Historic Clinical Trial External Control Arm Provides Actionable GEN-1 Efficacy Estimate Before a Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To inform continued development of the novel immune agent GEN-1, we compared ovarian cancer patients' end points from a neoadjuvant single-arm phase IB study with those of similar historic clinical trial (HCT) patients who received standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Applying OVATION-1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02480374) inclusion and exclusion criteria to Medidata HCT data, we identified historical trial patients for comparison. Integrating patient-level Medidata historic trial data (N = 41) from distinct neoadjuvant ovarian phase I-III trials with patient-level OVATION-1 data (N = 18), we selected Medidata patients with similar baseline characteristics as OVATION-1 patients using propensity score methods to create an external control arm (ECA). RESULTS: Fifteen OVATION-1 patients (15 of 18, 83%) were matched to 15 (37%, 15 of 41) Medidata historical trial control patients. Matching attenuated preexisting differences in attributes between the groups. The median progression-free survival time was not reached by the OVATION-1 group and was 15.8 months (interquartile range, 11.40 months to nonestimable) for the ECA. The hazard of progression was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.16 to 1.73), favoring GEN-1 patients. Compared with ECA patients, OVATION-1 patients had more nausea, fatigue, chills, and infusion-related reactions. CONCLUSION: Comparing results of a single-arm early-phase trial to those of a rigorously matched HCT ECA yielded insights regarding comparative efficacy prior to a randomized controlled trial. The effect size estimate itself informed both the decision to continue development and the randomized phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03393884) sample size. The work illustrates the potential of HCT data to inform drug development.

Associations Between Amplification (1q) and Prior Cancer in a Real-World De Novo Myeloma Cohort.

Genomic biomarkers inform treatment in multiple myeloma (MM), making patient clinical data a potential window into MM biology. We evaluated de novo MM patients for associations between specific MM cytogenetic patterns and prior cancer history. Analyzing a MM real-world dataset, we identified a cohort of 1769 patients with fluorescent in situ hybridization cytogenetic testing at diagnosis. Of the patients, 241 (0.14) had histories of prior cancer(s). Amplification of the long arm of chromosome 1 [amp(1q)] varied by prior cancer history (0.31 with prior cancer vs 0.24 without; 2-sided P = .02). No other MM translocations, amplifications, or deletions were associated with prior cancers. Amp(1q) and cancer history remained strongly associated in a logistic regression adjusting for patient demographic and disease attributes. The results merit follow-up regarding carcinogenic treatment effects and screening strategies for second malignancies. Broadly, the findings suggest that analyses of patient-level phenotypic-genomic real-world dataset may accelerate cancer research through hypothesis-generating studies.

Medicare Beneficiaries With Advanced Lung Cancer Experience Diverse Patterns Of Care From Diagnosis To Death.

Characterizations of average end-of-life care for people with cancer can obscure important differences in patients' experiences. Using Medicare claims data for 14,257 patients diagnosed with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in the period 1995-2009, we used latent class analysis to identify classes of people with different care patterns. We characterized care trajectories from diagnosis to death using time spent in five care settings-home, hospital inpatient unit (acute), hospital intensive care unit (ICU), postacute skilled nursing facility, and hospice-and transitions across these settings. We identified four classes of patients: 66 percent spent the time primarily at home, 11 percent were primarily in hospice, 17 percent were largely in an acute setting, and 6 percent were largely in an ICU. Patients in these classes differed significantly in terms of baseline clinical characteristics, survival length, time spent in hospice, site of death, and spending. The findings show substantial heterogeneity in patterns of care for patients with advanced cancer, which should be accounted for in efforts to improve end-of-life care.

Survival and Toxicity After Cisplatin Plus Etoposide Versus Carboplatin Plus Etoposide for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Elderly Patients.

