Assessment of Albumin Usage Patterns and Appropriateness in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre: A retrospective study in Jordan.

Objectives: Albumin is commonly used for various indications; however, there is conflicting data regarding its appropriate use in different clinical cases. This study aimed to determine the pattern and appropriateness of albumin use among cancer patients at the King Hussein Cancer Center in Jordan. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on adult cancer patients who were prescribed albumin between January 2019 and July 2020 in both outpatient and inpatient settings. Data collected included demographics, prescribing services, indications and dosing regimens. A literature review was performed using PubMed to assess the appropriateness of albumin indications and dosing regimens against current guidelines, drug information resources and the package insert. Results: Albumin was prescribed to 1,361 patients during the study period. Each patient received an average of 74.4 ± 89 g of albumin for an average of 2.6 ± 1.8 days. Albumin use was deemed appropriate in 69% of the patients. The critical care service accounted for the highest albumin consumption, with 37% of prescriptions for septic shock. Inappropriate use of albumin was most prevalent in the medical solid tumour services (40.8% of prescriptions), primarily for edema (28%). Conclusion: To the best of the author's knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate albumin use in a large cohort of oncology patients. Approximately one-third of the albumin prescriptions were considered inappropriate. Continuous education on appropriate usage and regular evaluations of guideline adherence are essential to ensure proper utilisation of albumin in cancer care.

Impact of Location of Residence and Distance to Cancer Centre on Medical Oncology Consultation and Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Triple-Negative and HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.

Despite consensus guidelines, most patients with early-stage triple-negative (TN) and HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer do not see a medical oncologist prior to surgery and do not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). To understand barriers to care, we aimed to characterize the relationship between geography (region of residence and cancer centre proximity) and receipt of a pre-treatment medical oncology consultation and NAC for patients with TN and HER2+ breast cancer. Using linked administrative datasets in Ontario, Canada, we performed a retrospective population-based analysis of women diagnosed with stage I-III TN or HER2+ breast cancer from 2012 to 2020. The outcomes were a pre-treatment medical oncology consultation and the initiation of NAC. We created choropleth maps to assess the distribution of the outcomes and cancer centres across census divisions. To assess the relationship between distance to the nearest cancer centre and outcomes, we performed multivariable regression analyses adjusted for relevant factors, including tumour extent and nodal status. Of 14,647 patients, 29.9% received a pre-treatment medical oncology consultation and 77.7% received NAC. Mapping demonstrated high interregional variability, ranging across census divisions from 12.5% to 64.3% for medical oncology consultation and from 8.8% to 64.3% for NAC. In the full cohort, compared to a distance of ≤5 km from the nearest cancer centre, only 10-25 km was significantly associated with lower odds of NAC (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.99). Greater distances were not associated with pre-treatment medical oncology consultation. The interregional variability in medical oncology consultation and NAC for patients with TN and HER2+ breast cancer suggests that regional and/or provider practice patterns underlie discrepancies in the referral for and receipt of NAC. These findings can inform interventions to improve equitable access to NAC for eligible patients.

Cannabis and opioid perceptions, co-use, and substitution among patients across 4 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

Prescription opioids are used for managing pain in persons with cancer, however, there are socioeconomic and racial disparities in medication access. Cannabis is increasingly used for cancer symptom management and as an opioid alternative. Limited data are available about patterns of opioid and cannabis use among patients with cancer. We used survey data from 4 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in 3 states (n = 1220) to assess perceptions, use of cannabis and opioids for pain, their substitution, and racial and ethnic differences in each outcome. Compared with White patients, Black patients were less likely to use opioids for pain (odds ratio [OR] = 0.66; P = .035) and more likely to report that cannabis was more effective than opioids (OR = 2.46; P = .03). Race effects were mitigated (P > .05) after controlling for socioeconomic factors. Further research is needed to understand cannabis and opioid use patterns and how overlapping social determinants of health create a disadvantage in cancer symptom management for Black patients.

