A Statewide Intervention to Reduce Use of Unproven or Ineffective Breast Cancer Care
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02831439|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : July 13, 2016
Last Update Posted : January 22, 2020
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Breast Cancer||Behavioral: Basic public reporting Behavioral: Enhanced intervention Behavioral: Control group - observational||Not Applicable|
Challenged by public opinion, peers and the Congressional Budget Office, a number of specialty societies have recently begun to develop "Top Five" lists of relatively expensive procedures that do not provide meaningful benefit to at least some categories of patients for whom they are commonly ordered. The Choosing Wisely® campaign is the most visible example. The extent to which the development of these lists has influenced the behavior of physicians or patients, however, remains unknown.
In this study, investigators partner with the Wisconsin Collaborative for Healthcare Quality (WCHQ), a statewide consortium of hospitals, medical practices and health systems, to examine the effectiveness of two organizational interventions in reducing unproven or ineffective breast cancer care. Two interventions will be tested: (a) A "basic" public reporting intervention which summarizes on a public website practice-level statistics regarding use of targeted ineffective or unproven interventions for breast cancer and (ii) an "enhanced" intervention, augmenting public reporting with a smart phone-based application (App) that gives providers just-in-time information, decision-making tools, and personalized patient education materials that support reductions in the use of breast cancer interventions targeted based upon Choosing Wisely® or national oncology society guidelines. Specifically, the aims are: (1) To examine whether basic public reporting reduces use of targeted breast cancer practices among a contemporary cohort of patients with incident breast cancer in the intervention state relative to usual care in comparison states, using Marketscan and Medicare claims data while adjusting for possible confounders and temporal trends; (2) To examine the effectiveness of the enhanced intervention relative to the basic intervention; and (3) To simulate cost savings forthcoming from nationwide implementation of both interventions (relative to each other and to usual care) and to describe the implications of these findings for reimbursement policy and program initiatives.
The results will provide rigorous evidence regarding the effectiveness of a unique all-payer, all-age public reporting system for influencing provider behavior that may be easily exportable to other states. Findings will be further relevant to the ACO environment, which is expected to provide financial disincentives for providing ineffective or unproven care.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||400415 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Single Group Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Primary Purpose:||Health Services Research|
|Official Title:||A Statewide Intervention to Reduce Use of Unproven or Ineffective Breast Cancer Care|
|Study Start Date :||September 2014|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||December 2019|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||December 2019|
Participating health systems in Wisconsin. Interventions include: Basic public reporting and the enhanced intervention (app)
Behavioral: Basic public reporting
The basic intervention will comprise public reporting through the WCHQ website. Individual-level, claims data submitted for billing to third party payers by participating healthsystems will be used to (i) identify cohorts of women with incident breast cancer at the practice-level and (ii) construct the metrics for public reporting and individual benchmarking information. These data are consistent with Medicare and Marketscan claims in both format and content thereby ensuring seamless application of the validated algorithm as well as construction of outcome variables as proposed in Aims 1 and 2 of the study.
Behavioral: Enhanced intervention
The enhanced intervention adds an app comprising a decision tool, patient education and communication information that will be delivering concise, readily accessible information about the main components of the intervention. Specifically, physicians in participating practices will be provided a smartphone-based, point-of-care application that will include i) a list of the unproven/ineffective interventions with statements about a) scientifically proven appropriate use; b) proven or suspected downsides to inappropriate use; ii) clinical calculators that allow physician to input individual patients' clinical/tumor characteristics for each test; iii) practice-specific summary of publicly reported results; and iv) printable patient information adapted from the ASCO Choosing Wisely website.
Health systems in comparison states. Control includes: Cost savings comparison
Behavioral: Control group - observational
Comparison states will be used to evaluate the interventions in light of possible secular trends in the region and the nation. The design strategy will enable estimates of the effectiveness of the basic intervention (Aim 1) by comparing (i) the pre-intervention rates to post-intervention rates as well as by comparing (ii) changes between the pre- and post-intervention periods for the "treatment" state (WI) relative to comparison states, neighboring states and others. A similar approach will be used in Part II to provide estimates of the enhanced intervention's impact relative to the basic intervention and contemporary usual care provided in control states, thereby enabling the cost-savings analyses proposed as part of Aim 3.
Other Name: Control group
- Percentage of Women who received Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) after Breast Conserving Surgery (defined as CPT 77418, 77385, 77386). [ Time Frame: Date of surgery plus 180 days ]The American Society for Radiation Oncology's Choosing Wisely® list recommends against performing IMRT, a 3-dimensional technique that has not been demonstrated to provide a significant clinical advantage over the standard 2-dimensional technique for whole breast radiation therapy after breast conserving surgery.
