Interinstitutional variation in management decisions for treatment of 4 common types of cancer: A multi-institutional cohort study
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 27, 2026
Irradiator Commissioning and Dosimetry for Assessment of LQ α and β Parameters, Radiation Dosing Schema, and in vivo Dose Deposition
Published on: March 11, 2021
Background:
When clinical practice is governed by evidence-based guidelines and there is consensus about their validity, practice variation should be minimal. For areas in which evidence gaps exist, greater variation is expected.
Objective:
To systematically assess interinstitutional variation in management decisions for 4 common types of cancer.
Design:
Multi-institutional, observational cohort study of patients with cancer diagnosed between July 2006 through May 2011 and observed through 31 December 2011.
Setting:
18 cancer centers participating in the formulation of treatment guidelines and systematic outcomes assessment through the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
Patients:
25 589 patients with incident breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Measurements:
Interinstitutional variation for 171 binary management decisions with varying levels of supporting evidence. For each decision, variation was characterized by the median absolute deviation of the center-specific proportions.
Results:
Interinstitutional variation was high (median absolute deviation >10%) for 35 of 171 (20%) oncology management decisions, including 9 of 22 (41%) decisions for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 16 of 76 (21%) for breast cancer, 7 of 47 (15%) for lung cancer, and 3 of 26 (12%) for colorectal cancer. Forty-six percent of high-variance decisions involved imaging or diagnostic procedures and 37% involved choice of chemotherapy regimen. The evidence grade underpinning the 35 high-variance decisions was category 1 for 0%, 2A for 49%, and 2B/other for 51%.
Limitation:
Physician identifiers were unavailable, and results may not generalize outside of major cancer centers.
Conclusion:
The substantial variation in institutional practice manifest among cancer centers reveals a lack of consensus about optimal management for common clinical scenarios. For clinicians, awareness of management decisions with high variation should prompt attention to patient preferences. For health systems, high variation can be used to prioritize comparative effectiveness research, patient-provider education, or pathway development.
Primary Funding Source:
National Cancer Institute and National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
Related Concept Videos
02:49Cancer Therapies
However, cancer treatments can pose several challenges, as therapies used to kill cancer cells are generally also toxic to normal cells. Moreover, cancer cells mutate rapidly and can develop resistance to chemical agents or radiation therapy. Besides, all types of cancer cells may not respond to the same therapy. Some cancer cells respond to one...
02:49Cancer Therapies
02:50Combination Therapies and Personalized Medicine
The combination of the drug acetazolamide and sulforaphane is a good example of combination therapy to treat cancer. The cells in the interior of a large tumor often die due to the hypoxic and...
02:50Combination Therapies and Personalized Medicine
01:27Nursing Ethical Principles II
Consider the following scenario, which illustrates how these principles are applied in the care of Mr. John, a fifty-year-old teacher diagnosed with metastatic liver cancer.
Initially, Mr. John's...
01:21Cancer Survival Analysis