Search

The diffusion of genomic testing is critical to the success of precision medicine, but there is limited information on oncologists’ uptake of genetic technology. We aimed to assess the frequency with which medical oncologists and surgeons order BRCA 1/2 and Oncotype DX testing for breast cancer patients. We surveyed 732 oncologists and surgeons treating breast cancer patients. Physicians were from Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and were listed in the 2010 AMA Masterfile or identified by patients. 80.6% of providers ordered BRCA 1/2 testing at least sometimes and 85.4% ordered Oncotype DX (p = 0.01). More frequent ordering of BRCA 1/2 was associated with more positive attitudes toward genetic innovation (OR 1.14, p = 0.001), a belief that testing was likely to be covered by patients’ insurance (OR 2.84, p

Background Bundled payment programs play an increasingly important role in transforming reimbursement for oncologic care. We assessed determinants of oncologists’ willingness to participate in bundled payment programs for breast cancer. We hypothesized that providers would be more likely to participate in bundled payment programs if offered higher levels of reimbursement for each episode of care. Methods Oncologists from Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania were identified in the AMA database or by patients listed in state cancer registries. Providers were randomized to receive one of four versions of a survey describing bundled payment programs offering different levels of compensation for the first year of localized breast cancer treatment ($5000, $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000). Physicians rated their likelihood of participation in a bundled program on a Likert scale. Logistic regression was used to analyze determinants of likelihood of participation in bundling. Results Among 460 respondents, only 17% of oncologists were highly likely to participate in a bundled program paying $5000 for the first year of care, rising to 41% for the $15,000 program, but falling to 34% for the $20,000 program. Likelihood of participation was higher among oncologists who were male, older, and believed that cancer patients should not be offered high-cost drugs with minimal survival benefit. Conclusion Our results suggest that medical oncologists have limited enthusiasm for bundled payments, and higher payments may not overcome resistance to bundling among a substantial proportion of physicians.

Background To assess mentorship experiences among the faculty of a large academic department of medicine and to examine how those experiences relate to academic advancement and job satisfaction. Methods Among faculty members in the Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Medicine, we assessed personal and professional characteristics as well as job satisfaction and examined their relationship with two mentorship dimensions: (1) currently have a mentor and (2) role as a mentor. We also developed a mentorship quality score and examined the relationship of each mentorship variable to academic advancement and job satisfaction. Results 553/988 (56.0%) of eligible participants responded. 64.9% reported currently having a mentor, of whom 21.3% provided their mentor a low quality score; 66.6% reported serving as a mentor to others. Faculty with a current mentor had a 3.50-fold increased odds of serving as a mentor to others (OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.84–6.67, p

This study examines the distribution of health outcomes research (HOR) studies in the clinical literature by clinical areas and journal impact factor. The authors reviewed 535 journals and divided the sample into higher and lower impact journals across four clinical area. Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to examine differences across four categories of outcomes research articles published, specifically the incidence of articles in higher versus lower impact journals and differences across clinical areas. All high-impact journals published more safety and quality articles than process assessment, quality of life, or cost analysis studies. The number of each type of outcomes research study published was highly variable across all clinical areas. Only arthritis and outcomes research journals showed statistically significant differences between higher versus lower impact journals. Authors may benefit from considering these differences in their clinical specialty area when deciding where to submit HOR studies.

Background: The goal of this study was to determine the self-reported breast cancer screening practices of American plastic surgeons and the degree to which those practices adhere to the American Cancer Society guidelines. An independent analysis of subgroups divided by gender, years in practice, and practice setting was performed and the implications of the results are discussed. Methods: The authors conducted an online survey of the members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Questions assessed practice composition, American Cancer Society guideline familiarity, and preoperative breast cancer screening in patients seeking aesthetic breast surgery. Responses were summarized, subgroup comparisons were made, and logistic regression was used to determine predictors of physician practices. Results: The 1066 respondents were predominantly male (82 percent) and consisted largely of private practitioners (73 percent). In total, 47 percent appeared to follow the American Cancer Society guidelines, while 64 percent claimed familiarity. Being male predicted more accurate guideline knowledge, but being female resulted in more aggressive screening and possibly more diagnoses. Number of years in practice and familiarity with the American Cancer Society guidelines also resulted in more perioperative diagnoses. Conclusions: Knowledge of the American Cancer Society guidelines is an essential component of effective cancer screening, but only two-thirds of plastic surgeons claim familiarity with them, and fewer than half report concordant practices. As plastic surgeons who often perform surgical procedures on the breast in women with no history of breast disease, we have an obligation to understand and apply consistent, reliable breast cancer screening practices to ensure the well-being of our patients.

Growing use of complementary and alternative supplements (CAS) is of concern because of the potential for herb—drug interaction among cardiovascular patients. Literary searches were conducted on PubMed to identify reports of extent and purpose of CAS use, disclosure of use by patients, physician knowledge, and possible drug—CAS interactions for cardiovascular patients. Additional published studies were located through the Web sites of various organizations. Further searches of case reports, case series, controlled trials, and laboratory evidence were performed for each of the top 10 CAS and their possible cardiovascular drug interactions. More research is needed to understand supplement—drug interactions, particularly in terms of how this potentially affects patients taking cardiovascular drugs. With this lack of research and clarity on supplement—dug interactions and the underreporting of CAS use by many patients, physician education is also in need of improvement.

