Lung cancer diagnosis and mortality beyond 15 years since quit in individuals with a 20+ pack-year history: A systematic review.

Current US lung cancer screening recommendations limit eligibility to adults with a pack-year (PY) history of ≥20 years and the first 15 years since quit (YSQ). The authors conducted a systematic review to better understand lung cancer incidence, risk and mortality among otherwise eligible individuals in this population beyond 15 YSQ. The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched through February 14, 2023, and relevant articles were searched by hand. Included studies examined the relationship between adults with both a ≥20-PY history and ≥15 YSQ and lung cancer diagnosis, mortality, and screening ineligibility. One investigator abstracted data and a second confirmed. Two investigators independently assessed study quality and certainty of evidence (COE) and resolved discordance through consensus. From 2636 titles, 22 studies in 26 articles were included. Three studies provided low COE of elevated lung cancer incidence beyond 15 YSQ, as compared with people who never smoked, and six studies provided moderate COE that the risk of a lung cancer diagnosis after 15 YSQ declines gradually, but with no clinically significant difference just before and after 15 YSQ. Studies examining lung cancer-related disparities suggest that outcomes after 15 YSQ were similar between African American/Black and White participants; increasing YSQ would expand eligibility for African American/Black individuals, but for a significantly larger proportion of White individuals. The authors observed that the risk of lung cancer not only persists beyond 15 YSQ but that, compared with individuals who never smoked, the risk may remain significantly elevated for 2 or 3 decades. Future research of nationally representative samples with consistent reporting across studies is needed, as are better data from which to examine the effects on health disparities across different populations.

Health insurance status and cancer stage at diagnosis and survival in the United States.

Previous studies using data from the early 2000s demonstrated that patients who were uninsured were more likely to present with late-stage disease and had worse short-term survival after cancer diagnosis in the United States. In this report, the authors provide comprehensive data on the associations of health insurance coverage type with stage at diagnosis and long-term survival in individuals aged 18-64 years who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2013 with 19 common cancers from the National Cancer Database, with survival follow-up through December 31, 2019. Compared with privately insured patients, Medicaid-insured and uninsured patients were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage (III/IV) cancer for all stageable cancers combined and separately. For all stageable cancers combined and for six cancer sites-prostate, colorectal, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, oral cavity, liver, and esophagus-uninsured patients with Stage I disease had worse survival than privately insured patients with Stage II disease. Patients without private insurance coverage had worse short-term and long-term survival at each stage for all cancers combined; patients who were uninsured had worse stage-specific survival for 12 of 17 stageable cancers and had worse survival for leukemia and brain tumors. Expanding access to comprehensive health insurance coverage is crucial for improving access to cancer care and outcomes, including stage at diagnosis and survival.

Cost-of-care discussions for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma: Findings from a large, population-based pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Costs of cancer care can result in patient financial hardship; many professional organizations recommend provider discussions about treatment costs as part of high-quality care. In this pilot study, the authors examined patient-provider cost discussions documented in the medical records of individuals who were diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma-cancers with recently approved, high-cost treatment options. METHODS: Individuals who were newly diagnosed in 2017-2018 with stage III/IV NSCLC (n = 1767) and in 2018 with stage III/IV melanoma (n = 689) from 12 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results regions were randomly selected for the National Cancer Institute Patterns of Care Study. Documentation of cost discussions was abstracted from the medical record. The authors examined patient, treatment, and hospital factors associated with cost discussions in multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Cost discussions were documented in the medical records of 20.3% of patients with NSCLC and in 24.0% of those with melanoma. In adjusted analyses, privately insured (vs. publicly insured) patients were less likely to have documented cost discussions (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.80). Patients who did not receive systemic therapy or did not receive any cancer-directed treatment were less likely to have documented cost discussions than those who did receive systemic therapy (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.19-0.81] and 0.46 [95% CI, 0.30-0.70], respectively), as were patients who were treated at hospitals without residency programs (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Cost discussions were infrequently documented in the medical records of patients who were diagnosed with advanced NSCLC and melanoma, which may hinder identifying patient needs and tracking outcomes of associated referrals. Efforts to increase cost-of-care discussions and relevant referrals, as well as their documentation, are warranted.

