ArticleJCO oncology practice2020
Evaluating the Impact of Oncology Care Model Reporting Requirements on Biomarker Testing and Treatment.
Article in JCO oncology practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies for improving biomarker testing rates in non-small cell lung cancer in north America: a scoping review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Review
- Empowering precision medicine: regenerative AI in breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Defining comprehensive biomarker-related testing and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of a survey of U.S. oncologists.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Oncology Care Model (OCM) is Medicare's first alternative payment model program for patients with cancer. As of October 2017, participating practices were required to report biomarker testing of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). Our objective was to evaluate the effect of this OCM reporting requirement on quality of care.
methodsWe selected patients with aNSCLC receiving care in practices in a nationwide de-identified electronic health record-derived database. We used an adjusted difference-in-differences (DID) logistic regression model to compare changes in biomarker testing rates (EGFR, ROS1, and ALK) and receipt of biomarker-guided therapy between patients in OCM versus non-OCM practices, before and after OCM implementation.
resultsThe analysis included 14,048 patients from 45 OCM practices (n = 8,151) and 105 non-OCM practices (n = 5,897). The overall unadjusted rates for biomarker testing and receipt of biomarker-guided therapy increased over the study period (2011-2018) in both OCM (55.5%
conclusionOCM biomarker documentation and reporting requirements did not appear to increase the proportions of patients with aNSCLC who underwent testing or who received biomarker-guided therapy in OCM versus non-OCM practices.
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.