Introduction Mammography screening results in a significant number of false-positives. The use of pretest breast cancer risk factors to guide follow-up of abnormal mammograms could improve the positive predictive value of screening. We evaluated the use of the Gail model, body mass index (BMI), and genetic markers to predict cancer diagnosis among women with abnormal mammograms. We also examined the extent to which pretest risk factors could reclassify women without cancer below the biopsy threshold. Methods We recruited a prospective cohort of women referred for biopsy with abnormal (BI-RADS 4) mammograms according to the American College of Radiology’s Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Breast cancer risk factors were assessed prior to biopsy. A validated panel of 12 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer were measured. Logistic regression was used to assess the association of Gail risk factors, BMI and SNPs with cancer diagnosis (invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ). Model discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The distribution of predicted probabilities of a cancer diagnosis were compared for women with or without breast cancer. Results In the multivariate model, age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03 to 1.08; P

Purpose Results of a survey regarding shortages of injectable oncology drugs in U.S. hospitals and health systems are presented. Methods An online survey was sent to all members of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists self-identified as directors of pharmacy. Survey participants provided information on the extent to which their facilities were affected by oncology drug shortages, strategies for responding to shortages, and the effects of shortages on costs, patient safety, and outcomes. Results Ninety-eight percent of the 358 survey respondents reported at least one drug shortage during the previous 12 months, with 70% reporting instances of an inadequate supply to treat patients and 63% reporting that their facility had completely run out of at least one injectable oncology drug. Sixty-two percent of respondents reported using alternative drug regimens due to shortages; 46% reported drug dosage changes, 43% reported treatment delays, and 21% reported patient referrals to or from other facilities as a result of shortages. Survey respondents indicated the use of various strategies to manage oncology drug shortages (e.g., increasing inventories of certain drugs, identifying alternatives and substitution protocols, altered purchasing practices), all of which have led to cost increases. Twenty-five percent of respondents reported safety events resulting from oncology drug shortages. Only 40% of respondents agreed that currently available information is useful in mitigating the effects of shortages. Conclusion Shortages of injectable oncology drugs appear to be widespread and to be having a significant impact on patient care. Currently available information about shortages does not meet administrative or clinical needs.

Controversy continues about screening mammography, in part because of the risk of false-negative and false-positive mammograms. Pre-test breast cancer risk factors may improve the positive and negative predictive value of screening.To create a model that estimates the potential impact of pre-test risk prediction using clinical and genomic information on the reclassification of women with abnormal mammograms (BI-RADS3 and BI-RADS4 [Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System]) above and below the threshold for breast biopsy.The current study modeled 1-year breast cancer risk in women with abnormal screening mammograms using existing data on breast cancer risk factors, 12 validated breast cancer single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and probability of cancer given the BI-RADS category. Examination was made of reclassification of women above and below biopsy thresholds of 1%, 2%, and 3% risk. The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data were collected from 1996 to 2002. Data analysis was conducted in 2010 and 2011.Using a biopsy risk threshold of 2% and the standard risk factor model, 5% of women with a BI-RADS3 mammogram had a risk above the threshold, and 3% of women with BI-RADS4A mammograms had a risk below the threshold. The addition of 12 SNPs in the model resulted in 8% of women with a BI-RADS3 mammogram above the threshold for biopsy and 7% of women with BI-RADS4A mammograms below the threshold.The incorporation of pre-test breast cancer risk factors could change biopsy decisions for a small proportion of women with abnormal mammograms. The greatest impact comes from standard breast cancer risk factors.

Awards given to medical school faculty are one important mechanism for recognizing what is valued in academic medicine. There have been concerns expressed about the gender distribution of awards, and there is also a growing appreciation for the evolving accomplishments and talents that define academic excellence in the 21st century and that should be considered worthy of award recognition.Examine faculty awards at our institution for gender equity and evolving values.Recipient data were collected on awards from 1996 to 2007 inclusively at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine (SOM). Descriptions of each award also were collected. The female-to-male ratio of award recipients over the time span was reviewed for changes and trends. The title and text of each award announcement were reviewed to determine if the award represented a traditional or a newer concept of excellence in academic medicine.There were 21 annual awards given to a total of 59 clinical award recipients, 60 research award recipients, and 154 teaching award recipients. Women received 28% of research awards, 29% of teaching awards and 10% of clinical awards. Gender distribution of total awards was similar to that of SOM full-time faculty except in the clinical awards category. Only one award reflected a shift in the culture of individual achievement to one of collaboration and team performance.Examining both the recipients and content of awards is important to assure they reflect the current composition of diverse faculty and the evolving ideals of leadership and excellence in academic medicine.

There exists a growing consensus that career flexibility is critical to recruiting and retaining talented faculty, especially women faculty. This study was designed to determine both accessibility and content of work-life policies for faculty at leading medical schools in the United States.The sample includes the top ten medical schools in the United States published by U.S. News and World Report in August 2006. We followed a standardized protocol to collect seven work-life policies at each school: maternity leave, paternity leave, adoption leave, extension of the probationary period for family responsibilities, part-time faculty appointments, job sharing, and child care. A review of information provided on school websites was followed by e-mail or phone contact if needed. A rating system of 0-3 (low to high flexibility) developed by the authors was applied to these policies. Rating reflected flexibility and existing opinions in published literature.Policies were often difficult to access. Individual scores ranged from 7 to 15 out of a possible 21 points. Extension of the probationary period received the highest cumulative score across schools, and job sharing received the lowest cumulative score. For each policy, there were important differences among schools.Work-life policies showed considerable variation across schools. Policy information is difficult to access, often requiring multiple sources. Institutions that develop flexible work-life policies that are widely promoted, implemented, monitored, and reassessed are likely at an advantage in attracting and retaining faculty while advancing institutional excellence.