- Percent of Women had a CPM [ Time Frame: Date of ipsilateral mastectomy surgery plus 1 day. Excluded from denominator if had any genetic predisposition counseling, testing, or family history codes within 180-days prior to surgery. ](CPT 19303 OR 19304 w/mod 50; OR ICD-9 85.35 OR 85.36 OR 85.42; OR two claims within 1 day with ICD-9 85.33 OR 85.34 OR 85.41 OR 85.43 OR 85.45 OR 85.47, EXCLUDING two 85.45 OR two 85.47 OR (85.45 AND 85.47); OR conditions (a) AND (b) The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the Society of Surgical Oncology indicate that there are no proven survival benefits to performing a Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy (CPM: removal of the unaffected breast). Despite the lack of survival benefit, this procedure may be considered appropriate in cases where there is high risk of cancer occurring in the unaffected breast and/or radiographic surveillance of the unaffected breast would be difficult. Such factors may include genetic predisposition to breast cancer, strong family history of breast cancer, high-risk histology (atypical hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ), prior radiation treatment to the chest, and dense breast tissue.
- Percentage of Women who received Tumor Biomarker Blood Testing for Surveillance (defined as CPT 82378 (CEA); 86300 (CA 15-3) [ Time Frame: From 181 days post-date of surgery up to 4 years ]The American Society of Clinical Oncology's Choosing Wisely® list recommends against performing tumor biomarker blood tests (CA 15-3, CA 27.29, CEA) for breast cancer surveillance in asymptomatic women who have been treated with curative intent. Tumor markers may be indicated if there is concern for disease recurrence (development of symptoms or abnormal imaging findings).
- Percentage of Women who received PET Scan or PET-CT Scan for Surveillance (defined as CPT 78811-78816; HCPCS G0235, G0252, S8085) [ Time Frame: From 181 days post-date of surgery up to 4 years ]The American Society of Clinical Oncology's Choosing Wisely® list recommends against performing a positron emission tomography (PET) scan or a positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) scan for routine breast cancer surveillance in asymptomatic patients who have been treated with curative intent, citing their unproven effectiveness in improving survival. PET/PET-CT scan may be indicated if there is concern for disease recurrence (development of symptoms or lab abnormalities) or to follow-up a prior abnormal PET/PET-CT scan finding.
- Percentage of Women who received CT Scan for Surveillance (defined as CPT 71250, 71260, 71270, 72192-72194, 74150, 74160, 74170, 74176-74178) [ Time Frame: From 181 days post-date of surgery up to 4 years ]The American Society of Clinical Oncology's Choosing Wisely® list recommends against performing a computerized tomography (CT or CAT) scan of the chest, abdomen or pelvis for routine breast cancer surveillance in asymptomatic patients who have been treated with curative intent, citing their unproven effectiveness in improving survival. CT scan may be indicated if there is concern for disease recurrence (development of symptoms or lab abnormalities) or to follow-up a prior abnormal CT scan finding.
- Percentage of Women who received Bone Scan for Surveillance (defined as CPT 78306) [ Time Frame: From 181 days post-date of surgery up to 4 years ]The American Society of Clinical Oncology's Choosing Wisely® list recommends against performing a bone scan for routine breast cancer surveillance in asymptomatic patients who have been treated with curative intent, citing their unproven effectiveness in improving survival. Bone scan may be indicated if there is concern for disease recurrence (development of symptoms or lab abnormalities) or to follow-up a prior abnormal bone scan finding.
- Percentage of Women who received Breast MRI for Surveillance (defined as CPT 77058, 77059; HCPCS C8903-8908) [ Time Frame: From 181 days post-date of surgery up to 4 years ]The American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Cancer Society and the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommend against performing a breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for routine breast cancer surveillance in asymptomatic patients who have been treated with curative intent, citing their unproven effectiveness in improving survival. Breast MRI is currently recommended only for women at very high risk for developing another breast cancer, such as BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, history of chest wall radiation therapy and women with a 20% or greater lifetime risk of developing another breast cancer. Breast MRI may be considered in patients with very dense breasts or a strong family history of breast cancer. Breast MRI may also be indicated for follow-up of a prior abnormal breast MRI finding.
- Percentage of Women who received Follow-Up Mammograms More Frequently than Annually for Patients Treated with Breast Conserving Surgery & Radiotherapy (defined as CPT 77051, 77052, 77055-77057, 77061-77063 HCPCS G0202, G0204, G0206, G0279) [ Time Frame: From 365 days post-surgery to 730 days post-surgery ]The American Society for Radiation Oncology's Choosing Wisely® list recommends against performing routine follow-up mammograms more frequently than annually in asymptomatic patients treated with breast conserving surgery and radiotherapy, citing no clear advantage to shorter interval imaging.
- Secondary costs associated with breast cancer care [ Time Frame: From date of initial diagnosis up to 24 months ]Direct medical care costs for the initial diagnosis and evaluation, initial treatment as well as any neoadjuvant, adjuvant and surveillance care received during the first 24 months post-diagnosis will be calculated using Marketscan and Medicare claims data.
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02831439
|United States, Wisconsin|
|Medical College of Wisconsin|
|Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States, 53226|
|Principal Investigator:||Ann Nattinger, MD, MPH||Medical College of Wisconsin|