Guideline Familiarity Predicts Variation in Self-Reported Use of Routine Surveillance PET/CT by Physicians Who Treat Head and Neck Cancer

View More View Less
  • a From the RWJ Clinical Scholars Program/Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics/Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Head and Neck Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Deparment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana; Department of Otolaryngology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York; Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Pennsylvania State University-Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania; and Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Restricted access

Background: Use of routine surveillance testing beyond guideline recommended levels is common in many oncologic disciplines, including head and neck cancer. The impact of guideline familiarity and other physician characteristics on surveillance imaging use are not well understood. Methods: A cross-sectional national survey was performed of physicians responsible for surveillance of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The primary outcome was self-reported use of routine surveillance PET/CT in asymptomatic patients. A secondary outcome was familiarity with guideline recommendations. Using multivariable regression, the impact of guideline familiarity and other physician characteristics on PET/CT use was examined. Results: Of the 502 responders, 79% endorsed ever using PET/CT scans for routine surveillance imaging, and 39% were high imaging users (used PET/CT scans on more than half of their asymptomatic patients); 76% were familiar with the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Head and Neck Cancers recommending against routine surveillance PET/CT scans. Although guideline familiarity was associated with being a low imaging user or a never-user, among those who were familiar with guidelines, 31% were nonetheless high imaging users and 73% endorsed ever using PET/CT scans. In multivariable analysis controlling for physician characteristics, guideline familiarity was the strongest predictor of PET/CT use. Conclusions: Familiarity with the NCCN Guidelines predicts self-reported routine surveillance PET/CT use among physicians who treat patients with HNSCC. However, given the observed variation and high levels of imaging even among physicians who are familiar with the guidelines, further research should examine the reasons physicians choose to use surveillance PET/CT scans.

Correspondence: Benjamin R. Roman, MD, MSHP, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Head and Neck Service, 1275 York Avenue, Room C-1061, New York, NY 10065. E-mail: romanb@mskcc.org
  • 1.

    Pfister DG, Spencer S, Brizel DM. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Head and Neck Cancers. Version 2.2014. Available at: NCCN.org. Accessed December 12, 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Schapira DV, Urban N. A minimalist policy for breast cancer surveillance. JAMA 1991;265:380382.

  • 3.

    Smith TJ, Hillner BE. Bending the cost curve in cancer care. N Engl J Med 2011;364:20602065.

  • 4.

    Furman MJ, Lambert LA, Sullivan ME, Whalen GF. Rational follow-up after curative cancer resection. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:11301133.

  • 5.

    Armitage JO. Who benefits from surveillance imaging? J Clin Oncol 2012;30:25792580.

  • 6.

    American Society of Clinical Oncology. 10 Things Physicians and Patients Should Question. Choosing Wisely Web site. Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org/doctor-patient-lists/american-society-of-clinical-oncology/. Accessed December 12, 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Keating NL, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E. Surveillance testing among survivors of early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:10741081.

  • 8.

    Grunfeld E, Hodgson DC, Del Giudice ME, Moineddin R. Population-based longitudinal study of follow-up care for breast cancer survivors. J Oncol Pract 2010;6:174181.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Salloum RG, Hornbrook MC, Fishman PA. Adherence to surveillance care guidelines after breast and colorectal cancer treatment with curative intent. Cancer 2012;118:56445651.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Potosky AL, Han PK, Rowland J. Differences between primary care physicians’ and oncologists’ knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding the care of cancer survivors. J Gen Intern Med 2011;26:14031410.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Han PK, Klabunde CN, Noone AM. Physicians’ beliefs about breast cancer surveillance testing are consistent with test overuse. Med Care 2013;51:315323.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Myssiorek D, Roman B, Wang M. Trends in utilization of FDG PET imaging in the American Head and Neck Society. Presented at the American Head and Neck Society 2009 Annual Meeting; May 30–31, 2009; Phoenix, Arizona.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999;282:14581465.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Espeland A, Baerheim A. Factors affecting general practitioners’ decisions about plain radiography for back pain: implications for classification of guideline barriers—a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2003;3:8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42:377381.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Jagsi R, Huang G, Griffith K. Attitudes toward and use of cancer management guidelines in a national sample of medical oncologists and surgeons. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2014;12:204212.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Mathias JS, Baker DW. Developing quality measures to address overuse. JAMA 2013;309:18971898.

  • 18.

