Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Association between physician characteristics and the use of 21-gene recurrence score genomic testing among Medicare beneficiaries with early-stage breast cancer, 2008–2011

  • Epidemiology
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We sought to determine whether physician-level characteristics were associated with 21-gene recurrence score (RS) genomic testing to evaluate recurrence risk and benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, node-negative breast cancer.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study of a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program-Medicare data linked with the American Medical Association physician master file. The main outcome was receipt of genomic testing within 1 year of diagnosis as a function of physician-level factors.

Results

A total of 24,463 patients met the study criteria; they received care from 3172 surgeons and 2475 medical oncologists. Of 4124 tests ordered, 70% were ordered by a medical oncologist and 16% by a surgeon. In multivariable regression models, multiple variables were associated with receipt of testing, including having a medical oncologist (odds ratio [OR] 2.77; 95% CI 2.00–3.82), a surgeon specializing in surgical oncology (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.09–1.31), and a female medical oncologist (OR 1.10; 95% CI 1.02–1.20). Having a medical oncologist with 5 or more years in practice was associated with lower odds of testing (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.76–0.92). Surgical procedures performed at academic centers were associated with higher odds of testing (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.02–1.20).

Conclusions

Although most RS testing was ordered by medical oncologists, physicians in other specialties ordered roughly one-third of the tests. Physician characteristics, including gender and time in practice, were associated with receiving testing, creating opportunities for targeting interventions to help patients receive optimal care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AMA:

American Medical Association

ER:

Estrogen receptor

HER2:

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

ICD-9-CM:

International classification of diseases, ninth revision, clinical modification

NCCN:

National Comprehensive Cancer Network

OR:

Odds ratio

RS:

Recurrence score

SEER:

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results

References

  1. Győrffy B, Hatzis C, Sanft T, Hofstatter E, Aktas B, Pusztai L (2015) Multigene prognostic tests in breast cancer: past, present, future. Breast Cancer Res 17:11

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, Kim C, Baker J, Kim W, Cronin M, Baehner FL, Watson D, Bryant J, Costantino JP, Geyer CE Jr, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N (2006) Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24(23):3726–3734

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Asad J, Jacobson AF, Estabrook A, Smith SR, Boolbol SK, Feldman SM, Osborne MP, Boachie-Adjei K, Twardzik W, Tartter PI (2008) Does oncotype DX recurrence score affect the management of patients with early-stage breast cancer? Am J Surg 196(4):527–529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Albanell J, González A, Ruiz-Borrego M, Alba E, García-Saenz JA, Corominas JM, Burgues O, Furio V, Rojo A, Palacios J, Bermejo B, Martínez-García M, Limon ML, Muñoz AS, Martín M, Tusquets I, Rojo F, Colomer R, Faull I, Lluch A (2012) Prospective transGEICAM study of the impact of the 21-gene Recurrence Score assay and traditional clinicopathological factors on adjuvant clinical decision making in women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) node-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol 23(3):625–631

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Biroschak JR, Schwartz GF, Palazzo JP, Toll AD, Brill KL, Jaslow RJ, Lee SY (2013) Impact of Oncotype DX on treatment decisions in ER-positive, node-negative breast cancer with histologic correlation. Breast J 19(3):269–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dinan MA, Mi X, Reed SD, Lyman GH, Curtis LH (2015) Association between use of the 21-gene recurrence score assay and receipt of chemotherapy among Medicare beneficiaries with early-stage breast cancer, 2005–2009. JAMA Oncol 1(8):1098–1109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Harris L, Ismaila N, McShane LM, Andre F, Coliyar DE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Hammond EH, Kuderer NM, Liu MC, Mennel RG, Van Poznak C, Bast RC, Hayes DF, American Society of Clinical Oncology (2016) Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol 34(10):1134–1150

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN guidelines for treatment of cancer by site: breast, version 3. http://www.nccn.org

