Brooks, John M.

6542 Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) and postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) are used in the treatment of resected NSCLC to reduce risk of relapse, but guideline-based recommendations for these treatment modalities have varied over time. ACT is now recommended for stage II-IIIA NSCLC following resection based on phase III trial results which, starting in 2003, showed improved survival. Conversely PORT recommendations have been rescinded due largely to a 1998 Lancet meta-analysis. In this study we explore the rates of these two adjuvant treatment modalities across areas over time. Methods: Using SEER-Medicare data we identified 18,410 patients diagnosed 1992-2007 with resected NSCLC. Adjuvant treatment was defined as the first treatment received within 4 months of surgery. The study period was divided into 3 eras: 1992-1998, 1999-2003, and 2004-2007. Area treatment rates were calculated using the 50 patients closest to each zip code, adjusting for patient and area characteristics. Areas were then ranked and divided into quintiles. Percent differences were calculated to measure the variation between the highest and lowest quintiles. Results: Between 1992-1998 when the results of the phase III ACT trials were still unknown and utilization of ACT was low, areas with the highest treatment rates were 35 times more likely than areas with the lowest rates to administer ACT. After 2003 ACT use increased swiftly and geographic variation fell. In contrast, PORT utilization rates have declined and become more geographically dispersed since 1998. Receiving no adjuvant treatment was highest between 1999-2003, after the Lancet PORT meta-analysis and before the major ACT trials. Conclusions: NSCLC adjuvant treatment has been shifting from PORT to ACT. The positive results of the ACT trials and publication of treatment guidelines have increased usage and reduced geographic variation in ACT use. Geographic variation in PORT use however has increased over time, although overall usage has decreased. [Table: see text]

Background: Young age and contact sports have been postulated as risk factors for anterior shoulder instability. Management after shoulder instability is controversial, with studies suggesting that nonoperative management increases the risk of recurrence. Several studies examined return to play after an in-season instability episode, and few followed these patients to determine if they were able to successfully compete in a subsequent season. No study has evaluated this question in a high school athlete population. Purpose: To compare the likelihood of return to scholastic sport and complete the next full season without an additional time-loss injury among athletes with anterior shoulder instability in terms of treatment, instability type, and sport classification. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2 Methods: Athletes were included in this study as identified by a scholastic athletic trainer as experiencing a traumatic time-loss anterior shoulder instability injury related to school-sponsored participation. The cohort was predominantly male (n = 108, 84%) and consisted mostly of contact athletes (n = 101, 78%). All athletes had dislocation or subluxation diagnosed by a board-certified physician who determined the athlete’s course of care (nonoperative vs operative). Successful treatment was defined as completion of care and return to the athlete’s index sport, with full participation for the following season. Chi-square and relative risk analyses were completed to compare success of treatment (nonoperative vs operative care) and instability type. Separate logistic regressions were used to compare the effect of sex and sport classification on the athletes’ ability to return to sport. Statistical significance was set a priori as α = .05. Results: Scholastic athletes (N = 129) received nonoperative (n = 97) or operative (n = 32) care. Nonoperatively treated (85%) and operatively treated (72%) athletes successfully returned to the same sport without injury for at least 1 full season ( P = .11). Players sustaining a dislocation were significantly more likely to fail to return when compared with those sustaining a subluxation (26% vs 89%, P = .013). Sex ( P = .85) and sport classification ( P = .74) did not influence the athlete’s ability to return to sport, regardless of treatment type. Conclusion: A high percentage of athletes with shoulder instability achieved successful return to sport without missing any additional time for shoulder injury. Those with subluxations were at almost 3 times the odds of a successful return compared with those sustaining a dislocation.

Background: Movement toward a value-based health-care system necessitates the development of performance measures to compare physicians, hospitals, and health-care systems. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a potential metric. However, valid use of PROs hinges on the ability to risk-adjust for baseline patient differences across a surgeon’s panel of patients. The purpose of this study was to propose an approach for baseline risk adjustment and evaluate the importance of risk adjustment when comparing surgeons’ performance of rotator cuff repair. Methods: Patients (n = 995) treated with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair by 34 surgeons from 2010 to 2017 were identified from a large sports medicine clinical data registry. A linear regression model was used to adjust for baseline PROs, patient demographics, and clinical characteristics to predict American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) change scores for each surgeon. A risk-adjusted performance measure was calculated as the difference between the average unadjusted ASES change scores and the risk-adjusted predicted ASES change scores across all patients treated by a surgeon. Results: The differences between unadjusted and risk-adjusted performance scores varied widely across surgeons (range, −13.8 to 10.3 ASES points). Use of the risk-adjusted performance scores resulted in a dramatic change in the relative ranking of surgeons, compared with the ranking based on the observed ASES change scores, with 31 of the 34 surgeons’ rank changing following risk adjustment. On average, the observed ASES scores improved from 49.5 ± 17.5 at baseline to 78.0 ± 22.5 at 6 months across all surgeons. In the risk-adjustment model (R 2 = 0.44), male sex, Workers’ Compensation status, higher scores on the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12), lower baseline ASES scores, fair and poor tendon quality, and night pain all had a significant effect on the predicted ASES change scores (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Our results show wide variation of nearly 25 points in the risk-adjusted 6-month ASES performance difference from the highest to the lowest-performing surgeons. Additionally, 91% of surgeons’ rank changed following risk adjustment. This suggests that performance measurement that does not account for baseline patient characteristics would likely result in incorrect conclusions about a surgeon’s relative performance based on PROs. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Atraumatic rotator cuff tear is a common orthopaedic complaint for people >60 years of age. Lack of evidence or consensus on appropriate treatment for this type of injury creates the potential for substantial discretion in treatment decisions. To our knowledge, no study has assessed the implications of this discretion on treatment patterns across the United States. Methods: All Medicare beneficiaries in the United States with a new magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-confirmed atraumatic rotator cuff tear were identified with use of 2010 to 2012 Medicare administrative data and were categorized according to initial treatment (surgery, physical therapy, or watchful waiting). Treatment was modeled as a function of the clinical and demographic characteristics of each patient. Variation in treatment rates across hospital referral regions and the presence of area treatment signatures, representing the extent that treatment rates varied across hospital referral regions after controlling for patient characteristics, were assessed. Correlations between measures of area treatment signatures and measures of physician access in hospital referral regions were examined. Results: Among patients who were identified as having a new, symptomatic, MRI-confirmed atraumatic rotator cuff tear (n = 32,203), 19.8% were managed with initial surgery; 41.3%, with initial physical therapy; and 38.8%, with watchful waiting. Patients who were older, had more comorbidity, or were female, of non-white race, or dual-eligible for Medicaid were less likely to receive surgery (p < 0.0001). Black, dual-eligible females had 0.42-times (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.50) lower odds of surgery and 2.36-times (95% CI, 2.02 to 2.70) greater odds of watchful waiting. Covariate-adjusted odds of surgery varied dramatically across hospital referral regions; unadjusted surgery and physical therapy rates varied from 0% to 73% and from 6% to 74%, respectively. On average, patients in high-surgery areas were 62% more likely to receive surgery than the average patient with identical measured characteristics, and patients in low-surgery areas were half as likely to receive surgery than the average comparable patient. The supply of orthopaedic surgeons and the supply of physical therapists were associated with greater use of initial surgery and physical therapy, respectively. Conclusions: Patient characteristics had a significant influence on treatment for atraumatic rotator cuff tear but did not explain the wide-ranging variation in treatment rates across areas. Local-area physician supply and specialty mix were correlated with treatment, independent of the patient’s measured characteristics.