Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author: Ronald S. Go x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Lindsey A. Kluck and Ronald S. Go

Full access

Urshila Durani, Dennis Asante, Thorvardur Halfdanarson, Herbert C. Heien, Lindsey Sangaralingham, Carrie A. Thompson, Prema Peethambaram, Fernando J. Quevedo and Ronald S. Go

Background: Adherence to surveillance guidelines in resected colon cancer has significant implications for patient morbidity, cost of care, and healthcare utilization. This study measured the underuse and overuse of imaging for staging and surveillance in stage I–II colon cancer. Methods: The OptumLabs database was queried for administrative claims data on adult patients with stage I–II colon cancer who underwent surgery alone in 2008 through 2016. Use of PET and CT imaging was evaluated during both initial staging (n=6,921) and surveillance for patients with at least 1 year of follow-up (n=5,466). “High use” was defined as >2 CT abdominal/pelvic (CT A/P) or PET scans per year during surveillance. Results: Overall, 27% of patients with stage I–II colon cancer did not have a staging CT A/P or PET scan and 95% did not have a CT chest scan. However, rates of staging CT A/P and CT chest scans increased from 62.0% (2008) to 74.8% (2016) and from 2.3% (2008) to 7.1% (2016), respectively. Staging PET use was overall very low (5.2%). During surveillance, approximately 30% of patients received a CT A/P or PET and 5% received a CT chest scan within the first year after surgery. Of patients who had surveillance CT A/P or PET scans, the proportion receiving >2 scans within the first year (high use) declined from 32.4% (2008) to 9.6% (2016) (P = .01). Conclusions: Although PET use remains appropriately low, many patients with stage I–II colon cancer do not receive appropriate staging and surveillance CT chest scans. Among those who do receive these scans during surveillance, high use has declined significantly over time.

Full access

Titilayo O. Adegboyega, Jeffrey Landercasper, Jared H. Linebarger, Jeanne M. Johnson, Jeremiah J. Andersen, Leah L. Dietrich, Collin D. Driscoll, Meghana Raghavendra, Anusha R. Madadi, Mohammed Al-Hamadani, Choua A. Vang, Kristen A. Marcou, Jane Hudak and Ronald S. Go

Background: Variations exist in compliance with NCCN Guidelines. Prior reports of adherence to NCCN Guidelines contain limitations because of lack of contemporary review and incomplete listing of reasons for noncompliance. Purpose: To assess institutional compliance and assist national quality improvement strategies through identifying valid reasons for noncompliance. Methods: Compliance with NCCN Guidelines was recorded prospectively using electronic synoptic templates for patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer treated at a single institution between January 2010 and December 2011. Compliance with NCCN Guidelines was recorded. The accuracy of real-time synoptic auditing methods compared with retrospective chart review and reasons for noncompliance was assessed. SAS 9.3 software was used for data analysis. Results: Compliance with NCCN Guidelines among 395 patients was 94% for initial staging evaluation, 97% for surgery, 91% for chemotherapy, 89% for hormone therapy, 91% for radiation therapy, 85% for follow-up, and 100% for determination of estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor and HER2 status. Age, comorbidities, and stage influenced guideline compliance. The most common reasons for noncompliance were patient refusal, patient choice after shared decision-making, and overuse of testing. Synoptic templated reporting was accurate in 97% patients. Conclusions: High compliance with NCCN Guidelines was demonstrated. Reasons for noncompliance were identifiable. Compliance and nonadherence can be evaluated quickly with electronic synoptic reporting. This allows real-time action plans to address quality concerns and aids national risk adjustment for comparison and benchmarking.