Analysis of travel burden and travel support among patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center in the Southeastern United States.

INTRODUCTION: Travel burden leads to worse cancer outcomes. Understanding travel burden and the level and types of travel support provided at large cancer centers is critical for developing systematic programs to alleviate travel burden. This study analyzed patients who received travel assistance, including their travel burden, types and amount of travel support received, and factors that influenced these outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed 1063 patients who received travel support from 1/1/2021 to 5/1/2023 at Winship Cancer Institute, in which ~18,000 patients received cancer care annually. Travel burden was measured using distance and time to Winship sites from patients' residential address. Travel support was evaluated using the monetary value of total travel support and type of support received. Patients' sociodemographic and clinical factors were extracted from electronic medical records. Area-level socioeconomic disadvantage was coded by the Area Deprivation Index using patient ZIP codes. RESULTS: On average, patients traveled 57.2 miles and 67.3 min for care and received $74.1 in total for travel support. Most patients (88.3%) received travel-related funds (e.g., gas cards), 5% received direct rides (e.g., Uber), 3.8% received vouchers for taxi or public transportation, and 3% received combined travel support. Male and White had longer travel distance and higher travel time than female and other races, respectively. Patients residing in more disadvantaged neighborhoods had an increased travel distance and travel time. Other races and Hispanics received more travel support ($) than Black and White patients or non-Hispanics. Patients with higher travel distance and travel time were more like to receive travel-related financial support. CONCLUSION: Among patients who received travel support, those from socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods had greater travel burden. Patients with greater travel burden were more likely to receive travel funds versus other types of support. Further understanding of the impact of travel burden and travel support on cancer outcomes is needed.

Why location matters: associations between county-level characteristics and availability of National Cancer Oncology Research Program and National Cancer Institute sites.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with cancer seek care at community oncology sites; however, most clinical trials are available at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated sites. Although the NCI National Cancer Oncology Research Program (NCORP) was designed to address this problem, little is known about the county-level characteristics of NCORP site locations. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis determined the association between availability of NCORP or NCI sites and county-level characteristic theme percentile scores from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index themes. Health Resources and Services Administration's Area Health Resource Files were used to determine contiguous counties. We estimated risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using modified Poisson regression models to evaluate the association between county-level characteristics and site availability within singular and singular and contiguous counties. RESULTS: Of 3141 included counties, 14% had an NCORP, 2% had an NCI, and 1% had both sites. Among singular counties, for a standard deviation increase in the racial and ethnic theme score, there was a 22% higher likelihood of NCORP site availability (95% CI = 1.10 to 1.36); for a standard deviation increase in the socioeconomic status theme score, there was a 24% lower likelihood of NCORP site availability (95% CI = 0.67 to 0.87). Associations were of smaller magnitude when including contiguous counties. NCI sites were located in more vulnerable counties. CONCLUSIONS: NCORP sites were more often in racially diverse counties and less often in socioeconomically vulnerable counties. Research is needed to understand how clinical trial representation will increase if NCORP sites strategically increase their locations in more vulnerable counties.

Patients' satisfaction with cancer pain treatment at adult oncologic centers in Northern Ethiopia; a multi-center cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is an important indicator of the quality of healthcare. Pain is one of the most common symptoms among cancer patients that needs optimal treatment; rather, it compromises the quality of life of patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the levels and associated factors of satisfaction with cancer pain treatment among adult patients at cancer centers found in Northern Ethiopia in 2023. METHODS: After obtaining ethical approval, a multi-center cross-sectional study was conducted at four cancer care centers in northern Ethiopia. The data were collected using an interviewer-administered structured questionnaire that included the Lubeck Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (LMSQ). The severity of pain was assessed by a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10 with a pain score of 0 = no pain, 1-3 = mild pain, 4-6 = moderate pain, and 7-10 = severe pain Binary logistic regression analysis was employed, and the strength of association was described in an adjusted odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval. RESULT: A total of 397 cancer patients participated in this study, with a response rate of 98.3%. We found that 70.3% of patients were satisfied with their cancer pain treatment. Being married (AOR = 5.6, CI = 2.6-12, P < 0.001) and being single (never married) (AOR = 3.5, CI = 1.3-9.7, P = 0.017) as compared to divorced, receiving adequate pain management (AOR = 2.4, CI = 1.1-5.3, P = 0.03) as compared to those who didn't receive it, and having lower pain severity (AOR = 2.6, CI = 1.5-4.8, P < 0.001) as compared to those who had higher level of pain severity were found to be associated with satisfaction with cancer pain treatment. CONCLUSION: The majority of cancer patients were satisfied with cancer pain treatment. Being married, being single (never married), lower pain severity, and receiving adequate pain management were found to be associated with satisfaction with cancer pain treatment. It would be better to enhance the use of multimodal analgesia in combination with strong opioids to ensure adequate pain management and lower pain severity scores.