Perceptions, prevalence, and patterns of cannabis use among cancer patients treated at 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: The legal climate for cannabis use has dramatically changed with an increasing number of states passing legislation legalizing access for medical and recreational use. Among cancer patients, cannabis is often used to ameliorate adverse effects of cancer treatment. Data are limited on the extent and type of use among cancer patients during treatment and the perceived benefits and harms. This multicenter survey was conducted to assess the use of cannabis among cancer patients residing in states with varied legal access to cannabis. METHODS: A total of 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers, across states with varied cannabis-access legal status, conducted surveys with a core questionnaire to assess cannabis use among recently diagnosed cancer patients. Data were collected between September 2021 and August 2023 and pooled across 12 cancer centers. Frequencies and 95% confidence intervals for core survey measures were calculated, and weighted estimates are presented for the 10 sites that drew probability samples. RESULTS: Overall reported cannabis use since cancer diagnosis among survey respondents was 32.9% (weighted), which varied slightly by state legalization status. The most common perceived benefits of use were for pain, sleep, stress and anxiety, and treatment side effects. Reported perceived risks were less common and included inability to drive, difficulty concentrating, lung damage, addiction, and impact on employment. A majority reported feeling comfortable speaking to health-care providers though, overall, only 21.5% reported having done so. Among those who used cannabis since diagnosis, the most common modes were eating in food, smoking, and pills or tinctures, and the most common reasons were for sleep disturbance, followed by pain and stress and anxiety with 60%-68% reporting improved symptoms with use. CONCLUSION: This geographically diverse survey demonstrates that patients use cannabis regardless of its legal status. Addressing knowledge gaps concerning benefits and harms of cannabis use during cancer treatment is critical to enhance patient-provider communication.

Ethnic differences in the patterns, sources, and reasons for cannabis use among cancer patients at an NCI-Designated Cancer Center.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe patterns, sources, and reasons for cannabis use among cancer patients by ethnic group. METHODS: Data are from a cross-sectional study of 416 surveys collected via RedCap anonymously from adult cancer patients seen at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center within the last 5 years. A harmonized survey was created with 11 other National Cancer Institute centers to assess cannabis use patterns, sources, and reasons for use. Sociodemographics and cancer details were also collected via self-report. Descriptive statistics by ethnic group were compared using χ2 and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: Among the sample (age mean = 50.4 [15.7] years; 53% male; 8.3% lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer; 46.7% Hispanic and Latinx individuals), 69.6% reported lifetime use of cannabis, 33.7% began cannabis use after cancer diagnosis, 48.1% of those consuming cannabis did not have a prescription for cannabis, and 29.4% of cannabis users consumed daily. The frequency of cannabis use (P = .04) and reasons for cannabis use (P = .02) varied by ethnic group. Sleep and pain were the most prevalent reasons for use among the Hispanics and Latinx populations; pain, mental health management, and neuropathy were the most prevalent reasons for cannabis use among non-Hispanic White individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns and reasons for cannabis use differed among cancer patients by ethnic group in this exploratory cross-sectional study aimed to provide data for more rigorous study. Understanding these distinctions are pivotal in conducting more rigorous studies that address the unique needs of diverse populations utilizing cannabis for managing cancer-related symptoms.

Cannabis use and patient-reported outcomes among patients at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer report increasing rates of cannabis use, often to manage symptoms and toxicities. The efficacy and safety of cannabis, however, for some use cases remains unclear. To better understand characteristics of patients with cancer who report using cannabis, we examined data from a cannabis use survey of among patients with cancer seen at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center. METHODS: In late 2021, patients with cancer (N = 1608) treated between July 2017 and December 2019 provided cannabis use data. Additional data were obtained from medical records data and routine patient-reported outcomes collected for clinical purposes. Univariable analyses and multivariable regression analyses were conducted to identify correlates of cannabis use at different stages in the cancer care trajectory. RESULTS: Rates of self-reported cannabis use by patients with cancer were 59% before cancer diagnosis and 47% after diagnosis. Longitudinal rates of cannabis use were 29% for no cannabis use, 23% before diagnosis, 12% after diagnosis, and 35% for both before and after diagnosis. Demographic factors associated with cannabis use included age, sex, race, and educational achievement. Tobacco use and binge drinking were associated with higher odds of cannabis use. Cannabis use was also associated with greater self-reported interference with physical functioning due to pain and interference with social functioning due to health problems. CONCLUSIONS: We found high rates of cannabis use among patients with cancer, both before and after their cancer diagnosis. Future studies should further investigate psychosocial factors associated with cannabis use among patients with cancer as well as psychosocial outcomes among patients with cancer using cannabis.

