Rate of COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2: Analysis of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Registry.

BACKGROUND: The availability of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines has enabled protections against serious COVID-19 outcomes, which are particularly important for patients with cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Registry enabled the study of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in patients with cancer who were positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2. METHODS: Medical oncology practices entered data on patients who were in cancer treatment. The cohort included patients who had severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection in 2020 and had visits and vaccine data after December 31, 2020. The primary end point was the time to first vaccination from January 1, 2021. Cumulative incidence estimates and Cox regression with death as a competing risk were used to describe the time to vaccine uptake and factors associated with vaccine receipt. RESULTS: The cohort included 1155 patients from 56 practices. Among 690 patients who received the first vaccine dose, 92% received the second dose. The median time to vaccine was 99 days. After adjustment, older patients were associated with a higher likelihood of vaccination compared with patients younger than 50 years in January through March 2021, and age exhibited a linear effect, with older patients showing higher rates of vaccination. Metastatic solid tumors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.98) or non-B-cell hematologic malignancies (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93) compared with nonmetastatic solid tumors, and any comorbidity (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95) compared with no comorbidity, were associated with lower vaccination rates. Area-level social determinants of health (lower education attainment and higher unemployment rates) were associated with lower vaccination rates. CONCLUSIONS: Patient age, cancer type, comorbidity, area-level education attainment, and unemployment rates were associated with differential vaccine uptake rates. These findings should inform strategies to communicate about vaccine safety and efficacy to patients with cancer.

The State of Oncology Practice in America, 2018: Results of the ASCO Practice Census Survey.

PURPOSE: To describe the US hematology and medical oncology practice landscape and to report findings of the sixth annual ASCO Oncology Practice Census survey. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: ASCO used Medicare Physician Compare data to characterize oncology practices in the United States. Practice size, number of care sites, and geographic distribution were determined. Trends in the number and size of practices from 2013 to 2017 were examined. All US oncology practices were targeted for the survey; survey responses were linked to the practices identified from Physician Compare to augment results and assess generalizability. RESULTS: More than 2,200 hematology/oncology practices provided care to adult patients in 2017. We observed annual decreases in the number of practices and annual increases in practice size. Of the 2017 practices, 394 (18%) completed the survey and accounted for 58% of the US hematologist/oncologist workforce (n = 7,203). Respondents tended to be larger and encompass more sites of care than nonrespondents. Surveyed practices cited payers (58%), competition (38%), and staffing (37%) as primary sources of strain. Prior authorization was dominant among payer pressures (78%). Electronic health records remained a burden on practices, with only 15% reporting full interoperability. CONCLUSION: The results of ASCO's 2017 survey indicate that oncology practices are challenged by day-to-day operations, often related to payment, reimbursement, and competition. Our findings likely represent conservative estimates of such burdens because they are driven by responses from midsized to large-sized organizations, which have lower relative administrative burden, greater market influence, and potentially better ability to adapt in a changing health care environment.

Association Between Geographic Access to Cancer Care and Receipt of Radiation Therapy for Rectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Trimodality therapy (chemoradiation and surgery) is the standard of care for stage II/III rectal cancer but nearly one third of patients do not receive radiation therapy (RT). We examined the relationship between the density of radiation oncologists and the travel distance to receipt of RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective study based on the National Cancer Data Base identified 26,845 patients aged 18 to 80 years with stage II/III rectal cancer diagnosed from 2007 to 2010. Radiation oncologists were identified through the Physician Compare dataset. Generalized estimating equations clustering by hospital service area was used to examine the association between geographic access and receipt of RT, controlling for patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 26,845 patients, 70% received RT within 180 days of diagnosis or within 90 days of surgery. Compared with a travel distance of <12.5 miles, patients diagnosed at a reporting facility who traveled ≥50 miles had a decreased likelihood of receipt of RT (50-249 miles, adjusted odds ratio 0.75, P<.001; ≥250 miles, adjusted odds ratio 0.46; P=.002), all else being equal. The density level of radiation oncologists was not significantly associated with the receipt of RT. Patients who were female, nonwhite, and aged ≥50 years and had comorbidities were less likely to receive RT (P<.05). Patients who were uninsured but self-paid for their medical services, initially diagnosed elsewhere but treated at a reporting facility, and resided in Midwest had an increased the likelihood of receipt of RT (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: An increased travel burden was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving RT for patients with stage II/III rectal cancer, all else being equal; however, radiation oncologist density was not. Further research of geographic access and establishing transportation assistance programs or lodging services for patients with an unmet need might help decrease geographic barriers and improve the quality of rectal cancer care.