A pragmatic randomized trial of mailed fecal immunochemical testing to increase colorectal cancer screening among low-income and minoritized populations.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underused, particularly among low-income and minoritized populations, for whom the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged progress in achieving equity. METHODS: A hub-and-spoke model was used. The hub was a nonacademic organization and the spokes were three community health center (CHC) systems overseeing numerous clinic sites. Via a cluster-randomized trial design, nine clinic sites were randomized to intervention and 16 clinic sites were randomized to usual care. Patient-level interventions included invitation letters, mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), and call/text-based reminders. Year 1 intervention impact, which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, was assessed as the proportion completing screening among individuals not up to date at baseline, which compared intervention and nonintervention clinics accounting for intraclinic cluster variation; confidence intervals (CIs) around differences not including 0 were interpreted as statistically significant. RESULTS: Among 26,736 patients who met eligibility criteria, approximately 58% were female, 55% were Hispanic individuals, and 44% were Spanish speaking. The proportion completing screening was 11.5 percentage points (ppts) (95% CI, 6.1-16.9 ppts) higher in intervention versus usual care clinics. Variation in differences between intervention and usual care clinics was observed by sex (12.6 ppts [95% CI, 7.2-18.0 ppts] for females; 8.8 ppts [95% CI, 4.7-13.9 ppts] for males) and by racial and ethnic group (13.8 ppts [95% CI, 7.0-20.6 ppts] for Hispanic individuals; 13.0 ppts [95% CI, 3.6-22.4 ppts] for Asian individuals; 11.3 ppts [95% CI, 5.8-16.8 ppts] for non-Hispanic White individuals; 6.1 ppts [95% CI, 0.8-10.4 ppts] for Black individuals). CONCLUSIONS: A regional mailed FIT intervention was effective for increasing CRC screening rates across CHC systems serving diverse, low-income populations.

Association of race/ethnicity and patient care experiences with receipt of definitive treatment among prostate cancer survivors: a SEER-CAHPS study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the association of race/ethnicity, patient care experiences (PCEs), and receipt of definitive treatment and treatment modality among older adults in the United States (US) with localized prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results dataset linked to Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (SEER-CAHPS) for 2007-2015, we identified men aged ≥ 65 years who completed a CAHPS survey within one year before and one year after PCa diagnosis. Associations of race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White (NHW), non-Hispanic Black (NHB), Hispanic, non-Hispanic Asian (NHA), and other) and of interactions between race/ethnicity and PCEs (getting needed care, getting care quickly, doctor communication, and care coordination) with the receipt of definitive PCa treatment and treatment modality within 3 and 6 months of diagnosis were examined using logistic regressions. RESULTS: Among 1,438 PCa survivors, no racial/ethnic disparities in the receipt of definitive treatment were identified. However, NHB patients were less likely to receive surgery (vs. radiation) within 3 and 6 months of PCa diagnosis than NHW patients (OR 0.397, p = 0.006 and OR 0.419, p = 0.005), respectively. Among NHA patients, a 1-point higher score for getting care quickly was associated with lower odds (OR 0.981, p = 0.043) of receiving definitive treatment within 3 months of PCa diagnosis, whereas among NHB patients, a 1-point higher score for doctor communication was associated with higher odds (OR 1.023, p = 0.039) of receiving definitive treatment within 6 months of PCa diagnosis. DISCUSSION: We observed differential associations between PCEs and receipt of definitive treatment based on patient race/ethnicity. Further research is needed to explore these associations.

Use of pembrolizumab among older adults with cancer in the United States, before and after FDA approval of its tumor-agnostic indication.

INTRODUCTION: Pembrolizumab, an anticancer immunotherapy agent, has received multiple approvals since its first approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014. Limited data exist on its real-world use and shifts post tumor-agnostic approval in 2017 for the treatment of patients with any microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) solid tumors. This study analyzes pembrolizumab's pre and post-tumor-agnostic approval use among older U.S. adults, revealing its evolving role in oncology practice. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data (2014-2019), we examined the cancer sites of pembrolizumab recipients before and after tumor-agnostic approval. Cancer sites were classified based on the timing of site-specific approvals (before/after tumor-agnostic approval) or no site-specific approval, and inclusion in MSI-H/dMMR clinical trials. RESULTS: The total number of pembrolizumab recipients increased from 4221 in the pre-agnostic period to 20 479 in the post-agnostic period. Pembrolizumab was used for a broad range of cancer types, including cancers that had no FDA-approved site-specific indications at the time of use (25.8% in pre- and 24.6% in post-agnostic periods). The proportion of pembrolizumab recipients receiving pembrolizumab for cancers with site-specific approvals before tumor-agnostic approval decreased from 77.3% to 70.8%. The proportion of pembrolizumab recipients receiving pembrolizumab for cancers that gained site-specific approvals following tumor-agnostic approval almost doubled (6.8% to 13.0%). The proportion of pembrolizumab recipients with cancers included in MSI-H/dMMR trials also doubled (12.3% to 25.5%) following tumor-agnostic approval. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab use has expanded over time among older adults with cancer, extending beyond those with FDA-approved site-specific indications.

Enhancing Cancer Economic Data Resources: The Interagency Consortium to Promote Health Economics Research on Cancer (HEROiC).

