The Influence of Patient-Provider Language Concordance in Cancer Care: Results of the Hispanic Outcomes by Language Approach (HOLA) Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Delivering linguistically competent care is critical to serving patients who have limited English proficiency (LEP) and represents a key national strategy to help reduce health disparities. Current acceptable standards of communication with patients who have LEP include providers communicating through professional interpretive services or bilingual providers speaking the patients' preferred language directly. This randomized clinical trial tests the effect of patient-provider language concordance on patient satisfaction. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighty-three adult Spanish-speaking patients with cancer were randomly assigned to receive care from either (1) 1 of 2 bilingual physicians speaking to the patient directly in Spanish or (2) the same physicians speaking English and using a professional interpreter service. Validated questionnaires were administered to assess patient-reported satisfaction with both provider communication and overall care. Transcripts of initial consultations were analyzed for content variations. RESULTS: Compared with patients receiving care through professional interpretive services, patients cared for in direct Spanish reported significantly improved general satisfaction, technical quality of care (mean composite score [MCS], 4.41 vs 4.06; P = .005), care team interpersonal manner (MCS, 4.37 vs 3.88; P = .004), communication (MCS, 4.50 vs 4.25; P = .018), and time spent with patient,(MCS, 4.30 vs 3.92; P = .028). Specific to physician communication, patients rated direct-Spanish care more highly in perceived opportunity to disclose concerns (MCS 4.91 vs 4.62; P = .001), physician empathy (MCS, 4.94 vs 4.59; P <.001), confidence in physician abilities (MCS, 4.84 vs 4.51; P = .001), and general satisfaction with their physician (MCS, 4.88 vs 4.59; P <.001). Analyzing the content of consultation encounters revealed differences between study arms, with the direct-Spanish arm having more physician speech related to patient history verification (mean number of utterances, 13 vs 9; P = .01) and partnering activities (mean utterances, 16 vs 5; P <.001). Additionally, patients in the direct-Spanish arm were more likely to initiate unprompted speech (mean utterances, 11 vs 3; P <.001) and asked their providers more questions (mean utterances, 11 vs 4; P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows improved patient-reported satisfaction among patients with cancer who had LEP and were cared for in direct Spanish compared with interpreter-based communication. Further research into interventions to mitigate the patient-provider language barrier is necessary to optimize care for this population.

A Population-Based Study of Morbidity After Pancreatic Cancer Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive disease characterized by early and relentless tumor spread, thus leading healthcare providers to consider it a "distant disease." However, local pancreatic tumor progression can lead to substantial morbidity. This study defines the long-term morbidity from local and nonlocal disease progression in a large population-based cohort. METHODS: A total of 21,500 Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2000 through 2011 were identified. Hospitalizations were attributed to complications of either local disease (eg, biliary disorder, upper gastrointestinal ulcer/bleed, pain, pancreas-related, radiation toxicity) or nonlocal/distant disease (eg, thromboembolic events, cytopenia, dehydration, nausea/vomiting/motility problem, malnutrition and cachexia, ascites, pathologic fracture, and chemotherapy-related toxicity). Competing risk analyses were used to identify predictors of hospitalization. RESULTS: Of the total cohort, 9,347 patients (43.5%) were hospitalized for a local complication and 13,101 patients (60.9%) for a nonlocal complication. After adjusting for the competing risk of death, the 12-month cumulative incidence of hospitalization from local complications was highest in patients with unresectable disease (53.1%), followed by resectable (39.5%) and metastatic disease (33.7%) at diagnosis. For nonlocal complications, the 12-month cumulative incidence was highest in patients with metastatic disease (57.0%), followed by unresectable (56.8%) and resectable disease (42.8%) at diagnosis. Multivariable analysis demonstrated several predictors of hospitalization for local and nonlocal complications, including age, race/ethnicity, location of residence, disease stage, tumor size, and diagnosis year. Radiation and chemotherapy had minimal impact on the risk of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the widely known predilection of nonlocal/distant disease spread in pancreatic cancer, local tumor progression also leads to substantial morbidity and frequent hospitalization.

Clinical Impact of Local Progression in Pancreatic Cancer.

Background: The high prevalence of distant metastatic disease among patients with pancreatic cancer often draws attention away from the local pancreatic tumor. This study aimed to define the complications and hospitalizations from local versus distant disease progression among a retrospective cohort of patients with pancreatic cancer. Methods: Records of 298 cases of pancreatic cancer treated at a single institution from 2004 through 2015 were retrospectively reviewed, and cancer-related symptoms and complications requiring hospitalization were recorded. Hospitalizations related to pancreatic cancer were attributed to either local or distant progression. Cumulative incidence analyses were used to estimate the incidence of hospitalization, and multivariable Fine-Gray regression models were used to identify factors predictive of hospitalizations. Results: The 1-year cumulative incidences of hospitalization due to local versus distant disease progression were 31% and 24%, respectively. Among 509 recorded hospitalizations, leading local etiologies included cholangitis (10%), biliary obstruction (7%), local procedure complication (7%), and gastrointestinal bleeding (7%). On multivariable analysis, significant predictors of hospitalization from local progression included unresectable disease (subdistribution hazard ratio [SDHR], 2.42; P<.01), black race (SDHR, 3.34; P<.01), younger age (SDHR, 1.02 per year; P=.01), tumor in the pancreatic head (SDHR, 2.19; P<.01), and larger tumor size (SDHR, 1.13 per centimeter; P=.02). Most patients who died in the hospital from pancreatic cancer (56%) were admitted for complications of local disease progression. Conclusions: Patients with pancreatic cancer experience significant complications of local tumor progression. Although distant metastatic progression represents a hallmark of pancreatic cancer, future research should also focus on improving local therapies.

Weight gain on androgen deprivation therapy: which patients are at highest risk?

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with weight gain at 1 year from initiation of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS: A retrospective review assessed weight change among 118 men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer treated with ADT for at least 6 months. Outcome associations were tested using 2-tailed t tests and linear regression. RESULTS: Men in our cohort had significant weight gain (+1.32 kg, P=.0005) in the 1 year after ADT initiation. Three risk factors for weight gain on ADT were identified as follows: age<65 years (2.72 kg gained, P=.001), body mass index (BMI)<30 (1.98 kg gained, P=.00002), and nondiabetic status (1.56 kg gained, P=.0003). Multivariable regression found both age<65 years (beta=4.01, P=.02) and BMI<30 (beta=3.57, P=.03) to be independently predictive of weight gain, whereas nondiabetic status was nonsignificantly predictive of weight gain (beta=2.14, P=.29). Weight change was further stratified by the total number of risk factors present (risk score): scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 risk factors corresponded to weight changes of -1.10, +0.41, +1.34, and +3.79 kg, respectively (P-trend=.0005). CONCLUSION: Age<65 years and BMI<30 were both independently associated with weight gain 1 year after starting ADT. Increasing weight gain was also strongly associated with increasing number of baseline risk factors present. Despite traditional concerns about ADT in unhealthy men, these data suggest younger, healthier patients may be at higher risk for gaining weight on ADT and should be counseled accordingly.