The impact of robotic rectal cancer surgery at a Canadian regional cancer centre: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although robotic surgery has several advantages over other minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques for rectal cancer surgery, the uptake in Canada has been limited owing to a perceived increase in cost and lack of training. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of access to robotic surgery in a Canadian setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving consecutive adults undergoing surgical resection for rectal cancer between 2017 and 2020. The primary exposure was access to robotic surgery. Outcomes included MIS utilization, short-term outcomes, total cost of care, and quality of surgical resection. We completed univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: We included 171 individuals in this cohort study (85 in the prerobotic period and 86 in the robotic period). The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics. A higher proportion of individuals underwent successful MIS in the robotic phase (86% v. 46%, p < 0.001). Other benefits included a shorter mean length of hospital stay (5.1 d v. 9.2 d, p < 0.001). The quality of surgical resection was similar between groups. The total cost of care was $16 746 in the robotic period and $18 808 in the prerobotic period (mean difference -$1262, 95% confidence interval -$4308 to $1783; p = 0.4). CONCLUSION: Access to robotic rectal cancer surgery increased successful completion of MIS and shortened hospital stay, with a similar total cost of care. Robotic rectal cancer surgery can enhance patient outcomes in the Canadian setting.

Disparities in Cancer Stage Outcomes by Catchment Areas for a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Importance: The National Cancer Institute comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) lack spatial and temporal evaluation of their self-designated catchment areas. Objective: To identify disparities in cancer stage at diagnosis within and outside a CCC's catchment area across a 10-year period using spatial and statistical analyses. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, population-based study conducted between 2010 and 2019 utilized cancer registry data for the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel CCC (SKCCC). Eligible participants included patients with cancer in the contiguous US who received treatment for cancer, a diagnosis of cancer, or both at SKCCC. Patients were geocoded to zip code tabulation areas (ZCTAs). Individual-level variables included sociodemographic characteristics, smoking and alcohol use, treatment type, cancer site, and insurance type. Data analysis was performed between March and July 2023. Exposures: Distance between SKCCC and ZCTAs were computed to generate a catchment area of the closest 75% of patients and outer zones in 5% increments for comparison. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was cancer stage at diagnosis, defined as early-stage, late-stage, or unknown stage. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine associations of catchment area with stage at diagnosis. Results: This study had a total of 94 007 participants (46 009 male [48.94%] and 47 998 female [51.06%]; 30 195 aged 22-45 years [32.12%]; 4209 Asian [4.48%]; 2408 Hispanic [2.56%]; 16 004 non-Hispanic Black [17.02%]; 69 052 non-Hispanic White [73.45%]; and 2334 with other or unknown race or ethnicity [2.48%]), including 47 245 patients (50.26%) who received a diagnosis of early-stage cancer, 19 491 (20.73%) who received a diagnosis of late-stage cancer , and 27 271 (29.01%) with unknown stage. Living outside the main catchment area was associated with higher odds of late-stage cancers for those who received only a diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.10-2.05) or only treatment (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.28-1.61) at SKCCC. Non-Hispanic Black patients (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.23) and those with Medicaid (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.46-1.86) and no insurance at time of treatment (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.79-2.51) also had higher odds of receiving a late-stage cancer diagnosis. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of CCC data from 2010 to 2019, patients residing outside the main catchment area, non-Hispanic Black patients, and patients with Medicaid or no insurance had higher odds of late-stage diagnoses. These findings suggest that disadvantaged populations and those living outside of the main catchment area of a CCC may face barriers to screening and treatment. Care-sharing agreements among CCCs could address these issues.

Barriers to Clinical Trial Implementation Among Community Care Centers.