PURPOSE: Elderly patients with cancer are under-represented in clinical trials and risk greater toxicity from chemotherapy. These patients and their physicians need better evidence to decide among guideline-recommended regimens. We test whether patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES SCLC) have noninferior survival and less hospital-based health care after carboplatin/etoposide compared with cisplatin/etoposide. METHODS: We analyzed SEER-Medicare data for beneficiaries with ES SCLC diagnosed at age 67 years and older between 1995 and 2009. Among patients treated with first-line chemotherapy in the ambulatory setting, 831 received cisplatin/etoposide and 2,846 received carboplatin/etoposide. Propensity score matching (2:1 ratio) yielded 778 cisplatin/etoposide and 1,502 carboplatin/etoposide patients. RESULTS: Survival was nearly identical in the two groups: 35.7 weeks for cisplatin/etoposide and 35.9 weeks for carboplatin/etoposide. The hazard ratio of 1 (95% CI, 0.91 to 1.09) excluded our prespecified threshold, indicating noninferiority. Mortality at 6 months was indistinguishable: 35% for cisplatin/etoposide and 34% for carboplatin/etoposide. After carboplatin/etoposide, patients were less likely to be admitted to a hospital (80% v 86%, P < .001) and had fewer hospitalizations (median 1 v 2, odds ratio 0.76, 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.9), ED visits (median 1 v 2, odds ratio 0.82, 95% CI, 0.7 to 0.96), and ICU stays (median 0 v 0, odds ratio 0.82, 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99). CONCLUSION: First-line carboplatin/etoposide is associated with similar survival and less subsequent hospital-based health care use than cisplatin/etoposide among elderly patients with ES SCLC treated in ambulatory settings.

Trends in the Treatment of Metastatic Colon and Rectal Cancer in Elderly Patients.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the use and costs of antineoplastic regimens for elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We report population-based trends over a 10-year period in the treatment, survival, and costs in mCRC patients, stratified by ages 65-74 and 75+. METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data for persons diagnosed with metastatic colon (N=16117) or rectal cancer (N=4008) between 2000 and 2009. We estimated the adjusted percent of patients who received antineoplastic agents, by type, number, and their costs 12 months following diagnosis. We report the percent of patients who received 3 or more of commonly prescribed agents and estimate survival for the 24-month period following diagnosis by age and treatment. RESULTS: The percentage that received 3 or more agents increased from 3% to 73% in colon patients aged 65-74 and from 2% to 53% in patients 75+. Similar increases were observed in rectal patients. Average 1-year costs per patient in 2009 were $106,461 and $102,680 for colon and rectal cancers, respectively, reflecting an increase of 32% and 20%, for patients who received antineoplastic agents. Median survival increased by about 6 and 10 months, respectively, for colon and rectal patients aged 65-74 who received antineoplastic agents, but an improvement of only 1 month of median survival was observed for patients 75+. CONCLUSIONS: Expensive multiple agent regimens are increasingly used in older mCRC patients. For patients aged 64-75 years, these treatments may be associated with several months of additional life, but patients aged 75+ may incur considerable expense without any survival benefit.

Comparing a medical records-based and a claims-based index for measuring comorbidity in patients with lung or colon cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Ascertaining comorbid conditions in cancer patients is important for research and clinical quality measurement, and is particularly important for understanding care and outcomes for older patients and those with multi-morbidity. We compared the medical records-based ACE-27 index and the claims-based Charlson index in predicting receipt of therapy and survival for lung and colon cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We calculated the Charlson index using administrative data and the ACE-27 score using medical records for Veterans Affairs patients diagnosed with stage I/II non-small cell lung or stage III colon cancer from January 2003 to December 2004. We compared the proportion of patients identified by each index as having any comorbidity. We used multivariable logistic regression to ascertain the predictive power of each index regarding delivery of guideline-recommended therapies and two-year survival, comparing the c-statistic and the Akaike information criterion (AIC). RESULTS: Overall, 97.2% of lung and 90.9% of colon cancer patients had any comorbidity according to the ACE-27 index, versus 59.5% and 49.7%, respectively, according to the Charlson. Multivariable models including the ACE-27 index outperformed Charlson-based models when assessing receipt of guideline-recommended therapies, with higher c-statistics and lower AICs. Neither index was clearly superior in prediction of two-year survival. CONCLUSIONS: The ACE-27 index measured using medical records captured more comorbidity and outperformed the Charlson index measured using administrative data for predicting receipt of guideline-recommended therapies, demonstrating the potential value of more detailed comorbidity data. However, the two indices had relatively similar performance when predicting survival.