Tobacco-cannabis co-use among cancer patients and survivors: findings from 2 US cancer centers.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use is prevalent among cancer patients and survivors and may provide some therapeutic benefits for this population. However, benefits may be attenuated when cannabis is co-used with tobacco, which is associated with more severe tobacco and cannabis use and adverse outcomes in noncancer populations. We compared cannabis use, primary mode of use, and therapeutic and/or nontherapeutic use among 3 groups of patients and survivors based on cigarette smoking status. METHODS: Survey data was collected from patients and survivors with cancer (n = 1732) at 2 US National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in states with varying cannabis regulatory policy. Prevalence of cannabis use (prior to diagnosis, after diagnosis, before treatment, after treatment), primary mode of use, and therapeutic and/or nontherapeutic use were assessed by cigarette smoking status (current, former, never) within and across centers using weighted bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression, controlling for demographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: Current cigarette use was associated with greater rates of cannabis use prior to diagnosis, after diagnosis, during treatment, and after treatment within each center (all P < .001) and in pooled analyses across centers (all P < .001). Primary mode of use, knowledge of cannabis products, and therapeutic and/or nontherapeutic use also statistically differed by tobacco status and study site. CONCLUSIONS: Results illustrate the importance of conducting assessments for both tobacco and cannabis use among cancer patients during and after cancer treatment, regardless of the cannabis regulatory environment. Given previous data indicating harms from co-use and continued tobacco use during cancer treatment, this issue introduces new priorities for cancer care delivery and research.

Cancer Survivorship Care in the United States at Facilities Accredited by the Commission on Cancer.

Importance: Since 2021, American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation standards require providing a survivorship program for patients with adult-onset cancer treated with curative intent. Since more than 70% of all patients with cancer in the US are treated at CoC-accredited facilities, this presents an opportunity for a landscape analysis of survivorship care availability. Objective: To determine the prevalence, types, and outcomes of cancer survivorship services at CoC-accredited facilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey conducted from May 4 to 25, 2023. Participants were CoC-accredited facilities in the US representing diverse CoC program categories, institutional characteristics, geographic regions, and practice types. Department of Veterans Affairs cancer programs were excluded due to data usage restrictions. Data were analyzed from July to October 2023. Exposure: CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8 was released in October 2019 and programs were expected to adhere to the Standard beginning January 1, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Questions included self-reported survivorship program characteristics, availability of services aligned to CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8, and perceived program impacts. Response frequencies and proportions were determined in aggregate and by CoC program category. Results: There were 1400 eligible programs, and 384 programs participated (27.4% response rate). All regions and eligible program categories were represented, and most had analytic caseloads of 500 to 4999 patients in 2021. Most survivorship program personnel included nurses (334 programs [87.0%]) and social workers (278 programs [72.4%]), while physical (180 programs [46.9%]) and occupational (87 programs [22.7%]) therapists were less common. Services most endorsed as available for all survivors were screening for new cancers (330 programs [87.5%]), nutritional counseling (325 programs [85.3%]), and referrals to specialists (320 programs [84.7%]), while treatment summaries (242 programs [64.7%]), and survivorship care plans (173 programs [43.0%]), sexual health (217 programs [57.3%]), and fertility (214 programs [56.9%]) were less common. Survivorship services were usually delivered by cancer treatment teams (243 programs [63.3%]) rather than specialized survivorship clinics (120 programs [31.3%]). For resources needed, additional advanced practice clinicians with dedicated survivorship effort (205 programs [53.4%]) and electronic health record enhancements (185 programs [48.2%]) were most endorsed. Lack of referrals and low patient awareness were endorsed as the primary barriers. A total of 335 programs (87.2%) agreed that Survivorship Standard 4.8 helped advance their programs. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings of this survey study of CoC-accredited programs establish a benchmark for survivorship care delivery in the US, identify gaps in specific services and opportunities for intervention, contribute to longitudinal reevaluation for tracking progress nationally, and suggest the value of survivorship care standards.