Importance: While an overwhelming majority of patients diagnosed with cancer express willingness to participate in clinical trials, only a fraction will enroll onto a research protocol. Objective: To identify critical barriers to trial enrollment to translate findings into actionable practice changes that increase cancer clinical trial enrollment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study included designated site contacts at oncology practices with teams who were highly involved with the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Community Oncology Research Institute (ACORI) clinical trials activities, all American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-ACCC collaboration pilot sites, and/or sites providing care to at least 25% African American and Hispanic residents. To determine participation trends among health care practices in oncology-focused research, identify barriers to clinical trial implementation and operation, and establish unmet needs for cancer clinics interested in trial participation, a 34-question survey was designed. Survey questions were defined within 3 categories: cancer center demographic characteristics, clinical trial characteristics, and referral practices. The survey was distributed through email and was open from June 20 through October 5, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participation in and barriers to conducting oncology trials in different community oncology settings. Results: The survey was distributed to 100 cancer centers, with completion by 58 centers (58%) across 25 states. Fifty-two centers (88%) reported that they conduct therapeutic clinical trials, of which 33 (63%) were from urban settings, 11 (21%) were from suburban settings, and 8 (15%) were from rural settings. Only 25% of rural practices (2 of 8) offered phase 1 trials, compared with 67% of urban practices (22 of 33) (P = .01). Respondents noted challenges in conducting research, including patient recruitment (27 respondents [52%]), limited staffing (27 [52%]), and nonrelevant trials for their patient population (25 [48%]). Among sites not offering therapeutic trials, barriers to research conduct included limited infrastructure, funding, and staffing. Most centers (46 of 58 [79%]) referred patients to outside centers for clinical trial enrollment, particularly in the context of late-stage disease and/or disease progression. Only 17 of these sites (37%) had established protocols for patient follow-up subsequent to outside referral. Conclusions and Relevance: In this national survey study of barriers to clinical trial implementation, most sites offered therapeutic trials, but there were significant disparities in trial availability across care settings. Furthermore, fundamental deficiencies in trial support infrastructure limited research activity, including within programs currently conducting research as well as at sites interested in future clinical research opportunities. These results identify crucial unmet needs for oncology clinics to effectively offer clinical trials to patients seeking care.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic among patients with lung and head and neck cancer assisted in a public cancer center in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: There is no updated national data regarding the real impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on delaying diagnosis and treatment among patients with lung, and head, and neck cancers in Brazil. This study aimed to analyze the COVID-19 pandemic impact on cancer diagnosis and clinical outcomes among lung, head, and neck cancer patients assisted in a tertiary cancer center in Southeastern Brazil, as well as to analyze these patients' pretreatment clinical features. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of patients with lung or head and neck cancer assisted in a tertiary cancer center in southeastern Brazil between January/2019 and December/2021. To assess statistical differences among groups [i.e., cohort 2019 versus (vs.) 2020 and 2019 vs. 2021] chi-square test was used with a 5% significance level and 90% power for sample size calculation. Differences among baseline clinical features and sociodemographic characteristics were evaluated either by T-test for two samples or Fisher's or Pearson's chi-square test (for quantitative or qualitative variables). All utilized tests had a 5% significance level. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-two patients were included, 332 with lung and 320 with head and neck cancer; it was observed a significant decrease in oncologic treatment recommendations and increase in palliative care recommendation for patients with lung cancer, despite similar stages at diagnosis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, more pain symptoms were reported at the first Oncology assessment for patients with head and neck cancer (p < 0.05). Compared to 2019, head and neck cancer patients diagnosed in 2021 presented a worse initial performance status (p = 0.008). There was a statistically significant increase in survival for patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer in 2021 when compared to 2019 (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights low survival rates for patients with lung and head and neck cancer in Brazil, even before the pandemic started, as consequence of advanced diseases at diagnosis at the public health system and clinical degrading features. Additionally, there was an increase incidence in both lung cancer and head and neck cancer despite no differences in clinical stage. This reflects how fragile is the public healthcare system even before facing an acute public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, the total impact on public health may follow for many years.

A five-year review of chemoradiotherapy practice in anal cancer: Radiotherapy audit results from a cancer centre in Wales, UK.

AIM: To review a five-year clinical practice of radical chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for anal cancers at a cancer centre in Wales. METHODS: A retrospective audit examined the quality of radical CRT for anal cancers treated between November 2016 and November 2021 by investigating seven critical indicators set by Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and ACT II trials, (1) 95% completion of computed tomography simulation within 14 days of consent, (2) 100% CRT delivery within 28 days of computed tomography simulation, (3) 100% CRT delivery within 28 days of consent, (4) overall treatment time of RT 38 days with > 2 days breaks <5%, (5) 75% completion of concurrent chemotherapy, (6) <2% CRT related colostomies, and (7) <2% the 30-days mortality rate. RESULTS: A total of 80 anal cancers received CRT over five years. Around 95.0% underwent computed tomography simulation within 14 days of consent. The observed slight deviation was related to the Covid pandemic in 2020. About 96.3% started CRT within 28 days of computed tomography simulation. The mean duration of CRT was 37.9 days. Radiotherapy (RT) interruptions > 2 days were about 5%, and 67.5% started CRT within 28 days of consent. About 92.5% and 76.2% completed mitomycin and capecitabine without breaks, respectively. The colostomy rate was 1.2%, and the 30-day mortality was 1.2%. CONCLUSION: Audit results matched with the standards in six domains. Overall treatment time of 37.9 days, colostomy rates of 1.2%, and the 30-day mortality rate of 1.2% were commendable. Overall time interval between consent and CRT delivery can be achieved by time-constrained measures.