  9. Dinan MA, Mi X, Reed SD, Hirsch BR, Lyman GH, Curtis LH (2015) Initial trends in the use of the 21-gene recurrence score assay for patients with breast cancer in the Medicare population, 2005-2009. JAMA Oncol 1(2):158–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. DeFrank JT, Salz T, Reeder-Hayes K, Brewer NT (2013) Who gets genomic testing for breast cancer recurrence risk? Public Health Genomics 16(5):215–222

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lund MJ, Mosunjac M, Davis KM, Gabram-Mendola S, Rizzo M, Bumpers HL, Hearn S, Zelnak A, Styblo T, O’Regan RM (2012) 21-gene recurrence scores: racial differences in testing, scores, treatment, and outcome. Cancer 118(3):788–796

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Harrold LR, Field TS, Gurwitz JH (1999) Knowledge, patterns of care, and outcomes of care for generalists and specialists. J Gen Intern Med 14(8):499–511

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. De Smet BD, Fendrick AM, Stevenson JG, Bernstein SJ (2006) Over and under-utilization of cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors by primary care physicians and specialists: the tortoise and the hare revisited. J Gen Intern Med 21(7):694–697

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Hirth RA, Fendrick AM, Chernew ME (1996) Specialist and generalist physicians’ adoption of antibiotic therapy to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection. Med Care 34(12):1199–1204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rappaport KM, Forrest CB, Holtzman NA (2004) Adoption of liquid-based cervical cancer screening tests by family physicians and gynecologists. Health Serv Res 39(4 Pt 1):927–948

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kimmick GG, Camacho F, Mackley HB, Kern T, Yao N, Matthews SA, Fleming S, Lipscomb J, Liao J, Hwang W, Anderson RT (2015) Individual, area, and provider characteristics associated with care received for stages I to III breast cancer in a multistate region of Appalachia. J Oncol Pract 11(1):e9–e18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Thompson CA, Gomez SL, Chan A, Chan JK, McClellan SR, Chung S, Olson C, Nimbal V, Palaniappan LP (2014) Patient and provider characteristics associated with colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening among Asian Americans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 23(11):2208–2217

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hershman DL, Buono D, McBride RB, Tsai WY, Neugut AI (2009) Influence of private practice setting and physician characteristics on the use of breast cancer adjuvant chemotherapy for elderly women. Cancer 115(17):3848–3857

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Ayanian JZ, Guadagnoli E (1996) Variations in breast cancer treatment by patient and provider characteristics. Breast Cancer Res Treat 40(1):65–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. McLaughlin JM, Balkrishnan R, Paskett ED, Kimmick GG, Anderson RT (2009) Patient and provider determinants associated with the prescription of adjuvant hormonal therapies following a diagnosis of breast cancer in Medicaid-enrolled patients. J Natl Med Assoc 101(11):1112–1118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Overview of the SEER program. http://seer.cancer.gov/about/overview.html. Accessed 17 Apr 2015

  22. Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF (2002) Overview of the SEER-medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care 40(8 Suppl):IV-3-18

  23. Klabunde CN, Potosky AL, Legler JM, Warren JL (2000) Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data. J Clin Epidemiol 53(12):1258–1267

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Mattera JA, Wang Y, Han LF, Ingber MJ, Roman S, Normand SL (2006) An administrative claims model suitable for profiling hospital performance based on 30-day mortality rates among patients with heart failure. Circulation 113(13):1693–1701

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. O’Brien RM (2007) A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual Quan 41:673–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Harrell FE Jr (2001) Multivariable modeling strategies. In: Harrell FE (ed) Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. Springer, New York, pp 53–85

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim C, McEwen LN, Gerzoff RB, Marrero DG, Mangione CM, Selby JV, Herman WH (2005) Is physician gender associated with the quality of diabetes care? Diabetes Care 28(7):1594–1598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tsugawa Y, Jena AB, Figueroa JF, Orav EJ, Blumenthal DM, Jha AK (2017) Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates for medicare patients treated by male vs female physicians. JAMA Intern Med 177(2):206–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Berthold HK, Gouni-Berthold I, Bestehorn KP, Böhm M, Krone W (2008) Physician gender is associated with the quality of type 2 diabetes care. J Intern Med 264(4):340–350

