Publications

BACKGROUND

Overuse, the provision of health services for which harms outweigh the benefits, results in suboptimal patient care and may contribute to the rising costs of cancer care. We performed a systematic review of the evidence on overuse in oncology.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS databases, and 2 grey literature sources, for articles published between December 1, 2011 and March 10, 2017. We included publications from December 2011 to evaluate the literature since the inception of the ABIM Foundation's Choosing Wisely initiative in 2012. We included original research articles quantifying overuse of any medical service in patients with a cancer diagnosis when utilizing an acceptable standard to define care appropriateness, excluding studies of cancer screening. One of 4 investigator reviewed titles and abstracts and 2 of 4 reviewed each full-text article and extracted data. Methodology used PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

We identified 59 articles measuring overuse of 154 services related to imaging, procedures, and therapeutics in cancer management. The majority of studies addressed adult or geriatric patients (98%) and focused on US populations (76%); the most studied services were diagnostic imaging in low-risk prostate and breast cancer. Few studies evaluated active cancer therapeutics or interventions aimed at reducing overuse. Rates of overuse varied widely among services and among studies of the same service.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recent attention to overuse in cancer, evidence identifying areas of overuse remains limited. Broader investigation, including assessment of active cancer treatment, is critical for identifying improvement targets to optimize value in cancer care.

BACKGROUND

The Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE) and Get With The Guidelines (GWTG) registries have developed simple heart failure (HF) in-hospital mortality risk scores. We hypothesized that HF scores predictive of in-hospital mortality would perform as well for early postdischarge mortality risk stratification.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this single-center, community-based, retrospective study of all consecutive primary HF hospitalizations (6203 hospitalizations in 3745 patients) from 2000 to 2013, the ADHERE and GWTG risk scores were calculated from admission data. There were 176 (3.0%) and 399 (6.7%), 869 (14.7%), and 1272 (21.5%) deaths in-hospital and at 30, 90, and 180 days postdischarge, respectively. The GWTG but not ADHERE risk score was well calibrated for in-hospital mortality. Both the ADHERE (C statistic 0.66 and 0.67, 0.64, and 0.64) and GWTG (C statistic 0.74 and 0.73, 0.71, and 0.70) HF risk scores were similarly predictive of in-hospital and 30-, 90-, and 180-day postdischarge mortality. The ADHERE risk score identified 10% and the GWTG risk score identified 20% of hospitalizations where 180-day postdischarge mortality was 50%, a prognostic bench mark for hospice referral. In contrast, hospitalizations characterized as lowest risk by the ADHERE (57% of hospitalizations; 180-day mortality 16.2%) or GWTG score (20% of hospitalizations; 180-day mortality 8.0%) had substantially lower mortality (odds ratios high versus low risk of 5-8 [ADHERE] and 11-18 [GWTG] across time points; <0.0001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

The simple ADHERE and GWTG scores stratify hospitalized HF patients for both inpatient and early postdischarge mortality risk, allowing comprehensive risk assessment on admission.