Outcome variation and the role of caseload in certified colorectal cancer centers - a retrospective cohort analysis of 90 000 cases.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that surgical treatment of colorectal carcinomas in certified centers leads to improved outcomes. However, there were considerable fluctuations in outcome parameters. It has not yet been examined whether this variability is due to continuous differences between hospitals or variability within a hospital over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective observational cohort study, administrative quality assurance data of 153 German-certified colorectal cancer centers between 2010 and 2019 were analyzed. Six outcome quality indicators (QIs) were studied: 30-day postoperative mortality (POM) rate, surgical site infection (SSI) rate, anastomotic insufficiency (AI) rate, and revision surgery (RS) rate. AI and RS were also analyzed for colon (C) and rectal cancer operations (R). Variability was analyzed by funnel plots with 95% and 99% control limits and modified Cleveland dot plots. RESULTS: In the 153 centers, 90 082 patients with colon cancer and 47 623 patients with rectal cancer were treated. Average QI scores were 2.7% POM, 6.2% SSI, 4.8% AI-C, 8.5% AI-R, 9.1% RS-C, and 9.8% RS-R. The funnel plots revealed that for every QI, about 10.1% of hospitals lay above the upper 99% and about 8.7% below the lower 99% control limit. In POM, SSI, and AI-R, a significant negative correlation with the average annual caseload was observed. CONCLUSION: The analysis showed high variability in outcome quality between and within the certified colorectal cancer centers. Only a small number of hospitals had a high performance on all six QIs, suggesting that significant quality variation exists even within the group of certified centers.

A Novel Approach for Conducting a Catchment Area Analysis of Breast Cancer by Age and Stage for a Community Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently issued an updated draft recommendation statement to initiate breast cancer screening at age 40, reflecting well-documented disparities in breast cancer-related mortality that disproportionately impact younger Black women. This study applied a novel approach to identify hotspots of breast cancer diagnosed before age 50 and/or at an advanced stage to improve breast cancer detection within these communities. METHODS: Cancer registry data for 3,497 women with invasive breast cancer diagnosed or treated between 2012 and 2020 at the Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute (HFGCCRI) and who resided in the HFGCCRI catchment area, defined as New Castle County, Delaware, were geocoded and analyzed with spatial intensity. Standardized incidence ratios stratified by age and race were calculated for each hotspot. RESULTS: Four hotspots were identified, two for breast cancer diagnosed before age 50, one for advanced breast cancer, and one for advanced breast cancer diagnosed before age 50. Younger Black women were overrepresented in these hotspots relative to the full-catchment area. CONCLUSIONS: The novel use of spatial methods to analyze a community cancer center catchment area identified geographic areas with higher rates of breast cancer with poor prognostic factors and evidence that these areas made an outsized contribution to racial disparities in breast cancer. IMPACT: Identifying and prioritizing hotspot breast cancer communities for community outreach and engagement activities designed to improve breast cancer detection have the potential to reduce the overall burden of breast cancer and narrow racial disparities in breast cancer.

Analysis and Optimization of Equitable US Cancer Clinical Trial Center Access by Travel Time.

