Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36375114›Full record

ArticleJCO oncology practice2023

Clinical Impact of ASCO Choosing Wisely Guidelines on Staging Imaging for Early-Stage Breast Cancers: A Time Series Analysis Using SEER-Medicare Data.

Alan P Baltz, Eric R Siegel, Arif H Kamal, Robert Siegel, Mary May Kozlik, Stéphanie T S Crist, Issam Makhoul, ASCO Quality Publications Task Force

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO oncology practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the management decisions of breast cancer board on early-stage breast cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Alan P BaltzDepartment of Internal Medicine, CARTI, Little Rock, AK.ORCID 0000-0002-5245-4798
Eric R SiegelDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR.ORCID 0000-0001-9824-6612
Arif H KamalDuke University, Durham, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0002-5235-9395
Robert SiegelBon Secours St Francis Cancer Center, Greenville, SC.ORCID 0000-0001-9837-9730
Mary May KozlikAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA.ORCID 0000-0002-0109-4366
Stéphanie T S CristAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA.
Issam MakhoulDepartment of Internal Medicine, CARTI, Little Rock, AK.ORCID 0000-0001-8646-5658
ASCO Quality Publications Task Force

Funding

Expanding Translational Research in ArkansasUL1TR003107 · NCATS · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI JAMES, LAURA P · 2019 to 2023
$21.6M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003107
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAmerican Society for Clinical Oncology released the Choosing Wisely list in 2012, highlighting low-value procedures that lack evidence, advising against the use of positron emission tomography, computerized tomography, and radionuclide bone scans for the staging of early-stage breast cancer at low risk for metastasis. The objective of the study was to assess the impact of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Choosing Wisely guidelines on inappropriate staging imaging among early-stage breast cancers.

methodsThe Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program-Medicare data set was used to identify 50,004 women age 66 years and older with new incident diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer (stage 0 through stage 2a; T < 4, N = 0, and M = 0). The primary outcome was the incidence of patients with inappropriate imaging following an early-stage breast cancer diagnosis. The primary outcome was identified within 6 months of the first diagnosis. An interrupted time series analysis using negative binomial regression was performed for outpatient claims for these diagnostic studies versus the two interruptions of guidelines release and guidelines reinforcement. Mean images per patient, percent change for the study period, and rate of change per year were calculated.

resultsImaging rates fell by a modest 2.32% following guidelines release in April 2012 (point estimate = -2.32%; 95% CI, -6.34% to 1.88%). By contrast, imaging rates fell by a four-fold larger amount (point estimate = -9.36%; 95% CI, -13.20% to -5.35%) following guidelines published reminders in journals (or reinforcement) in October 2013. Mean imaging studies per patient (95% CI) declined from 1.80 (1.76 to 1.84) in January 2012 to 1.50 (1.48 to 1.53) by January 2015, representing a 16% decline in imaging overuse in 2015 compared with 3 years earlier. The rate of change (95% CI) in images per patient was initially small at -0.47% (-4.27% to 3.33%) per year between April 2012 and October 2013, but almost eight times faster at -3.70% (-5.81% to -1.60%) per year after October 2013.

conclusionThis analysis demonstrates a substantial decrease in the prevalence of imaging overuse in early-stage breast cancers correlating with the 2013 reinforcement of American Society of Clinical Oncology's 2012 Choosing Wisely guidelines. The creation and dissemination of such resources serves as a powerful tool to improve clinical practice, cost-effectiveness, and patient safety from secondary malignancies, anxiety, and overdiagnosis.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsAgedFemaleHumansMedicarePositron-Emission TomographyTime FactorsTomography, X-Ray ComputedUnited States

Identifiers

PMID36375114
PMCPMC9970287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.