Generalizability of trial results to elderly Medicare patients with advanced solid tumors (Alliance 70802).

BACKGROUND: In the United States, patients who enroll in chemotherapy trials seldom reflect the attributes of the general population with cancer, as they are often younger, more functional, and have less comorbidity. We compared survival following three chemotherapy regimens according to the setting in which care was delivered (ie, clinical trial vs usual care) to determine the generalizability of clinical trial results to unselected elderly Medicare patients. METHODS: Using SEER-Medicare data, we estimated survival for elderly patients (ie, age 65 years or older, n = 14097) with advanced pancreatic or lung cancer following receipt of one of three guideline-recommended first-line chemotherapy regimens. We compared their survival to that of similarly treated clinical trial enrollees, without age restrictions, with the same diagnosis and stage (n = 937). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Trial patients were 9.5 years younger than elderly Medicare patients. Medicare patients were more often white and tended to live in areas of greater educational attainment than trial enrollees. For each tumor type, Medicare patients who were 75 years or older had median survivals that were six to eight weeks shorter than those of trial patients (4.3 vs 5.8 months following treatment with single agent gemcitabine for advanced pancreatic cancer, P = .03; 7.3 vs 8.9 months following treatment with carboplatin and paclitaxel for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer, P = .91; 8.2 vs 10.2 months following treatment with CDDP/ VP16 for extensive stage small cell lung cancer, P ≤ .01), whereas younger Medicare patients had survival times that were similar to those of trial patients. CONCLUSIONS: Results of clinical trials for advanced pancreatic cancer and lung cancers tended to correctly estimate survival for Medicare patients aged 65 to 74 years, but to overestimate survival for older Medicare patients by six to eight weeks. These estimates of Medicare patients' survival may aid subsequent patients and their oncologists in treatment decision-making.

Elderly breast and colorectal cancer patients' clinical course: patient and contextual influences.

BACKGROUND: The social and medical environments that surround people are each independently associated with their cancer course. The extent to which these characteristics may together mediate patients' cancer care and outcomes is not known. METHODS: Using multilevel methods and data, we studied elderly breast and colorectal cancer patients (level I) within urban social (level II: ZIP code tabulation area) and health care (level III: hospital service area) contexts. We sought to determine (1) which, if any, observable social and medical contextual attributes were associated with patient cancer outcomes after controlling for observable patient attributes, and (2) the magnitude of residual variation in patient cancer outcomes at each level. RESULTS: Numerous patient attributes and social area attributes, including poverty, were associated with unfavorable patient cancer outcomes across the full clinical cancer continuum for both cancers. Health care area attributes were not associated with patient cancer outcomes. After controlling for observable covariates at all 3 levels, there was substantial residual variation in patient cancer outcomes at all levels. CONCLUSIONS: After controlling for patient attributes known to confer risk of poor cancer outcomes, we find that neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage exerts an independent and deleterious effect on residents' cancer outcomes, but the area supply of the specific types of health care studied do not. Multilevel interventions targeted at cancer patients and their social areas may be useful. We also show substantial residual variation in patient outcomes across social and health care areas, a finding potentially relevant to traditional small area variation research methods.

Hospital-based health care use correlates with incidence of adverse events among elderly Medicare patients treated in adjuvant chemotherapy trials (Alliance 70802).