Changes in New Patient Consultations During the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Canadian Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 pandemic-related disruptions on cancer services is emerging. We evaluated the impact of the first 2 years of the pandemic on new patient consultations for all cancers at a comprehensive cancer center within a publicly funded health care system and assessed whether there was evidence of stage shift. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using the Princess Margaret Cancer Registry. New consultations with medical, radiation, or surgical oncology were categorized by year and quarter. Logistic regression was used to assess the effect of period before and during the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer stage at consultation, adjusting for age, sex, and diagnosis location (our hospital network vs elsewhere). RESULTS: In all, 53,759 new patient consultations occurred from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2022. After the pandemic was declared, there was a decrease in all types of consultations by 43.3% in the second quarter of 2020, and referral volumes did not recover during the first year. There was no evidence of stage shift for all cancer types during the later quarters of the pandemic for the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: New patient consultations decreased across cancer stages, referral type, and most disease sites at our tertiary cancer center. We did not observe evidence of stage shift in this population. Further research is needed to determine whether this reflects the resilience of our health care system in maintaining cancer services or a delay in the presentation of advanced cancer cases. These data are important for shaping future cancer care delivery and recovery strategies.

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.

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.

Clinician-to-clinician connectedness and access to gastric cancer surgery at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.

BACKGROUND: For patients with gastric cancer, the pathway from primary care (PC) clinician to gastroenterologist to cancer specialist (medical oncologist or surgeons) is referral dependent. The impact of clinician connectedness on disparities in quality gastric cancer care, such as at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (NCI-CC), remains underexplored. This study evaluated how clinician connectedness influences access to gastrectomy at NCI-CC. METHODS: Maryland's All-Payer Claims Database was used to evaluate 667 patients who underwent gastrectomy for cancer from 2013 to 2018. Two separate referral linkages, defined as ≥9 shared patients, were examined: (1) PC clinicians to gastroenterologists at NCI-CC and (2) gastroenterologists to cancer specialists at NCI-CC. Multiple logistic regression models determined associations between referral linkages and odds of undergoing gastrectomy at NCI-CC. RESULTS: Only 15% of gastrectomies were performed at NCI-CC. Patients of gastroenterologists with referral links to cancer specialists at NCI-CC were more likely to be <65 years, male, White, and privately insured. Every additional referral link between PC clinician and gastroenterologist at NCI-CC and between gastroenterologist and cancer specialist at NCI-CC increased the odds of gastrectomy at NCI-CC by 71% and 26%, respectively. Black patients had half the odds as White patients in receiving gastrectomy at NCI-CC; however, adjusting for covariates including clinician-to-clinician connectedness attenuated this observation. CONCLUSION: Patients of clinicians with low connectedness and Black patients are less likely to receive gastrectomy at NCI-CC. Enhancing clinician connectedness is necessary to address disparities in cancer care. These results are relevant to policy makers, clinicians, and patient advocates striving for health equity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Executing plans to enhance diversity across cancer centers in the United States: opportunities and challenges.

