James O. Armitage, William C. Wood and Dan L. Longo
Ashley T. Freeman, May Kuo, Lei Zhou, Justin G. Trogdon, Chris D. Baggett, Sascha A. Tuchman, Thomas C. Shea and William A. Wood
Background: Population-based studies suggest that patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have better outcomes when treated at high-volume facilities, but the relative contribution of provider expertise and hospital resources to improved outcomes is unknown. This study explored how treating facility, individual provider volume, and patient-sharing between MM specialists and community providers influenced outcomes for patients with MM. Patients and Methods: A state cancer registry linked to public and private insurance claims was used to identify a cohort of patients diagnosed with MM in 2006 through 2012. Three multivariable Cox models were used to examine how the following factors impacted overall survival: (1) evaluation at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCICCC), (2) the primary oncologist’s volume of patients with MM, and (3) patient-sharing between MM specialists and community oncologists. Results: A total of 1,029 patients diagnosed with MM in 2006 through 2012 were identified. Patients who were not evaluated at an NCICCC had an increased risk of mortality compared with those evaluated at an NCICCC (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21–1.86; P<.001). Compared with patients treated by NCICCC MM specialists, those treated by both low-volume community providers (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.14–1.90; P<.01) and high-volume community providers (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04–1.61; P<.05) had a higher risk of mortality. No difference in mortality was seen between patients treated by NCICCC MM specialists and those treated by the highest-volume community oncologists in the ninth and tenth deciles (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.84–1.37; P=.5591). Patients treated by community oncologists had a higher risk of mortality regardless of patient-sharing compared with patients treated by MM specialists (eg, community oncologist with a history of sharing vs NCICCC MM specialist: HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.10–2.02; P<.05). Conclusions: Findings of this study add to the accumulating evidence showing that patients with MM benefit from care at high-volume facilities, and suggest that similar outcomes can be achieved by the highest-volume providers in the community.
Douglas E. Wood, George A. Eapen, David S. Ettinger, Lifang Hou, David Jackman, Ella Kazerooni, Donald Klippenstein, Rudy P. Lackner, Lorriana Leard, Ann N. C. Leung, Pierre P. Massion, Bryan F. Meyers, Reginald F. Munden, Gregory A. Otterson, Kimberly Peairs, Sudhakar Pipavath, Christie Pratt-Pozo, Chakravarthy Reddy, Mary E. Reid, Arnold J. Rotter, Matthew B. Schabath, Lecia V. Sequist, Betty C. Tong, William D. Travis, Michael Unger and Stephen C. Yang
Douglas E. Wood, Ella Kazerooni, Scott L. Baum, Mark T. Dransfield, George A. Eapen, David S. Ettinger, Lifang Hou, David M. Jackman, Donald Klippenstein, Rohit Kumar, Rudy P. Lackner, Lorriana E. Leard, Ann N.C. Leung, Samir S. Makani, Pierre P. Massion, Bryan F. Meyers, Gregory A. Otterson, Kimberly Peairs, Sudhakar Pipavath, Christie Pratt-Pozo, Chakravarthy Reddy, Mary E. Reid, Arnold J. Rotter, Peter B. Sachs, Matthew B. Schabath, Lecia V. Sequist, Betty C. Tong, William D. Travis, Stephen C. Yang, Kristina M. Gregory and Miranda Hughes
The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Lung Cancer Screening provide recommendations for selecting individuals for lung cancer screening, and for evaluation and follow-up of nodules found during screening, and are intended to assist with clinical and shared decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the major updates to the 2015 NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening, which include a revision to the recommendation from category 2B to 2A for one of the high-risk groups eligible for lung cancer screening. For low-dose CT of the lung, the recommended slice width was revised in the table on “Low-Dose Computed Tomography Acquisition, Storage, Interpretation, and Nodule Reporting.”
Douglas E. Wood, Ella A. Kazerooni, Scott L. Baum, George A. Eapen, David S. Ettinger, Lifang Hou, David M. Jackman, Donald Klippenstein, Rohit Kumar, Rudy P. Lackner, Lorriana E. Leard, Inga T. Lennes, Ann N.C. Leung, Samir S. Makani, Pierre P. Massion, Peter Mazzone, Robert E. Merritt, Bryan F. Meyers, David E. Midthun, Sudhakar Pipavath, Christie Pratt, Chakravarthy Reddy, Mary E. Reid, Arnold J. Rotter, Peter B. Sachs, Matthew B. Schabath, Mark L. Schiebler, Betty C. Tong, William D. Travis, Benjamin Wei, Stephen C. Yang, Kristina M. Gregory and Miranda Hughes
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States and worldwide. Early detection of lung cancer is an important opportunity for decreasing mortality. Data support using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) of the chest to screen select patients who are at high risk for lung cancer. Lung screening is covered under the Affordable Care Act for individuals with high-risk factors. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) covers annual screening LDCT for appropriate Medicare beneficiaries at high risk for lung cancer if they also receive counseling and participate in shared decision-making before screening. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening provides recommendations for initial and subsequent LDCT screening and provides more detail about LDCT screening. This manuscript focuses on identifying patients at high risk for lung cancer who are candidates for LDCT of the chest and on evaluating initial screening findings.