ArticleThe oncologist2020
Use of High-Cost Cancer Treatments in Academic and Nonacademic Practice.
Article in The oncologist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- How often do oncologists receive industry payments from competing companies?The oncologist · 2026Article
- Provider billing margin and cancer treatment selection: population based cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Use of Low-Value Cancer Treatments in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025Article
- Catchment area and cancer population health research through a novel population-based statewide database: a scoping review.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Article
- Commercial Versus Medicaid Insurance and Use of High-Priced Anticancer Treatments.The oncologist · 2024Article
- Article
- Cardio-Oncology Care Delivered in the Non-academic Environment.Current treatment options in oncology · 2022Review
- Real-World Use of Bone-Modifying Agents in Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Article
- Navigating Ethical Practices in the Era of High Cost Hematology.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcademic physicians, such as those affiliated with National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, may have different practice patterns regarding the use of high-cost cancer drugs than nonacademic physicians. MATERIALS AND
methodsFor this cohort study, we linked cancer registry, administrative, and demographic data for patients with newly diagnosed cancer in North Carolina from 2004 to 2011. We selected cancer types with multiple U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved, National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended treatment options and large differences in reimbursement between higher-priced and lower-priced options (stage IV colorectal, stage IV lung, and stage II-IV head-and-neck cancers). We assessed whether provider's practice setting-NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center ("NCI") versus other location ("non-NCI")-was associated with use of higher-cost treatment options. We used inverse probability of exposure weighting to control for patient characteristics.
resultsOf 800 eligible patients, 79.6% were treated in non-NCI settings. Patients treated in non-NCI settings were more likely to receive high-cost treatment than patients treated in NCI settings (36.0% vs. 23.2%), with an unadjusted prevalence difference of 12.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1%-20.0%). After controlling for potential confounding factors, non-NCI patients remained more likely to receive high-cost treatment, although the strength of association was attenuated (adjusted prevalence difference, 9.6%; 95% CI -0.1%-18.7%). Exploratory analyses suggested potential heterogeneity across cancer type and insurance status.
conclusionUse of higher-cost cancer treatments may be more common in non-NCI than NCI settings. This may reflect differential implementation of clinical evidence, local practice variation, or possibly a response to the reimbursement incentives presented by chemotherapy billing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncology care delivery and practice patterns may vary between care settings. By comparing otherwise similar patients treated in National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers with those treated elsewhere, this study suggests that patients may be more likely to receive treatment with certain expensive cancer drugs if treated in the non-NCI setting. These practice differences may result in differences in patient costs and outcomes as a result of where they receive treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.