OBJECTIVE: Medicare claims can be useful in chemotherapy-related comparative effectiveness research (CER) estimating survival, but methods for estimating patients' treatment morbidity are currently lacking. We sought to determine if patients' health care use in the claims is a marker of treatment morbidity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 249 elderly Medicare patients with breast or colon cancer who were treated in two adjuvant clinical trials, we merged patients' National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTC AEs) trial data with their contemporaneous Medicare claims. We estimated associations of patients' grade ≥3 CTC AE counts and their use of two types of hospital-based health care in claims (i.e., emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations). RESULTS: ER visits and hospitalizations were significantly positively associated with grade ≥3 CTC AE counts incurred by patients during the study. Eight percent of patients without any grade ≥3 CTC AEs had one or more hospitalizations during the observation period compared to 43% of patients with three or more grade ≥3 CTC AEs (p<0.01). Those who were hospitalized at least once had more than three times the rate of grade ≥3 CTC AEs (IRR 3.70, 95% CI: 2.53-5.40) compared to those who were not. With each hospitalization, the daily incidence rate of any grade ≥3 CTC AE more than doubled (IRR 2.10, 95% CI: 1.54-2.86). CONCLUSIONS: Because hospitalization is strongly associated with clinically significant toxicity it may be a useful outcome for Medicare claim-based CER comparing treatment morbidity for elderly patients receiving different adjuvant chemotherapy regimens.

Sensitivity of Medicare claims data for measuring use of standard multiagent chemotherapy regimens.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the accuracy with which Medicare billing data documents elderly Medicare cancer patients' receipt of common multiagent chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: We merged gold-standard clinical trial data from 406 elderly cancer patients known to be treated on 1 of 6 Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) breast, colorectal, and lung cancer trials (trial numbers; 9344, 9730, 9235,9732, 80203, 89803) with their Medicare claims data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Comparing CMS chemotherapy codes to gold-standard CALGB treatment data, we estimated Medicare data's sensitivity at measuring the correct drugs and schedule for each of the multiagent chemotherapy regimens. RESULTS: Overall 92% (375/406) of CALGB patients had contemporaneous CMS claims indicating receipt of chemotherapy. The overall sensitivity of CMS ambulatory claims for documenting treatment with the correct drugs and on the correct schedule (ie, all drugs had to be billed on the same day) for the 5 common multiagent chemotherapy regimens was 78% (275/354) for those potentially treated in the ambulatory setting. The sensitivity was similar for all treatment regimens: carboplatin and paclitaxel 83%, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin 80%, fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) 76%, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide 75%, and cisplatin and etoposide 75%. CONCLUSIONS: We correctly identified at least 3-quarters of elderly Medicare cancer patients treated on a clinical trial with standard first-line multiagent chemotherapy regimens in the ambulatory setting by applying coding algorithms to their CMS claims. The algorithms may be useful in identifying cohorts of elderly Medicare patients for observational studies of the comparative effectiveness of standard multiagent chemotherapy regimens.

Rural residence and cancer outcomes in the United States: issues and challenges.

"Neighborhoods and health" research has shown that area social factors are associated with the health outcomes that patients with cancer experience across the cancer control continuum. To date, most of this research has been focused on the attributes of urban areas that are associated with residents' poor cancer outcomes with less focused on attributes of rural areas that may be associated with the same. Perhaps because there is not yet a consensus in the United States regarding how to define "rural," there is not yet an accepted analytic convention for studying issues of how patients' cancer outcomes may vary according to "rural" as a contextual attribute. The research that exists reports disparate findings and generally treats rural residence as a patient attribute rather than a contextual factor, making it difficult to understand what factors (e.g., unmeasured individual poverty, area social deprivation, area health care scarcity) may be mediating the poor outcomes associated with rural (or non-rural) residence. Here, we review literature regarding the potential importance of rural residence on cancer patients' outcomes in the United States with an eye towards identifying research conventions (i.e., spatial and analytic) that may be useful for future research in this important area.

