The role of national cancer institute-designated cancer center status: Observed variation in surgical care depends on the level of evidence

Haejin In, Bridget A. Neville, Stuart R. Lipsitz, Katherine A. Corso, Jane C. Weeks, Caprice C. Greenberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: We sought to evaluate differences in guideline concordance between National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated and other centers and determine whether the level of available evidence influences the degree of variation in concordance. Background: The National Cancer Institute recognizes centers of excellence in the advancement of cancer care. These NCI-designated cancer centers have been shown to have better outcomes for cancer surgery; however, little work has compared surgical process measures. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry linked to Medicare claims data. Fee-for-service Medicare patients with a definitive surgical resection for breast, colon, gastric, rectal, or thyroid cancers diagnosed between 2000 and 2005 were identified. Claims data from 1999 to 2006 were used. Our main outcome measure was guideline concordance at NCI-designated centers compared to other institutions, stratified by level of evidence as graded by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline panels. Results: All centers achieved at least 90%, and often 95%, concordance with guidelines based on level 1 evidence. Concordance rates for guidelines with lower-level evidence ranged from 30% to 97% and were higher at NCI-designated centers. The adjusted concordance ratios for category 1 guidelines were between 1.02 and 1.08, whereas concordance ratios for guidelines with lower-level evidence ranged from 0.97 to 2.19, primarily favoring NCI-designated centers. Conclusions: When strong evidence supports a guideline, there is little variation in practice between NCI-designated centers and other hospitals, suggesting that all are providing appropriate care. Variation in care may exist, however, for guidelines that are based on expert consensus rather than strong evidence. This suggests that future efforts to generate needed evidence on the optimal approach to care may also reduce institutional variation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)890-895
Number of pages6
JournalAnnals of Surgery
Volume255
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

National Cancer Institute (U.S.)
Guidelines
Neoplasms
Medicare
Fee-for-Service Plans
Process Assessment (Health Care)
Rectal Neoplasms
Thyroid Neoplasms
Stomach Neoplasms
Registries
Colon
Epidemiology
Breast
Cohort Studies
Retrospective Studies
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

The role of national cancer institute-designated cancer center status : Observed variation in surgical care depends on the level of evidence. / In, Haejin; Neville, Bridget A.; Lipsitz, Stuart R.; Corso, Katherine A.; Weeks, Jane C.; Greenberg, Caprice C.

In: Annals of Surgery, Vol. 255, No. 5, 05.2012, p. 890-895.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

In, Haejin ; Neville, Bridget A. ; Lipsitz, Stuart R. ; Corso, Katherine A. ; Weeks, Jane C. ; Greenberg, Caprice C. / The role of national cancer institute-designated cancer center status : Observed variation in surgical care depends on the level of evidence. In: Annals of Surgery. 2012 ; Vol. 255, No. 5. pp. 890-895.
@article{f5cb669fafe848849d49df4432d31799,
title = "The role of national cancer institute-designated cancer center status: Observed variation in surgical care depends on the level of evidence",
abstract = "Objective: We sought to evaluate differences in guideline concordance between National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated and other centers and determine whether the level of available evidence influences the degree of variation in concordance. Background: The National Cancer Institute recognizes centers of excellence in the advancement of cancer care. These NCI-designated cancer centers have been shown to have better outcomes for cancer surgery; however, little work has compared surgical process measures. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry linked to Medicare claims data. Fee-for-service Medicare patients with a definitive surgical resection for breast, colon, gastric, rectal, or thyroid cancers diagnosed between 2000 and 2005 were identified. Claims data from 1999 to 2006 were used. Our main outcome measure was guideline concordance at NCI-designated centers compared to other institutions, stratified by level of evidence as graded by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline panels. Results: All centers achieved at least 90{\%}, and often 95{\%}, concordance with guidelines based on level 1 evidence. Concordance rates for guidelines with lower-level evidence ranged from 30{\%} to 97{\%} and were higher at NCI-designated centers. The adjusted concordance ratios for category 1 guidelines were between 1.02 and 1.08, whereas concordance ratios for guidelines with lower-level evidence ranged from 0.97 to 2.19, primarily favoring NCI-designated centers. Conclusions: When strong evidence supports a guideline, there is little variation in practice between NCI-designated centers and other hospitals, suggesting that all are providing appropriate care. Variation in care may exist, however, for guidelines that are based on expert consensus rather than strong evidence. This suggests that future efforts to generate needed evidence on the optimal approach to care may also reduce institutional variation.",
author = "Haejin In and Neville, {Bridget A.} and Lipsitz, {Stuart R.} and Corso, {Katherine A.} and Weeks, {Jane C.} and Greenberg, {Caprice C.}",
year = "2012",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1097/SLA.0b013e31824deae6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "255",
pages = "890--895",
journal = "Annals of Surgery",
issn = "0003-4932",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The role of national cancer institute-designated cancer center status

T2 - Observed variation in surgical care depends on the level of evidence

AU - In, Haejin

AU - Neville, Bridget A.

AU - Lipsitz, Stuart R.

AU - Corso, Katherine A.

AU - Weeks, Jane C.

AU - Greenberg, Caprice C.

PY - 2012/5

Y1 - 2012/5

N2 - Objective: We sought to evaluate differences in guideline concordance between National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated and other centers and determine whether the level of available evidence influences the degree of variation in concordance. Background: The National Cancer Institute recognizes centers of excellence in the advancement of cancer care. These NCI-designated cancer centers have been shown to have better outcomes for cancer surgery; however, little work has compared surgical process measures. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry linked to Medicare claims data. Fee-for-service Medicare patients with a definitive surgical resection for breast, colon, gastric, rectal, or thyroid cancers diagnosed between 2000 and 2005 were identified. Claims data from 1999 to 2006 were used. Our main outcome measure was guideline concordance at NCI-designated centers compared to other institutions, stratified by level of evidence as graded by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline panels. Results: All centers achieved at least 90%, and often 95%, concordance with guidelines based on level 1 evidence. Concordance rates for guidelines with lower-level evidence ranged from 30% to 97% and were higher at NCI-designated centers. The adjusted concordance ratios for category 1 guidelines were between 1.02 and 1.08, whereas concordance ratios for guidelines with lower-level evidence ranged from 0.97 to 2.19, primarily favoring NCI-designated centers. Conclusions: When strong evidence supports a guideline, there is little variation in practice between NCI-designated centers and other hospitals, suggesting that all are providing appropriate care. Variation in care may exist, however, for guidelines that are based on expert consensus rather than strong evidence. This suggests that future efforts to generate needed evidence on the optimal approach to care may also reduce institutional variation.

AB - Objective: We sought to evaluate differences in guideline concordance between National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated and other centers and determine whether the level of available evidence influences the degree of variation in concordance. Background: The National Cancer Institute recognizes centers of excellence in the advancement of cancer care. These NCI-designated cancer centers have been shown to have better outcomes for cancer surgery; however, little work has compared surgical process measures. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry linked to Medicare claims data. Fee-for-service Medicare patients with a definitive surgical resection for breast, colon, gastric, rectal, or thyroid cancers diagnosed between 2000 and 2005 were identified. Claims data from 1999 to 2006 were used. Our main outcome measure was guideline concordance at NCI-designated centers compared to other institutions, stratified by level of evidence as graded by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline panels. Results: All centers achieved at least 90%, and often 95%, concordance with guidelines based on level 1 evidence. Concordance rates for guidelines with lower-level evidence ranged from 30% to 97% and were higher at NCI-designated centers. The adjusted concordance ratios for category 1 guidelines were between 1.02 and 1.08, whereas concordance ratios for guidelines with lower-level evidence ranged from 0.97 to 2.19, primarily favoring NCI-designated centers. Conclusions: When strong evidence supports a guideline, there is little variation in practice between NCI-designated centers and other hospitals, suggesting that all are providing appropriate care. Variation in care may exist, however, for guidelines that are based on expert consensus rather than strong evidence. This suggests that future efforts to generate needed evidence on the optimal approach to care may also reduce institutional variation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84859918508&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84859918508&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31824deae6

DO - 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31824deae6

M3 - Article

C2 - 22504278

AN - SCOPUS:84859918508

VL - 255

SP - 890

EP - 895

JO - Annals of Surgery

JF - Annals of Surgery

SN - 0003-4932

IS - 5

ER -