    Kerfoot BP, Holmberg EF, Lawler EV. Practitioner-level determinants of inappropriate prostate-specific antigen screening. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:13671372.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Ong SC, Schöder H, Lee NY. Clinical utility of 18F-FDG PET/CT in assessing the neck after concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locoregional advanced head and neck cancer. J Nucl Med 2008;49:532540.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Gourin CG, Boyce BJ, Williams HT. Revisiting the role of positron-emission tomography/computed tomography in determining the need for planned neck dissection following chemoradiation for advanced head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope 2009;119:21502155.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Kao J, Vu HL, Genden EM. The diagnostic and prognostic utility of positron emission tomography/computed tomography-based follow-up after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Cancer 2009;115:45864594.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Sher DJ, Tishler RB, Annino D, Punglia RS. Cost-effectiveness of CT and PET-CT for determining the need for adjuvant neck dissection in locally advanced head and neck cancer. Ann Oncol 2010;21:10721077.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Pryor DI, Porceddu SV, Scuffham PA. Economic analysis of FDG-PET-guided management of the neck after primary chemoradiotherapy for node-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 2013;35:12871294.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Lowe VJ, Boyd JH, Dunphy FR. Surveillance for recurrent head and neck cancer using positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:651658.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Lee JC, Kim JS, Lee JH. F-18 FDG-PET as a routine surveillance tool for the detection of recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol 2007;43:686692.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Perie S, Hugentobler A, Susini B. Impact of FDG-PET to detect recurrence of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137:647653.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Salaun PY, Abgral R, Querellou S. Does 18fluoro-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography improve recurrence detection in patients treated for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma with negative clinical follow-up? Head Neck 2007;29:11151120.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Abgral R, Querellou S, Potard G. Does 18F-FDG PET/CT improve the detection of posttreatment recurrence of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in patients negative for disease on clinical follow-up? J Nucl Med 2009;50:2429.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Krabbe Ca, Pruim J, Dijkstra PU. 18F-FDG PET as a routine posttreatment surveillance tool in oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective study. J Nucl Med 2009;50:19401947.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Beswick DM, Gooding WE, Johnson JT, Branstetter BF. Temporal patterns of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma recurrence with positron-emission tomography/computed tomography monitoring. Laryngoscope 2012;122:15121517.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Dunsky KA, Wehrmann DJ, Osman MM. PET-CT and the detection of the asymptomatic recurrence or second primary lesions in the treated head and neck cancer patient. Laryngoscope 2013;123:21612164.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Kostakoglu L, Fardanesh R, Posner M. Early detection of recurrent disease by FDG-PET/CT leads to management changes in patients with squamous cell cancer of the head and neck. Oncologist 2013;18:11081117.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    McDermott M, Hughes M, Rath T. Negative predictive value of surveillance PET/CT in head and neck squamous cell cancer. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:16321636.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    Spector ME, Chinn SB, Rosko AJ. Diagnostic modalities for distant metastasis in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: are we changing life expectancy? Laryngoscope 2012;122:15071511.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    Ho AS, Tsao GJ, Chen FW. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography surveillance at 12 and 24 months for detecting head and neck cancer recurrence. Cancer 2013;119:13491356.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36.

    Zafereo ME, Hanasono MM, Rosenthal DI. The role of salvage surgery in patients with recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx. Cancer 2009;115:57235733.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37.

    Goodwin WJ Jr. Salvage surgery for patients with recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract: when do the ends justify the means? Laryngoscope 2000;110(3 Pt 2 Suppl 93):118.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38.

    Ho AS, Kraus DH, Ganly I. Decision making in the management of recurrent head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2014;36:144151.

  • 39.

    Locker GY, Hamilton S, Harris J. ASCO 2006 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in gastrointestinal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:53135327.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40.

    Figueredo A, Rumble RB, Maroun J. Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer: a practice guideline. BMC Cancer 2003;3:26.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41.

    Rodriguez-Moranta F, Salo J, Arcusa A. Postoperative surveillance in patients with colorectal cancer who have undergone curative resection: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:386393.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42.

    Jeffery M, Hickey BE, Hider PN. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007:CD002200.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43.

    Lu WL, Jansen L, Post WJ. Impact on survival of early detection of isolated breast recurrences after the primary treatment for breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;114:403412.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44.

    Berman JM, Cheung RJ, Weinberg DS. Surveillance after colorectal cancer resection. Lancet 2000;355:395399.

  • 45.

    Kievit J. Follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer: numbers needed to test and treat. Eur J Cancer 2002;38:986999.

  • 46.

    Tjandra JJ, Chan MK. Follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2007;50:17831799.

  • 47.

    Impact of follow-up testing on survival and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. A multicenter randomized controlled trial. The GIVIO Investigators. JAMA 1994;271:15871592.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48.

    Rosselli Del Turco M, Palli D, Cariddi A. Intensive diagnostic follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer. A randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer follow-up. JAMA 1994;271:15931597.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49.

    Palli D, Russo A, Saieva C. Intensive vs clinical follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer: 10-year update of a randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer follow-up. JAMA 1999;281:1586.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 50.

    Rojas MP, Telaro E, Russo A. Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005:CD001768.

  • 51.

    Roman BR, Asch DA. Faded promises: the challenge of deadopting low-value care. Ann Intern Med 2014;161:149150.

  • 52.

    Meier JD, Oliver DA, Varvares MA. Surgical margin determination in head and neck oncology: current clinical practice. The results of an International American Head and Neck Society Member Survey. Head Neck 2005;27:952958.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53.

    Johnson FE, Johnson MH, Clemente MF. Geographical variation in surveillance strategies after curative-intent surgery for upper aerodigestive tract cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:10631071.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 54.

    Wu AW, Wang MB, Nguyen CT. Surgical practice patterns in the treatment of papillary thyroid microcarcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;136:11821190.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 55.

    Malloy KM, Ellender SM, Goldenberg D, Dolan RW. A survey of current practices, attitudes, and knowledge regarding human papillomavirus-related cancers and vaccines among head and neck surgeons. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;139:10371042.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 56.

    Makki FM, Williams B, Rajaraman M. Current practice patterns in the management of glottic cancer in Canada: results of a national survey. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;40:205210.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 57.

    Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA 2000;283:17151722.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 58.

    Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P. Measuring the quality of physician practice by using clinical vignettes: a prospective validation study. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:771780.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 59.

    Tunis S, Whicher D. The National Oncologic PET Registry: lessons learned for coverage with evidence development. J Am Coll Radiol 2009;6:360365.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 141 109 3
PDF Downloads 42 33 4
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0