Importance: Racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are currently underrepresented in clinical trials. Data-driven, quantitative analyses and strategies are required to help address this inequity. Objective: To systematically analyze the geographical distribution of self-identified racial and socioeconomic demographics within commuting distance to cancer clinical trial centers and other hospitals in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal quantitative study used data from the US Census 2020 Decennial and American community survey (which collects data from all US residents), OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Centers list, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, National Trial registry, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data. Statistical analyses were performed on data collected between 2006 and 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Population distributions of socioeconomic deprivation indices and self-identified race within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute 1-way driving commute times from US cancer trial sites. Map overlay of high deprivation index and high diversity areas with existing hospitals, existing major cancer trial centers, and commuting distance to the closest cancer trial center. Results: The 78 major US cancer trial centers that are involved in 94% of all US cancer trials and included in this study were found to be located in areas with socioeconomically more affluent populations with higher proportions of self-identified White individuals (+10.1% unpaired mean difference; 95% CI, +6.8% to +13.7%) compared with the national average. The top 10th percentile of all US hospitals has catchment populations with a range of absolute sum difference from 2.4% to 35% from one-third each of Asian/multiracial/other (Asian alone, American Indian or Alaska Native alone, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander alone, some other race alone, population of 2 or more races), Black or African American, and White populations. Currently available data are sufficient to identify diverse census tracks within preset commuting times (30, 60, or 120 minutes) from all hospitals in the US (N = 7623). Maps are presented for each US city above 500 000 inhabitants, which display all prospective hospitals and major cancer trial sites within commutable distance to racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Conclusion and Relevance: This study identified biases in the sociodemographics of populations living within commuting distance to US-based cancer trial sites and enables the determination of more equitably commutable prospective satellite hospital sites that could be mobilized for enhanced racial and socioeconomic representation in clinical trials. The maps generated in this work may inform the design of future clinical trials or investigations in enrollment and retention strategies for clinical trials; however, other recruitment barriers still need to be addressed to ensure racial and socioeconomic demographics within the geographical vicinity of a clinical site can translate to equitable trial participant representation.

Advanced prescription of injectable anticancer drugs: Safety assessment in a European Comprehensive Cancer Centre using the risk matrix approach.

AIMS: The purpose of this work was to assess failures in the advanced prescription of parenteral anticancer agents in an adult day oncology care unit with more than 100 patients per day. METHODS: An a priori descriptive analysis was carried out by using the risk matrix approach. After defining the scope in a multidisciplinary meeting, we determined at each step the failure modes (FMs), their effects (E) and their associated causes (C). A severity score (S) was assigned to all effects and a probability of occurrence (O) to all causes. These S and O indicators, were used to obtain a criticality index (CI) matrix. We assessed the risk control (RC) of each failure in order to define a residual criticality index (rCI) matrix. RESULTS: During risk analysis, 14 FMs were detected, and 61 scenarios were identified considering all possible effects and causes. Nine situations (15%) were highlighted with the maximum CI, 18 (30%) with a medium CI, and 34 (55%) with a negligible CI. Nevertheless, among all these critical situations, only three (5%) had an rCI to process (i.e., missed dose adjustment, multiple prescriptions and abnormal biology data); the others required monitoring only. Clinicians' and pharmacists' knowledge of these critical situations enables them to manage the associated risks. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced prescription of injectable anticancer drugs appears to be a safe practice for patients when combined with risk management. The major risks identified concerned missed dose adjustment, prescription duplication and lack of consideration for abnormal biology data.

Dominant Worldviews, Institutional, and Contextual Factors Affecting Cancer Care: Evidence From an Institutional Ethnonursing Study in Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer remains a significant health burden in Nigeria and requires the efforts of all stakeholders to address it. Little is known about how the worldviews of Nigerian patients with cancer and other institutional factors affect cancer management in Nigeria. This paper draws evidence from an ethnonursing study conducted in a Nigerian cancer care setting. METHOD: This study adopted a qualitative design using an ethnonursing approach. The study was conducted in one of the primary cancer treatment centers owned by the federal government of Nigeria. Data collection was conducted using participant observation, interviews, and field notes. Data collected were analyzed using NVivo 12 and presented as categories and sub-categories. RESULTS: Analysis yielded two themes and seven sub-themes. The major themes included (1) dominant worldview and (2) institutional/contextual factors. Participants attributed life, living, and death as being controlled by a supreme being. Cancer care was constrained by unfavorable institutional factors such as lack of equipment, staffing, and intensified workload. DISCUSSION: Cancer institutions should provide more cancer care infrastructure that will facilitate the work of nurses and other health care workers. There should be an enabling environment that would attract and retain nurses in the cancer wards. The hospital environment should be made conducive for the cancer care providers, patients with cancer, and their relatives.

Assessing characteristics of populations seen at Commission on Cancer facilities using Pennsylvania linked data.

Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation certifies facilities provide quality care. We assessed differences among patients who do and do not visit CoC facilities using Pennsylvania Cancer Registry data linked to facility records for patients diagnosed with cancer between 2018 and 2019 (n = 87 472). Predicted probabilities from multivariable logistic regression indicated patients in the most advantaged Area Deprivation Index quartiles were more likely to visit CoC facilities (78.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77.5% to 78.6%) compared with other quartiles. Urban patients (74.1%, 95% CI = 73.8% to 74.4%) were more likely than rural to be seen at a CoC facility (62.7%, 95% CI = 61.2% to 64.2%) as were Hispanic patients (88.0%, 95% CI = 86.7% to 89.3%) and non-Hispanic Black patients (79.1%, 95% CI = 78.1% to 80.0%) compared with White patients (72.0%, 95% CI = 71.7% to 72.4%). Differences in demographics suggest CoC data may underrepresent some groups, including low-income and rural patients.

Demographic disparities in receipt of care at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: National Cancer Institute cancer centers (NCICCs) provide specialized cancer care including precision oncology and clinical treatment trials. While these centers can offer novel therapeutic options, less is known about when patients access these centers or at what timepoint in their disease course they receive specialized care. This is especially important since precision diagnostics and receipt of the optimal therapy upfront can impact patient outcomes and previous research suggests that access to these centers may vary by demographic characteristics. Here, we examine the timing of patients' presentation at Moffitt Cancer Center (MCC) relative to their initial diagnosis across several demographic characteristics. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients who presented to MCC with breast, colon, lung, melanoma, and prostate cancers between December 2008 and April 2020. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were obtained from the Moffitt Cancer Registry. The association between patient characteristics and the timing of patient presentation to MCC relative to the patient's cancer diagnosis was examined using logistic regression. RESULTS: Black patients (median days = 510) had a longer time between diagnosis and presentation to MCC compared to Whites (median days = 368). Black patients were also more likely to have received their initial cancer care outside of MCC compared to White patients (odds ratio [OR] and 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.45 [1.32-1.60]). Furthermore, Hispanics were more likely to present to MCC at an advanced stage compared to non-Hispanic patients (OR [95% CI] = 1.28 [1.05-1.55]). CONCLUSIONS: We observed racial and ethnic differences in timing of receipt of care at MCC. Future studies should aim to identify contributing factors for the development of novel mitigation strategies and assess whether timing differences in referral to an NCICC correlate with long-term patient outcomes.

Caracterización epidemiológica del cáncer de pancreas en Solca Guayaquil: período 2015-2021 / Epidemiological characterization of pancreatic cancer in Solca Guayaquil: period 2015-2021

Dentro de los cánceres, el tumor maligno de páncreas sigue siendo una neoplasia altamente letal y se tiene dificultad en el diagnóstico temprano, por lo que hay que evaluar de manera sistemática el comportamiento epidemiológico de esta enfermedad. OBJETIVO: determinar las características epidemiológicas del cáncer de páncreas de los pacientes atendidos en el hospital SOLCA Guayaquil, entre los años 2015 al 2021. MATERIALES Y MÉTODO: observacional, de diseño transversal, tipo descriptivo; en los pacientes vistos por primera vez con tumor maligno de páncreas atendidos en el hospital de SOLCA y que sean residentes de Guayaquil; excluyéndose los pacientes diagnosticados en otras instituciones. RESULTADOS: durante el período 2015-2021 el cáncer de páncreas se incrementó, del año 2015 con 4,8% al 2021 de 29,3%; es corroborado con la tendencia lineal con porcentaje de variabilidad del 81%; según sexo hubo un cambio en la presentación entre hombres y mujeres en la incidencia; más en mujeres con 56,9%. el grupo de edad mayormente afectado en ambos sexos fue de 50-70 años (76,6%); topográficamente el Tumor maligno de páncreas, parte no especificada fue del 49,7%, Tumor maligno de cabeza del páncreas con 27,5% y morfológicamente el adenocarcinoma SAI (31,7%) y adenocarcinoma del conducto SAI (11,4%). CONCLUSIÓN: el cáncer de páncreas viene incrementándose, con mayor proporción en mujeres entre 50-70 años de edad; topográficamente el Tumor maligno de páncreas, parte no especificada y morfológicamente el adenocarcinoma SAI fueron lo más frecuentes; por lo que se debe explorar métodos que permitan un diagnóstico temprano

Within cancers, malignant tumor of pancreas continues to be a lethal neoplasm and early diagnosis is difficult, for epidemiological behavior must be systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVE: determine the epidemiological characteristics of pancreatic cancer in patients treated at the SOLCA Guayaquil hospital, between 2015 and 2021. MATERIALS AND METHOD: observational, cross-sectional design, descriptive type; in patients seen for the first time with a malignant tumor of the pancreas treated at the SOLCA hospital and who are residents of Guayaquil; excluding patients diagnosed in other institutions. RESULTS: during the 2015-2021 period, pancreatic cancer increased, from 2015 with 4.8% to 2021 with 29.3%; it is corroborated with the linear trend with a percentage of variability of 81%; According to sex, there was a change in the presentation between men and women in the incidence; more in women with 56.9%. the most affected age group in both sexes was 50-70 years (76.6%); topographically, malignant tumor of the pancreas, part not specified was 49.7%, malignant tumor of the head of the pancreas with 27.5% and morphologically, adenocarcinoma SAI (31.7%) and duct adenocarcinoma SAI (11.4%). CONCLUSION: pancreatic cancer has been increasing, with a higher proportion in women between 50-70 years of age; topographically, malignant tumor of the pancreas, unspecified part and morphologically, adenocarcinoma SAI were the most frequent; Therefore, methods that allow an early diagnosis should be explored.

The Prevalence of Dissemination and Implementation Research and Training Grants at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

Background: Dissemination and implementation (D&I) research is a key factor in the uptake and use of evidence-based cancer control interventions. National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers are ideal settings in which to further D&I knowledge. The purpose of this study was to summarize the characteristics of NCI-funded D&I science grants in the nation's cancer centers to understand the nature, extent, and opportunity for this key type of translational work. Methods: We used the National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool to identify active NCI-funded grants in D&I science at NCI clinical cancer centers (n = 13) and comprehensive cancer centers (n = 51) as well as their academic affiliates. Active projects were eligible for inclusion if they 1) were awarded directly to an NCI cancer center or an academic or research affiliate, and 2) identified D&I content in the abstract. Portfolio data were collected in February 2021. Results: We identified 104 active NCI-funded D&I research or training grants across the 64 cancer centers; 57.8% of cancer centers had at least 1 NCI-funded D&I grant. Most awards (71.1%) were for research grants. Training grants constituted 29.1% of D&I-focused grants. Overall, 50.0% of grants (n = 52) concentrated on specific cancers. Almost two-thirds of grants (n = 68, 65.4%) had a stated health equity focus. Conclusions: More than one-half of NCI-designated cancer centers have active funding in D&I science, reflecting a substantial investment by NCI. There remains considerable room for further development, which would further support NCI's translational mission.

Surgical volume threshold to improve 3-year survival in designated cancer care hospitals in 2004-2012 in Japan.

In Japan, cancer care hospitals designated by the national government have a surgical volume requirement of 400 annually, which is not necessarily defined based on patient outcomes. This study aimed to estimate surgical volume thresholds that ensure optimal 3-year survival for three periods. In total, 186 965 patients who had undergone surgery for solid cancers in 66 designated cancer care hospitals in Osaka between 2004 and 2012 were examined using data from a population-based cancer registry. These hospitals were categorized by the annual surgical volume of each 50 surgeries (eg, 0-49, 50-99, and so on). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression, we estimated the adjusted 3-year survival probability per surgical volume category for 2004-2006, 2007-2009, and 2010-2012. Using the joinpoint regression model that computes inflection points in a linear relationship, we estimated the points at which the trend of the association between surgical volume and survival probability changes, defining them as surgical volume thresholds. The adjusted 3-year survival ranges were 71.7%-90.0%, 68.2%-90.0%, and 79.2%-90.3% in 2004-2006, 2007-2009, and 2010-2012, respectively. The surgical volume thresholds were identified at 100-149 in 2004-2006 and 2007-2009 and 200-249 in 2010-2012. The extents of change in the adjusted 3-year survival probability per increase of 50 surgical volumes were +4.00%, +6.88%, and +1.79% points until the threshold and +0.41%, +0.30%, and +0.11% points after the threshold in 2004-2006, 2007-2009, and 2010-2012, respectively. The existing surgical volume requirements met our estimated thresholds. Surgical volume thresholds based on the association with patient survival may be used as a reference to validate the surgical volume requirement.

Risk factors and clinical outcomes of systemic cancer treatment delays in Filipino patients with solid tumor malignancy during the COVID-19 pandemic: A single tertiary center study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer care during the Covid-19 pandemic has been challenging especially in a developing country such as the Philippines. Oncologists were advised to prioritize chemotherapy based on the absolute benefit that the patient may receive, which outbalances the risks of Covid-19 infection. The results of this study will allow re-examination of how to approach cancer care during the pandemic and ultimately, help optimize treatment recommendations during this crisis. AIM: This study described the factors contributing to treatment delays during the pandemic and their impact on disease progression. MATERIALS AND RESULTS: This retrospective cohort study was done in St. Luke's Medical Center, a private tertiary healthcare institution based in Metro Manila, Philippines, composed of two facilities in Quezon City and Global City. Patients with solid malignancy with ongoing systemic cancer treatment prior to the peak of the pandemic were identified. Clinical characteristics and treatment data were compared between those with delayed and continued treatments. Multivariate analysis was done to determine factors for treatment delays and association of delays with disease progression and Covid-19 infection. Of the 111 patients, 33% experienced treatment delays and 67% continued treatment during the pandemic. There was a higher percentage of patients on palliative intent who underwent treatment delay, and 64% of delays were due to logistic difficulties. Treatment delays were significantly associated with disease progression (p < .0001). There was no evidence of association between delay or continuation of treatment and risk of Covid-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in Covid-19 infection between those who delayed and continued treatment during the pandemic; however, treatment delays were associated with a higher incidence of disease progression. Our findings suggest that the risks of cancer progression due to treatment delays exceed the risks of Covid-19 infection in cancer patients implying that beneficial treatment should not be delayed as much as possible. Logistic hindrances were also identified as the most common cause of treatment delay among Filipino patients, suggesting that efforts should be focused into assistance programs that will mitigate these barriers to ensure continuity of cancer care services during the pandemic.

National health system characteristics, breast cancer stage at diagnosis, and breast cancer mortality: a population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: In some countries, breast cancer age-standardised mortality rates have decreased by 2-4% per year since the 1990s, but others have yet to achieve this outcome. In this study, we aimed to characterise the associations between national health system characteristics and breast cancer age-standardised mortality rate, and the degree of breast cancer downstaging correlating with national age-standardised mortality rate reductions. METHODS: In this population-based study, national age-standardised mortality rate estimates for women aged 69 years or younger obtained from GLOBOCAN 2020 were correlated with a broad panel of standardised national health system data as reported in the WHO Cancer Country Profiles 2020. These health system characteristics include health expenditure, the Universal Health Coverage Service Coverage Index (UHC Index), dedicated funding for early detection programmes, breast cancer early detection guidelines, referral systems, cancer plans, number of dedicated public and private cancer centres per 10 000 patients with cancer, and pathology services. We tested for differences between continuous variables using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test, and for categorical variables using the Pearson χ2 test. Simple and multiple linear regression analyses were fitted to identify associations between health system characteristics and age-standardised breast cancer mortality rates. Data on TNM stage at diagnosis were obtained from national or subnational cancer registries, supplemented by a literature review of PubMed from 2010 to 2020. Mortality trends from 1950 to 2016 were assessed using the WHO Cancer Mortality Database. The threshold for significance was set at a p value of 0·05 or less. FINDINGS: 148 countries had complete health system data. The following variables were significantly higher in high-income countries than in low-income countries in unadjusted analyses: health expenditure (p=0·0002), UHC Index (p<0·0001), dedicated funding for early detection programmes (p=0·0020), breast cancer early detection guidelines (p<0·0001), breast cancer referral systems (p=0·0030), national cancer plans (p=0·014), cervical cancer early detection programmes (p=0·0010), number of dedicated public (p<0·0001) and private (p=0·027) cancer centres per 10 000 patients with cancer, and pathology services (p<0·0001). In adjusted multivariable regression analyses in 141 countries, two health system characteristics were significantly associated with lower age-standardised mortality rates: higher UHC Index levels (ß=-0·12, 95% CI -0·16 to -0·08) and increasing numbers of public cancer centres (ß=-0·23, -0·36 to -0·10). These findings indicate that each unit increase in the UHC Index was associated with a 0·12-unit decline in age-standardised mortality rates, and each additional public cancer centre per 10 000 patients with cancer was associated with a 0·23-unit decline in age-standardised mortality rate. Among 35 countries with available breast cancer TNM staging data, all 20 that achieved sustained mean reductions in age-standardised mortality rate of 2% or more per year for at least 3 consecutive years since 1990 had at least 60% of patients with invasive breast cancer presenting as stage I or II disease. Some countries achieved this reduction without most women having access to population-based mammographic screening. INTERPRETATION: Countries with low breast cancer mortality rates are characterised by increased levels of coverage of essential health services and higher numbers of public cancer centres. Among countries achieving sustained mortality reductions, the majority of breast cancers are diagnosed at an early stage, reinforcing the value of clinical early diagnosis programmes for improving breast cancer outcomes. FUNDING: None.