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Baumhäkel M, Müller U, Böhm M (2009) Influence of gender of physicians and patients on guideline-recommended treatment of chronic heart failure in a cross-sectional study. Eur J Heart Fail 11(3):299–303

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Frank E, Harvey LK (1996) Prevention advice rates of women and men physicians. Arch Fam Med 5(4):215–219

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Franks P, Clancy CM (1993) Physician gender bias in clinical decision making: screening for cancer in primary care. Med Care 31(3):213–218

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lurie N, Slater J, McGovern P, Ekstrum J, Quam L, Margolis K (1993) Preventive care for women. Does the sex of the physician matter? N Engl J Med 329(7):478–482

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Bertakis KD, Helms LJ, Callahan EJ, Azari R, Robbins JA (1995) The influence of gender on physician practice style. Med Care 33(4):407–416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Roter DL, Hall JA (2004) Physician gender and patient-centered communication: a critical review of empirical research. Annu Rev Public Health 25:497–519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Roberts MC, Bryson A, Weinberger M, Dusetzina SB, Dinan MA, Reeder-Hayes K, Wheeler SB (2016) Oncologists’ barriers and facilitators for oncotype DX use: qualitative study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 32(5):355–361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Jefferson L, Bloor K, Birks Y, Hewitt C, Bland M (2013) Effect of physicians’ gender on communication and consultation length: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy 18(4):242–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Henderson JT, Weisman CS (2001) Physician gender effects on preventive screening and counseling: an analysis of male and female patients’ health care experiences. Med Care 39(12):1281–1292

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Choudhry NK, Fletcher RH, Soumerai SB (2005) Systematic review: the relationship between clinical experience and quality of health care. Ann Intern Med 142(4):260–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Patel MR, Chen AY, Roe MT, Ohman EM, Newby LK, Harrington RA, Smith SC Jr, Gibler WB, Calvin JE, Peterson ED (2007) A comparison of acute coronary syndrome care at academic and nonacademic hospitals. Am J Med 120(10):40–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Veenstra CM, Epstein AJ, Liao K, Griggs JJ, Pollack CE, Armstrong K (2015) Hospital academic status and value of care for nonmetastatic colon cancer. J Oncol Pract 11(3):e304–e312

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Ayanian JZ, Weissman JS (2002) Teaching hospitals and quality of care: a review of the literature. Milbank Q 80(3):569–593

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Taylor DH Jr, Whellan DJ (1999) Sloan FA (1999) Effects of admission to a teaching hospital on the cost and quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries. N Engl J Med 340(4):293–299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Department of Health and Human Services (Grant R00HS022189). Erin Campbell, MS, and Damon M. Seils, MA, Duke University, provided editorial assistance and prepared the manuscript. They did not receive compensation for their assistance apart from their employment at the institution where the study was conducted. The authors acknowledge the efforts of the Applied Research Program, National Cancer Institute; the Office of Research, Development and Information, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; Information Management Services, Inc; and the SEER Program tumor registries in the creation of the SEER-Medicare database.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Erwin Square Suite 720A, Box 104023, Durham, NC, 27705, USA

    Lauren E. Wilson, Melissa A. Greiner & Michaela A. Dinan

  2. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MA, USA

    Craig Evan Pollack

Authors
  1. Lauren E. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Craig Evan Pollack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melissa A. Greiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michaela A. Dinan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren E. Wilson.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The institutional review board of the Duke University Health System approved the study.

Additional information

Data availability

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 554 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilson, L.E., Pollack, C.E., Greiner, M.A. et al. Association between physician characteristics and the use of 21-gene recurrence score genomic testing among Medicare beneficiaries with early-stage breast cancer, 2008–2011. Breast Cancer Res Treat 170, 361–371 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4746-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4746-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation