Background: Evaluation of appropriateness of laboratory tests on the basis of individual requests remains a serious problem as the clinical question is usually not reported with the test order. This study explored the comparison of the rate of tumor marker orders with cancer prevalence as a putative indicator of inappropriateness.
Methods: Tumor marker orders (2011 and 2012) were obtained from the Ministry of Health and cancer prevalence from the Italian Association of Cancer Registries. The rate of tumor marker orders was matched with demographic data and tumor prevalence and examined by using the confidence interval approach. Region-to-region and year-to-year variations were also examined. Focus was placed on CEA, CA125, CA19.9 and CA15.3.
Results:Tumor markers ordered in Italy were 13,207,289 in 2012 (221.3/1000 individuals). Given an estimated prevalence of 2,243,953 cancer cases, 7.04 tumor markers appear to be requested for each prevalent case of epithelial cancer per year. The rate of requests of CEA, CA125, CA19.9 and CA15.3 (in aggregate 5,834,167 requests in 2012, 44.2% of total) from the first and the last ranked region (96 and 244/1000 individuals) are significantly different (p<0.01). Region-to-region differences do not correspond to any known variation of prevalence in the different regions.
Conclusions: The developed approach provides a proxy indicator of inappropriateness showing that tumor markers are overused in Italy and their ordering pattern is not related to tumor prevalence. The model is suitable to be validated in other laboratory tests used in diseases whose prevalence is known.
We wish to thank the Ministry of Health, New National Health IT System (Direzione generale della digitazione, del sistema informativo sanitario e della statistica – Elaborazione a cura dell’Ufficio III – NSIS, flusso di specialistica ambulatoriale – Art. 50 della legge n.326/2009) for allowing us to use the requested biomarker data. We would like to thank the Interregional Biomarkers Working Group – IBWG instituted by the Health Commission of the Italian Permanent Conference for relations between state, regions and autonomous provinces of Trento and Bolzano (Gruppo Tecnico Interregionale “Miglioramento della Pratica Clinica per l’Utilizzo dei Biomarcatori in Oncologia”, Commissione Salute – Conferenza Permanente per i rapporti tra Stato, Regioni e Province Autonome di Trento e Bolzano). In particular, we would like to thank the IBWG members for their important contributions in discussing rough preliminary data: Antonino Iaria (Regional Representative for Calabria); Vincenzo Montesarchio (Regional Representative for Campania); Tommaso Trenti (Regional Representative for Emilia-Romagna); Laura Conti (Regional Representative for Lazio); Luigina Bonelli, and Gabriella Paoli (Regional Representatives for Liguria); Mario Cassani (Regional Representative for Lombardia); Lucia Di Furia (Regional Representative for Marche); Emiliano Aroasio (Regional Representative for Piemonte); Mario Brandi (Regional Representative for Puglia); Marcello Ciaccio, and Antonio Russo (Regional Representatives for Sicilia); Gianni Amunni (Regional Representative for Toscana); Emanuela Toffalori (Representative for Autonomous Province of Trento); Basilio Ubaldo Passamonti (Regional Representative for Umbria); Claudio Pilerci, and Francesca Russo (Regional Representatives for Veneto); Annarosa Del Mistro (Istituto Oncologico Veneto IOV – IRCCS, Veneto Region); Massimo Gion (Coordinator); Aline S.C. Fabricio, and Chiara Trevisiol (Scientific Secretariat of the Regional Center for Biomarkers); and Ornella Scattolin (Organizing Secretariat of the Regional Center for Biomarkers). We would also like to thank Candice Fulgenzi for editorial assistance in the manuscript preparation.
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: None declared.
