Cost effectiveness of evidence-based treatment guidelines for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer in the community setting.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Level I Pathways, a program designed to ensure the delivery of evidence-based care, among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated in the outpatient community setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included patients with NSCLC initiating a chemotherapy regimen between July 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007, at eight practices in the US Oncology network. Patients were characterized with respect to age, sex, stage, performance status, and line of therapy and were classified by whether they were treated according to Level I Pathways guidelines. Twelve-month cost of care and overall survival were compared between patients treated on Pathway and off Pathway. A net monetary benefit approach and corresponding cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Level I Pathways. RESULTS: Overall, outpatient costs were 35% lower for on-Pathway versus off-Pathway patients (average 12-month cost, $18,042 v $27,737, respectively). Costs remained significantly less for patients treated on Pathway versus off Pathway in the adjuvant and first-line settings, whereas no difference in overall cost was observed in patients in the second-line setting. No difference in overall survival was observed overall or by line of therapy. In the net monetary benefit analysis, after adjusting for potential confounders, we found that treating patients on Pathway was cost effective across a plausible range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study suggest that treating patients according to evidence-based guidelines is a cost-effective strategy for delivering care to those with NSCLC.

Impact of a physician-oriented intervention on follow-up in colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Complete diagnostic evaluation or CDE (i.e., colonoscopy or combined flexible sigmoidoscopy plus barium enema X-ray) is often not performed for persons with an abnormal screening fecal occult blood test (FOBT+) result. METHOD: This study evaluated the impact of a reminder-feedback and educational outreach intervention on primary care practice CDE recommendation and performance rates. Four hundred seventy primary care physicians (PCPs) in 318 practices participated in the study. Patients were mailed an FOBT kit annually as part of a screening program. Practices were randomly assigned to a Control Group (N = 198) or an Intervention Group (N = 120). During an 18-month pre-randomization period and a 9-month post-randomization period, 2992 screening FOBT+ patients were identified. Intervention practices received the screening program and the intervention. Control practices received only the screening program. Study outcomes were baseline-adjusted CDE recommendation and performance rates. RESULTS: At baseline, about two-thirds of FOBT+ patients received a CDE recommendation, and about half had a CDE performed. At endpoint, CDE recommendation and performance rates were both significantly higher for the Intervention as compared to the Control practices (OR = 2.28; 95% CI: 1.37, 3.78, and OR = 1.63; 95% CI: 1.06, 2.50, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The reminder-feedback plus educational outreach intervention significantly increased CDE recommendation and performance.

Physician-reported reasons for limited follow-up of patients with a positive fecal occult blood test screening result.

OBJECTIVE: Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) screening can reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality when patients with an abnormal result [FOBT(+)] undergo a complete diagnostic evaluation (colonoscopy or double-contrast barium enema with or without flexible sigmoidoscopy). The aim of this study was to determine common reasons for nonperformance of a complete diagnostic evaluation. METHODS: We identified 544 FOBT(+) patients, aged 50 yr or older, who had participated in a managed care organization-sponsored CRC screening program. The performance of a complete diagnostic evaluation was determined from a patient-specific follow-up form and managed care organization claims data. Physicians were asked to report whether patients submitted to a complete diagnostic evaluation. When an evaluation was not done, the physicians were also asked to state the reasons for nonperformance. RESULTS: A total of 248 (46%) patients did not undergo a complete diagnostic evaluation. Physicians provided reasons for nonperformance for 50% (123/248). Factors accounting for nonperformance of a complete diagnostic evaluation were classified as follows: primary care physician decision (50%); specialist decision (28%); patient decision (17%); and other (practice-related) (5%). Many failures to complete an appropriate diagnostic evaluation were due to providers deciding to repeat the FOBT, perform a sigmoidoscopy, or not to proceed with any further testing. CONCLUSION: Many patients with a positive FOBT do not receive a complete diagnostic evaluation. The reasons for nonperformance most frequently have to do with physician decision making. Many physician-related explanations do not conform to expert recommendations for appropriate follow-up.

Physician and patient factors associated with ordering a colon evaluation after a positive fecal occult blood test.

OBJECTIVE: Successful colorectal cancer screening relies in part on physicians ordering a complete diagnostic evaluation of the colon (CDE) with colonoscopy or barium enema plus sigmoidoscopy after a positive screening fecal occult blood test (FOBT). DESIGN: We surveyed primary care physicians about colorectal cancer screening practices, beliefs, and intentions. At least 1 physician responded in 318 of 413 (77%) primary care practices that were affiliated with a managed care organization offering a mailed FOBT program for patients aged >/=50 years. Of these 318 practices, 212 (67%) had 602 FOBT+ patients from August through November 1998. We studied 184 (87%) of these 212 practices with 490 FOBT+ patients after excluding those judged ineligible for a CDE or without demographic data. Three months after notification of the FOBT+ result, physicians were asked on audit forms if they had ordered CDEs for study patients. Patient- and physician-predictors of ordering CDEs were identified using logistic regression. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A CDE was ordered for only 69.5% of 490 FOBT+ patients. After adjustment, women were less likely to have had CDE initiated than men (adjusted odds, 0.66; confidence interval, 0.44 to 0.97). Physician survey responses indicating intermediate or high intention to evaluate a FOBT+ patient with a CDE were associated with nearly 2-fold greater adjusted odds of actually initiating a CDE in this circumstance versus physicians with a low intention. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians often fail to order CDE for FOBT+ patients. A CDE was less likely to be ordered for women and was influenced by physician's beliefs about CDEs.