Travel-time barriers to specialized cancer care for adolescents and young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies demonstrate that 20%-50% of adolescents and young adults (age 15-39 years) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) receive care at specialty cancer centers, yet a survival benefit has been observed for patients at these sites. Our objective was to identify patients at risk of severe geographic barriers to specialty cancer center-level care. METHODS: We used data from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries Cancer in North America database to identify adolescent and young adult ALL patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2016 across 43 US states. We calculated driving distance and travel time from counties where participants lived to the closest specialty cancer center sites. We then used multivariable logistic regression models to examine the relationship between sociodemographic characteristics of counties where adolescent and young adult ALL patients resided and the need to travel more than 1 hour to obtain care at a specialty cancer center. RESULTS: Among 11 813 adolescent and young adult ALL patients, 43.4% were aged 25-39 years, 65.5% were male, 32.9% were Hispanic, and 28.7% had public insurance. We found 23.6% of adolescent and young adult ALL patients from 60.8% of included US counties would be required to travel more than 1 hour one way to access a specialty cancer center. Multivariable models demonstrate that patients living in counties that are nonmetropolitan, with lower levels of educational attainment, with higher income inequality, with lower internet access, located in primary care physician shortage areas, and with fewer hospitals providing chemotherapy services are more likely to travel more than 1 hour to access a specialty cancer center. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial travel-related barriers exist to accessing care at specialty cancer centers across the United States, particularly for patients living in areas with greater concentrations of historically marginalized communities.

Health Care Contact Days Among Older Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Health care contact days-days spent receiving health care outside the home-represent an intuitive, practical, and person-centered measure of time consumed by health care. METHODS: We linked 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and traditional Medicare claims data for community-dwelling older adults with a history of cancer. We identified contact days (ie, spent in a hospital, emergency department, skilled nursing facility, or inpatient hospice or receiving ambulatory care including an office visit, procedure, treatment, imaging, or test) and described patterns of total and ambulatory contact days. Using weighted Poisson regression models, we identified factors associated with contact days. RESULTS: We included 1,168 older adults representing 4.51 million cancer survivors (median age, 76.4 years, 52.8% women). The median (IQR) time from cancer diagnosis was 65 (27-126) months. In 2019, these adults had mean (standard deviation) total contact days of 28.4 (27.6) and ambulatory contact days of 24.2 (23.6). These included days for tests (8.0 [8.8]), imaging (3.6 [4.1]), visits with any clinicians (12.4 [11.5]), and visits with primary care clinicians (4.4 [4.7]), and nononcology specialists (7.1 [9.4]) specifically. Sixty-four percent of days with a nonvisit ambulatory service (eg, a test) were not on the same day as a clinician visit. Factors associated with more total contact days included younger age, lower income, more chronic conditions, poor self-rated health, and tendency to "go to doctor as soon as feel bad." CONCLUSION: Older adult cancer survivors spent nearly 1 month of the year receiving health care outside the home. This care was largely ambulatory, often delivered by nononcologists, and varied by factors beyond clinical characteristics. These results highlight the need to recognize patient burdens and improve survivorship care delivery, including through care coordination.

HPV vaccination coverage for pediatric, adolescent and young adult patients receiving care in a childhood cancer survivor program.

Pediatric, adolescent and young adult patients undergoing cancer treatment and/or hematopoietic stem cell transplant are at increased risk for developing a secondary human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated malignancy. The objective of this study was to determine HPV vaccination coverage among individuals participating in a childhood cancer survivor program (CCSP). A retrospective cohort study was conducted among CCSP patients age 11-26 years attending a CCSP visit between 2014 and 2019. Survivors were age-, sex-, and race-matched 1:2 with controls without cancer. Data were abstracted from the electronic health record and state-based vaccination registry. Analysis was limited to Minnesota residents to minimize missing vaccination data. Survivorship care plans (SCPs) were reviewed for vaccine recommendations. 592 patients were included in the analyses (200 CCSP patients; 392 controls). By study design, mean age (18.4 years), race (72 % white), and sex (49 % female) were similar in the two groups. Among CCSP patients 22 % resided in a rural area compared to 3.8 % of controls. Vaccination coverage among CCSP patients was not statistically significantly different from controls [60.0 % vs 66.3 %, OR = 0.82, 95 % CI: (0.55, 1.23), p = 0.35]. Completion of 3 doses was not different between groups even though 3 doses is recommended for all CCSP patients regardless of age at initiation (28.5 % vs 30.1 %, p = 0.09). Only 8.0 % of SCPs recommended HPV vaccination. Although patients participating in a CCSP did not have significantly different HPV vaccination coverage compared to controls, HPV vaccination initiation and 3-dose series completion are still suboptimal in a patient population at high-risk of a secondary HPV-associated cancer.