BACKGROUND: Lack of diversity in the cancer research workforce persists, which the new requirement for all National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers to have a Plan to Enhance Diversity (PED) seeks to address. However, it is not well understood how different cancer centers are approaching the development and execution of these plans. Our objective was to assess how cancer centers are establishing and pursuing their PED. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of members of the Cancer Center Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Network, which includes all NCI-designated cancer centers and several emerging centers. A total of 62 cancer centers (75% of those invited), including 58 NCI-designated cancer centers (81% of those with this designation), participated and completed a questionnaire that assessed PED leadership, major challenges, implementation strategies, and approach to evaluate PED progress. RESULTS: The most common PED challenge identified is recruiting diverse faculty (68% of centers), and the most common strategy currently used to address this is reviewing and revising faculty recruitment practices (67%). The most common approach centers are using to measure PED progress is shifts in demographics (68%), and data on the demographics of faculty, leadership, and trainees are available at 79%, 81%, and 75% of centers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all centers have established a PED leadership structure, however, there is considerable variation in the approaches used to realize PED goals and in the resources provided to support PED work. Realizing opportunities to share and implement common best practices and exemplar programs has the potential to elevate the impact of PED efforts nationally.

[Quality-assured treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks in Upper Franconia, Germany: An analysis based on data of the Bavarian Cancer Registry]. / Qualitätsgesicherte Behandlung in zertifizierten Versorgungsnetzwerken von Patientinnen mit Mammakarzinom in der Region Oberfranken: Eine Analyse auf Basis von Bayerischen Krebsregisterdaten.

OBJECTIVES: Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the most common cancer-related cause of death among women in Germany. The treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks is recommended to ensure high-quality care. The aim of the study was to determine the percentage of breast cancer patients receiving cancer treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks in Upper Franconia, Germany. METHODS: This study considered the location of treatment and the certification status of providers with regard to initial diagnosis, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation during breast cancer care. Based on this, we compared patient characteristics receiving cancer care in certified and non-certified cancer centres and their networks. The evaluation was based on a dataset of the Bavarian Cancer Registry (4/2017-3/2022). RESULTS: The analysis included 5,545 primary tumors from a total of 5,355 patients (age: 64.5±14.2 years; 99.2% female). The percentage of patients receiving care in certified breast cancer centre networks was 78.8% for initial diagnosis, 82.6% for surgery, 79.5% for chemotherapy, and 99.6% for radiation, respectively. The weighted mean across all treatment sequences was 84.3%. Patients receiving care in certified care networks were significantly younger for three therapy sequences (p+<+0.001). In addition, an above-average proportion of patients with advanced tumor stages were treated in non-certified care networks, especially for diagnosis and surgery (p+<+0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the different treatment sequences, we found differences in the proportion of patients who received quality-assured treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks in Upper Franconia. When comparing similar analysis, the results show an average care percentage of patients receiving care in certified care networks. Furthermore, it should be ensured that patients receive comprehensive information about receiving care in certified cancer centre networks.

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.

Predictors of germline genetic testing referral and completion in ovarian cancer patients at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of referral and completion of germline genetic testing among newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients, with a focus on geographic social deprivation, oncologist-level practices, and time between diagnosis and completion of testing. METHODS: Clinical and sociodemographic data were abstracted from medical records of patients newly diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 2014 and 2019 in the University of North Carolina Health System. Factors associated with referral for genetic counseling, completion of germline testing, and time between diagnosis and test results were identified using multivariable regression. RESULTS: 307/459 (67%) patients were referred for genetic counseling and 285/459 (62%) completed testing. The predicted probability of test completion was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.88) for patients with a referral compared to 0.27 (95% CI: 0.18-0.35) for patients without a referral. The predicted probability of referral was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.69-0.82) for patients at the 25th percentile of ZIP code-level Social Deprivation Index (SDI) and 0.67 (0.60-0.74) for patients at the 75th percentile of SDI. Referral varied by oncologist, with predicted probabilities ranging from 0.47 (95% CI: 0.32-0.62) to 0.93 (95% CI: 0.85-1.00) across oncologists. The median time between diagnosis and test results was 137 days (IQR: 55-248 days). This interval decreased by a predicted 24.46 days per year (95% CI: 37.75-11.16). CONCLUSIONS: We report relatively high germline testing and a promising trend in time from diagnosis to results, with variation by oncologist and patient factors. Automated referral, remote genetic counseling and sample collection, reduced out-of-pocket costs, and educational interventions should be explored.