Tumor boards and the quality of cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of tumor boards, few data on their effects on cancer care exist. We assessed whether the presence of a tumor board, either general or cancer specific, was associated with recommended cancer care, outcomes, or use in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health system. METHODS: We surveyed 138 VA medical centers about the presence of tumor boards and linked cancer registry and administrative data to assess receipt of stage-specific recommended care, survival, or use for patients with colorectal, lung, prostate, hematologic, and breast cancers diagnosed in the period from 2001 to 2004 and followed through 2005. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess associations of tumor boards with the measures, adjusting for patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Most facilities (75%) had at least one tumor board, and many had several cancer-specific tumor boards. Presence of a tumor board was associated with only seven of 27 measures assessed (all P < .05), and several associations were not in expected directions. Rates of some recommended care (eg, white blood cell growth factors with cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, vincristine, and prednisone in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) were lower in centers with hematologic-specialized tumor boards (39.4%) than in centers with general tumor boards (61.3%) or no tumor boards (56.4%; P = .002). Only one of 27 measures was statistically significantly associated with tumor boards after applying a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: We observed little association of multidisciplinary tumor boards with measures of use, quality, or survival. This may reflect no effect or an effect that varies by structural and functional components and participants' expertise.

Predictors of newly diagnosed cancer patients' understanding of the goals of their care at initiation of chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative endorses in their core measures that providers should discuss the goals of care (GOC) at the time of chemotherapy consent. GOC refers to chemotherapy treatment intent: cure versus noncure. In this study, the authors sought to determine whether attributes of patients and initial patient-physician encounters were associated with patients' understanding of their GOC. METHODS: In total, the authors surveyed 125 consecutive, newly diagnosed patients who were receiving chemotherapy for solid malignancies at a single academic cancer center and performed a medical record review for additional data. Patient understanding of their oncologist's GOC and oncologist's reported GOC were compared. The primary outcome was concordance of patient-physician dyads regarding the GOC (cure vs noncure). RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five of 137 of eligible patients (91%) completed the survey. Only 95 of 125 patient-physician pairs (75%) patient-physician pairs were concordant regarding the GOC. In a multivariable logistic regression, both older patients (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.57) and non-native English speakers had an almost 80% lower odds (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.93) of GOC concordance compared with younger patients and native English speakers. Patients who received printed chemotherapy information during the patient-physician consent process had almost 3 times greater odds (odds ratio, 2.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-6.68) of GOC concordance with their physician compared with those who did not receive materials. CONCLUSIONS: Patient misunderstanding of GOC was substantial, with 25% of cancer patients misunderstanding the goal of their chemotherapy treatment. Key predictors of GOC misunderstanding included factors that potentially were amenable to interventions at the time of chemotherapy consent.

Do socially deprived urban areas have lesser supplies of cancer care services?

PURPOSE: Area social deprivation is associated with unfavorable health outcomes of residents across the full clinical course of cancer from the stage at diagnosis through survival. We sought to determine whether area social factors are associated with the area health care supply. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied the area supply of health services required for the provision of guideline-recommended care for patients with breast cancer and colorectal cancer (CRC) in each of the following three distinct clinical domains: screening, treatment, and post-treatment surveillance. We characterized area social factors in 3,096 urban zip code tabulation areas by using Census Bureau data and the health care supply in the corresponding 465 hospital service areas by using American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, and US Food and Drug Administration data. In two-level hierarchical models, we assessed associations between social factors and the supply of health services across areas. RESULTS: We found no clear associations between area social factors and the supply of health services essential to the provision of guideline recommended breast cancer and CRC care in urban areas. The measures of health service included the supply of physicians who facilitate screening, treatment, and post-treatment care and the supply of facilities required for the same services. CONCLUSION: Because we found that the supply of types of health care required for the provision of guideline-recommended cancer care for patients with breast cancer and CRC did not vary with markers of area socioeconomic disadvantage, it is possible that previously reported unfavorable breast cancer and CRC outcomes among individuals living in impoverished areas may have occurred despite an apparent adequate area health care supply.

