4.7 Article

Timeliness and Quality of Diagnostic Care for Medicare Recipients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

期刊

CANCER
卷 117, 期 7, 页码 1470-1477

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25655

关键词

chronic lymphocytic leukemia; diagnosis; outcomes; flow cytometry; SEER-Medicare

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [R25 CA 057711-12]
  2. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta GA [200-2002-00, 575]
  3. National Institute of Health [R00 NR01570]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the patterns of care relating to the diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), including the use of modern diagnostic techniques such as flow cytometry. METHODS: The authors used the SEER-Medicare database to identify subjects diagnosed with CLL from 1992 to 2002 and defined diagnostic delay as present when the number of days between the first claim for a CLL-associated sign or symptom and SEER diagnosis date met or exceeded the median for the sample. The authors then used logistic regression to estimate the likelihood of delay and Cox regression to examine survival. RESULTS: For the 5086 patients analyzed, the median time between sign or symptom and CLL diagnosis was 63 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 0-251). Predictors of delay included age >= 75 (OR 1.45 [1.27-1.65]), female gender (OR 1.22 [1.07-1.39]), urban residence (OR 1.46 [1.19 to 1.79]), >= 1 comorbidities (OR 2.83 [2.45-3.28]) and care in a teaching hospital (OR 1.20 [1.05-1.38]). Delayed diagnosis was not associated with survival (HR 1.11 [0.99-1.25]), but receipt of flow cytometry within thirty days before or after diagnosis was (HR 0.84 [0.76-0.91]). CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic characteristics affect diagnostic delay for CLL, although delay does not seem to impact mortality. In contrast, receipt of flow cytometry near the time of diagnosis is associated with improved survival. Cancer 2011; 117: 1470-7. (C) 2010 American Cancer Society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据