mortality. Most patients presented with B-cell lymphoma (n = 828). Approximately 20% of patients received no therapy, over 60% received chemotherapy, and 12% received rituximab, alone or in combination. Patients aged 75 +, and males were less likely to have received chemotherapy (p = 0.01). There were no significant associations between receipt of rituximab and the factors analyzed. Patients who presented with B-symptoms or unknown B-symptom status were less likely to receive radiation (OR = 0.32 and 0.47, respectively, p = 0.0002) than asymptomatic patients. Cause-specific and all-cause mortality were significantly associated with patient age, race/ethnicity, gender, marital status, co-morbid conditions, and histological subgroup. Hispanic and African-Americans, patients age 75 +, males, unmarried patients, or patients with B-symptoms had higher risk of death from NHL and all-cause (p < 0.01). This is the first population-based study examining therapy received for many histological subtypes of NHL.