Financial Burden of Drugs Prescribed for Cancer-Associated Symptoms.

PURPOSE: The financial toxicity of anticancer drugs is well-documented, but little is known about the costs of drugs used to manage cancer-associated symptoms. METHODS: We reviewed relevant guidelines and compiled drugs used to manage seven cancer-associated symptoms (anorexia and cachexia, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, constipation, diarrhea, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, cancer-associated fatigue, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting). Using GoodRx website, we identified the retail price (cash price at retail pharmacies) and lowest price (discounted, best-case scenario of out-of-pocket costs) for patients without insurance for each drug or formulation for a typical fill. We describe lowest prices here. RESULTS: For anorexia and cachexia, costs ranged from $5 US dollars (USD; generic olanzapine or mirtazapine tablets) to $1,156 USD (brand-name dronabinol solution) and varied widely by formulation of the same drug or dosage: for olanzapine 5 mg, $5 USD (generic tablet) to $239 USD (brand-name orally disintegrating tablet). For chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, costs of duloxetine varied from $12 USD (generic) to $529 USD (brand-name). For constipation, the cost of sennosides or polyethylene glycol was <$15 USD, whereas newer agents such as methylnaltrexone were expensive ($1,001 USD). For diarrhea, the cost of generic loperamide or diphenoxylate-atropine tablets was <$15 USD. For exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, only brand-name formulations were available, range of cost, $1,072 USD-$1,514 USD. For cancer-associated fatigue, the cost of generic dexamethasone or dexmethylphenidate was <$15 USD, whereas brand-name modafinil was more costly ($1,284 USD). For a 4-drug nausea and vomiting prophylaxis regimen, costs ranged from $181 USD to $1,430 USD. CONCLUSION: We highlight the high costs of many symptom control drugs and the wide variation in the costs of these drugs. These findings can guide patient-clinician discussions about cost-effectively managing symptoms, while promoting the use of less expensive formulations when possible.

Major cancer surgery in the elderly: results from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between older age and short-term outcomes after major oncologic resections. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The effect of older age on outcomes from major cancer surgery remains conflicting because of limitations in measuring coexisting comorbidities. Given the critical role of surgery, older patients and their surgeons often question decisions regarding major cancer surgery. METHODS: We identified 8781 patients who underwent elective or emergent major thoracic, abdominal, or pelvic resections for neoplasms in the 2005 to 2007 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Pre, intra-, and postoperative characteristics were compared by age groups. Multivariable techniques were used to predict adjusted short-term operative outcomes. RESULTS: Older patients were more likely to have preoperative comorbidities and to receive intraoperative blood transfusions, but at the same time have shorter operative times. Increased age was also associated with higher operative mortality (4.83% for >or=75 years vs. 1.09% for ages 40-55 years), a greater frequency of major complications, and more prolonged hospital stays-all of which persisted after multivariable adjustments. Despite its strong association with 30-day operative mortality, the impact of older age was comparable to other preoperative risk-factors predictive of short-term operative outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The present study, which is one of the largest multihospital studies, showed that older age is independently associated with worse short-term outcomes after major oncologic resections. However, the effect of age was not prohibitively worse, and is comparable to the effects of other preoperative risk factors. These findings support the use of risk-based treatment decision-making in older patients.

Realizing transformational change through quality improvement in public health.

OBJECTIVE: This article discusses the specific components necessary to achieve transformational change within public health departments as a means for creating sustained performance improvement and better outcomes in the health of the community. DESIGN: This article provides a review of transformation change concepts and application to public health departments. RESULTS: Transformational change for public health departments must be intentionally designed to achieve high performance. While all improvement requires change, not all change results in improvement. CONCLUSION: The successful transformational change effort always occurs from the top-down, while the process improvement occurs from the bottom-up. Transformational change is possible in public health departments when small incremental improvements are linked with large-scale management changes to continually improve public health performance resulting in better population outcomes.