Association Between Geographic Access to Cancer Care, Insurance, and Receipt of Chemotherapy: Geographic Distribution of Oncologists and Travel Distance.

PURPOSE: Geographic access to care may be associated with receipt of chemotherapy but has not been fully examined. This study sought to evaluate the association between density of oncologists and travel distance and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer within 90 days of colectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients in the National Cancer Data Base with stage III colon cancer, diagnosed between 2007 and 2010, and age 18 to 80 years were selected. Generalized estimating equation clustering by hospital service area was conducted to examine the association between geographic access and receipt of oncology services, controlling for patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of 34,694 patients in the study cohort, 75.7% received adjuvant chemotherapy within 90 days of colectomy. Compared with travel distance less than 12.5 miles, patients who traveled 50 to 249 miles (odds ratio [OR], 0.87; P=.009) or ≥250 miles (OR, 0.36; P<.001) had decreased likelihood of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Density level of oncologists was not statistically associated with receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (low v high density: OR, 0.98; P=.77). When stratifying analyses by insurance status, non-privately insured patients who resided in areas with low density of oncologists were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (OR, 0.85; P=.03). CONCLUSION: Increased travel burden was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, regardless of insurance status. Patients with nonprivate insurance who resided in low-density oncologist areas were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy. If these findings are validated prospectively, interventions to decrease geographic barriers may improve the timeliness and quality of colon cancer treatment.

Enhancing the American Society of Clinical Oncology workforce information system with geographic distribution of oncologists and comparison of data sources for the number of practicing oncologists.

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2007 workforce report projected US oncologist shortages by 2020. Intervening years have witnessed shifting trends in both supply and demand, demonstrating the need to capture data in a dynamic manner. The ASCO Workforce Information System (WIS) provides an infrastructure to update annually emerging characteristics of US oncologists (medical oncologists, hematologist/oncologists, and hematologists). METHODS: Several possible data sources exist to capture the number of oncologists in the United States. The WIS primarily uses the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile database because it provides detailed demographics. This analysis also compares total counts of oncologists from American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) certification reports, the National Provider Identifier (NPI) database, and Medicare Physician Compare data. The analysis also examines geographic distribution of oncologists by age and US population data. RESULTS: For each of the data sources, we pulled 2013 data. The Masterfile identified 13,409 oncologists. ABIM reported 13,757 oncologists. NPI listed 11,664 oncologists. Physician Compare identified 11,343 oncologists. Mapping of these data identifies distinct areas (primarily in central United States, Alaska, and Hawaii) that seem to lack ready access to oncologists. DISCUSSION: Efforts to survey oncologists about practice patterns will help determine if productivity and service delivery will change significantly. ASCO is committed to tracking oncologist supply and demand, as well as to providing timely analysis of strategies that will help address any shortages that may occur in specific regions or practice settings.

Tracking the workforce: the American Society of Clinical Oncology workforce information system.

PURPOSE: In anticipation of oncologist workforce shortages projected as part of a 2007 study, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) worked with a contractor to create a workforce information system (WIS) to assemble the latest available data on oncologist supply and cancer incidence and prevalence. ASCO plans to publish findings annually, reporting on new data and tracking trends over time. METHODS: THE WIS REPORT IS COMPOSED OF THREE SECTIONS: supply, new entrants, and cancer incidence and prevalence. Tabulations of the number of oncologists in the United States are derived mainly from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. Information on fellows and residents in the oncology workforce pipeline come from published sources such as Journal of the American Medical Association. Incidence and prevalence estimates are published by the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute. RESULTS: The WIS reports a total of 13,084 oncologists working in the United States in 2011. Oncologists are defined as those physicians who designate hematology, hematology/oncology, or medical oncology as their specialty. The WIS compares the characteristics of these oncologists with those of all physicians and tracks emerging trends in the physician training pipeline. CONCLUSION: Observing characteristics of the oncologist workforce over time allows ASCO to identify, prioritize, and evaluate its workforce initiatives. Accessible figures and reports generated by the WIS can be used by ASCO and others in the oncology community to advocate for needed health care system and policy changes to help offset future workforce shortages.