1. Smellie WS. Demand management and test request rationalization. Ann Clin Biochem 2012;49:323–36. Search in Google Scholar
2. Fryer AA, Hanna FW. Managing demand for pathology tests: financial imperative or duty of care? Ann Clin Biochem 2009;46:435–7. Search in Google Scholar
3. Moynihan R, Doust J, Henry D. Preventing overdiagnosis: how to stop harming the healthy. Br Med J 2012;344:e3502. Search in Google Scholar
4. Welch G, Schwartz L, Woloshin S. Overdiagnosed: making people sick in pursuit of health. Boston: Beacon Press, 2011. Search in Google Scholar
5. van Walraven C, Naylor CD. Toward optimal laboratory use. Do we know what inappropriate laboratory utilization is? A systematic review of laboratory clinical audits. J Am Med Assoc 1998;280:550–8. Search in Google Scholar
6. Zhi M, Ding EL, Theisen-Toupal J, Whelan J, Arnaout R. The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15-year meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013;8:e78962. Search in Google Scholar
7. Hauser RG, Shirts BH. Do we now know what inappropriate laboratory utilization is? An expanded systematic review of laboratory clinical audits. Am J Clin Pathol 2014;141:774–83. Search in Google Scholar
8. Fryer AA, Smellie WS. Managing demand for laboratory tests: a laboratory toolkit. J Clin Pathol 2013;66:62–72. Search in Google Scholar
9. Janssens PM. Managing the demand for laboratory testing: options and opportunities. Clin Chim Acta 2010;411: 1596–602. Search in Google Scholar
10. Salinas M, López-Garrigós M, Uris J, Leiva-Salinas C; Appropriate Utilization of Laboratory Tests (REDCONLAB) working group. A study of the differences in the request of glycated hemoglobin in primary care in Spain: a global, significant, and potentially dangerous under-request. Clin Biochem 2014;47:1104–7. Search in Google Scholar
11. Sood R, Sood A, Ghosh AK. Non-evidence-based variables affecting physicians’ test-ordering tendencies: a systematic review. Neth J Med 2007;65:167–77. Search in Google Scholar
12. Solomon DH, Hashimoto H, Daltroy L, Liang MH. Techniques to improve physicians’ use of diagnostic tests: a new conceptual framework. J Am Med Assoc 1998;280:2020–7. Search in Google Scholar
13. Bunting PS, Van Walraven C. Effect of a controlled feedback intervention on laboratory test ordering by community physicians. Clin Chem 2004;50:321–6. Search in Google Scholar
14. Bell DS, Harless CE, Higa JK, Bjork EL, Bjork RA, Bazargan M, et al. Knowledge retention after an online tutorial: a randomized educational experiment among resident physicians. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:1164–71. Search in Google Scholar
15. Baird G. The laboratory test utilization management toolbox. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2014;24:223–34. Search in Google Scholar
16. Salinas M, López-Garrigós M, Asencio A, Leiva-Salinas M, Lugo J, Leiva-Salinas C. Laboratory utilization improvement through a computer-aided algorithm developed with general practitioners. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;53:1391–7. Search in Google Scholar
17. Gion M, Franceschini R, Rosin C, Trevisiol C, Peloso L, Zappa M, et al. An epidemiology-based model to estimate the rate of inappropriateness of tumor marker requests. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:889–97. Search in Google Scholar
18. World Health Organization. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems, Tenth revision. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO), 1992. Search in Google Scholar
19. AIRTUM working group. Italian cancer figures, report 2010: cancer prevalence in Italy; Patients living with cancer, long-term survivors and cured patients. Epidemiol Prev 2010;34(Suppl):S1–188. Search in Google Scholar
20. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Management of epithelial ovarian cancer. A national clinical guideline. Edinburgh: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), 2013. Search in Google Scholar
21. Khatcheressian JL, Hurley P, Bantug E, Esserman LJ, Grunfeld E, Halberg F, et al. Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:961–5. Search in Google Scholar
22. National Collaborating Centre for Cancer. Early and locally advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and treatment. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), 2009. Search in Google Scholar
23. Ruddy KJ, Winer EP. Male breast cancer: risk factors, biology, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Ann Oncol 2013;24:1434–43. Search in Google Scholar
24. Jewell NP. Statistics for epidemiology. New York: Chapman & Hall, 2003. Search in Google Scholar
25. Wickham H. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer, 2009. Search in Google Scholar
26. Meyerhardt JA, Mangu PB, Flynn PJ, Korde L, Loprinzi CL, Minsky BD, et al. Follow-up care, surveillance protocol, and secondary prevention measures for survivors of colorectal cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31:4465–70. Search in Google Scholar
27. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Colorectal cancer. The diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), 2011. Search in Google Scholar
28. Locker GY, Hamilton S, Harris J, Jessup JM, Kemeny N, Macdonald JS, et al. ASCO 2006 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in gastrointestinal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:5313–27. Search in Google Scholar
29. Alexander B. Reducing healthcare costs through appropriate test utilization. Critical Values 2012;5:6–8. Search in Google Scholar
30. Kwok J, Jones B. Unnecessary repeat requesting of tests: an audit in a government hospital immunology laboratory. J Clin Pathol 2005;58:457–62. Search in Google Scholar
31. Salinas M, López-Garrigós M, Díaz J, Ortuño M, Yago M, Laíz B, et al. Regional variations in test requiring patterns of general practitioners in Spain. Ups J Med Sci 2011;116:247–51. Search in Google Scholar
32. Mogyorosy Z, Mogyorosy G. Practice pattern and geographic variation in test ordering: a literature review. Orv Hetil 2006;147:25–31. Search in Google Scholar
33. Larsson A, Palmer M, Hulten G, Tryding N. Large differences in laboratory utilisation between hospitals in Sweden. Clin Chem Lab Med 2000;38:383–9. Search in Google Scholar
34. Ukoumunne OC, Gulliford MC, Chinn S, Sterne JA, Burney PG, Donner A. Methods in health service research. Evaluation of health interventions at area and organisation level. Br Med J 1999;319:376–9. Search in Google Scholar
The online version of this article (DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2015-0329) offers supplementary material, available to authorized users.
©2016 by De Gruyter