Most colorectal cancer survivors live a large proportion of their remaining life in good health.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis reduces life expectancy and decreases patients' well-being. We sought to assess the determinants of health and functional status and estimate the proportion of remaining life that CRC survivors would spend in good health. METHODS: Using Sullivan method, healthy life expectancy was calculated based on survival data of 14,849 CRC survivors within a population-based cancer registry in southern Netherlands and quality of life information among a random sample of these survivors (n = 1,291). RESULTS: Overall, albeit short life expectancy (LE at age 50 = 12 years for males and 13 years for females), most CRC survivors spent a large proportion of their remaining life in good health (74 and 77 %, for males and females, respectively). Long-term survivors may expect to live a normal life span (LE at age 50 = 30 years) and spent a large proportion of the remaining life in good health (78 %). In distinction, those with stage IV CRC had less than 2 years to live and spent more than half of their remaining life in poor health. CONCLUSIONS: Most CRC patients may expect no compromise on living a healthy life, underlining the importance of early detection. On the other hand, the high proportion of non-healthy years among stage IV CRC survivors confirms the importance of early detection and palliative care.

Area-level variations in cancer care and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: : Substantial regional variations in health-care spending exist across the United States; yet, care and outcomes are not better in higher-spending areas. Most studies have focused on care in fee-for-service Medicare; whether spillover effects exist in settings without financial incentives for more care is unknown. OBJECTIVE: : We studied care for cancer patients in fee-for-service Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration (VA) to understand whether processes and outcomes of care vary with area-level Medicare spending. DESIGN: : An observational study using logistic regression to assess care by area-level measures of Medicare spending. SUBJECTS: : Patients with lung, colorectal, or prostate cancers diagnosed during 2001-2004 in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) areas or the VA. The SEER cohort included fee-for-service Medicare patients aged older than 65 years. MEASURES: : Recommended and preference-sensitive cancer care and mortality. RESULTS: : In fee-for-service Medicare, higher-spending areas had higher rates of recommended care (curative surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer and chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer) and preference-sensitive care (chemotherapy for stage IV lung and colon cancer and primary treatment of local/regional prostate cancer) and had lower lung cancer mortality. In the VA, we observed minimal variation in care by area-level Medicare spending. DISCUSSION: : Our findings suggest that intensity of care for Medicare beneficiaries is not driving variations in VA care, despite some overlap in physician networks. Although the Dartmouth Atlas work has been of unprecedented importance in demonstrating variations in Medicare spending, new measures may be needed to better understand variations in other populations.

Survival of older patients with cancer in the Veterans Health Administration versus fee-for-service Medicare.

PURPOSE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides high-quality preventive chronic care and cancer care, but few studies have documented improved patient outcomes that result from this high-quality care. We compared the survival rates of older patients with cancer in the VHA and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare and examined whether differences in the stage at diagnosis, receipt of guideline-recommended therapies, and unmeasured characteristics explain survival differences. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used propensity-score methods to compare all-cause and cancer-specific survival rates for men older than age 65 years who were diagnosed or received their first course of treatment for colorectal, lung, lymphoma, or multiple myeloma in VHA hospitals from 2001 to 2004 to similar FFS-Medicare enrollees diagnosed in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) areas in the same time frame. We examined the role of unmeasured factors by using sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: VHA patients versus similar FFS SEER-Medicare patients had higher survival rates of colon cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.93) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88 to 0.95) and similar survival rates of rectal cancer (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.16), small-cell lung cancer (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.05), diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.18), and multiple myeloma (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.03). The diagnosis of VHA patients at earlier stages explained much of the survival advantages for colon cancer and NSCLC. Sensitivity analyses suggested that additional adjustment for the severity of comorbid disease or performance status could have substantial effects on estimated differences. CONCLUSION: The survival rate for older men with cancer in the VHA was better than or equivalent to the survival rate for similar FFS-Medicare beneficiaries. The VHA provision of high-quality care, particularly preventive care, can result in improved patient outcomes.