BACKGROUND: Cancer diagnosis and treatment can substantially affect health and financial outcomes for patients and families. Research in health care delivery across the cancer control continuum includes diverse activities led by multiple government and private sector organizations. Assessing the economic drivers and influencing factors associated with costs across this continuum is challenging as organizations leading research efforts often do not have forums to share data, develop linkages, and explore collaborative opportunities. OBJECTIVE: To describe the objectives, activities, and goals of the Interagency Consortium to Promote Health Economics Research on Cancer (HEROiC) to strengthen data resources and capacity for collaborative patient-focused cancer health economics research. MAIN ARGUMENT: HEROiC's goals include assessing the economic burden of cancer; examining the effects of policies, health care setting/system factors, and health service delivery approaches across the cancer control continuum; and enhancing collaborations among researchers and organizations. CONCLUSIONS: Data resources to study economic outcomes associated with cancer control are highly fragmented; HEROIC provides a forum to collaboratively develop, enhance, and utilize data resources and infrastructure for patient-centered cancer health economics research. This includes sharing data resources, developing linkages, identifying new data collection venues, and creating and supporting the dissemination of evidence-based information to diverse stakeholders. These efforts provide critical information to address the economic burden of cancer. RELEVANCE TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE: Cancer diagnosis and treatment affect patient health and financial outcomes. This commentary describes how HEROiC will enhance research data infrastructure and collaborations to support patient-centered research with the goal of reducing the economic burden of cancer.

Associations between mental health and care experiences among older adults with cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand whether people with cancer who received mental health services reported different care experiences than those who did not. METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Consumer Assessment of Health Providers and Systems (CAHPS) linked data to identify Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 and over diagnosed with solid tumor malignancies between 8/2006 and 12/2013. We identified mental health services using claims spanning 12 months before cancer diagnosis through up to 5 years afterward. Outcomes were care experience ratings (e.g., Overall Care) and composite measures (e.g., Doctor Communication). We estimated frequentist and Bayesian regression models adjusted for standard confounders, including sociodemographics, general and mental health status (MHS), and other characteristics. Models included interaction terms to understand whether mental healthcare changes self-reported experiences for individuals with adverse MHS. RESULTS: Approximately 22% (n = 4998 individuals with cancer) had a mental health disorder claim; 17% of these reported fair/poor MHS versus only 7% of those in the cancer-only cohort (without a mental health disorder claim). Before adjusting for mental healthcare utilization and case-mix, worse MHS was associated with worse care experiences (p < 0.001 for all six measures). After accounting for mental health disorder-related healthcare utilization and case mix, multivariable regression models showed no associations between MHS and worse care experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Care for mental health disorders mediates the association between MHS and perceived care experiences. The results suggest that mental health treatment may improve the self-reported experiences of care for older adults with cancer and adverse mental health issues.

A framework for cancer health economics research.

LAY SUMMARY: Cancer has substantial economic impacts for patients, their families and/or caregivers, employers, and the health care system. However, there is only limited understanding of how economic issues can affect access to cancer care services and the receipt of high-quality cancer care. Health economics research in cancer is particularly timely due to the large and increasing number of patients with cancer and cancer survivors, but there are many factors that may create barriers to performing cancer health economics research. This commentary has identified important topics and questions in cancer health economics research and will assist in the development of this critical field.

A look at the gynecologic oncologist workforce - Are we meeting patient demand?

OBJECTIVE: to examine the geographic distribution of gynecologic oncologists (GO) and assess if the GO workforce is meeting the demand for oncology services for patients with gynecologic cancers. METHODS: We identified GO by National Provider Identifiers (NPI) and calculated county-level density of GO. County-level gynecologic cancer rates were derived from the U.S. Cancer Statistics to represent demand for GO services. A spatial data plot compared GO workforce to gynecologic cancer service demand. U.S. census county-level demographic information was collected and compared. RESULTS: In 2019, 1527 GO had a registered NPI. Of 3142 counties in the US, 2864 (91.2%) counties had no GO in their local county and 1943 (61.8%) counties had no GO in local or adjacent (neighboring) counties. As the gynecologic cancer rate increases (described in quintiles) in counties, there are fewer counties without a GO or adjacent GO. However, county-level GO density (number of GO per 100,000 women) did not significantly increase as the county-level incidence of gynecologic cancer increased (r = -0.12, p = 0.06)… Women living in counties with the highest gynecologic cancer rates and without access to a GO were more likely to reside in a rural area where residents had a lower median income and were predominately of White race.. CONCLUSION: There are a significant number of counties in the U.S. without a GO. As county-level gynecologic cancer incidence increased, the proportion of counties without a GO decreased; GO density did not increase with increasing cancer rates. Rural counties with high gynecologic incidence rates are underserved by GO. This information can inform initiatives to improve outreach and collaboration to better meet the needs of patients in different geographic areas.

Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice.

Engaging individuals with cancer in decision making about their treatments has received increased attention; shared decision making (SDM) has become a hallmark of patient-centered care. Although physicians indicate substantial interest in SDM, implementing SDM in cancer care is often complex; high levels of uncertainty may exist, and health care providers must help patients understand the potential risks versus benefits of different treatment options. However, patients who are more engaged in their health care decision making are more likely to experience confidence in and satisfaction with treatment decisions and increased trust in their providers. To implement SDM in oncology practice, physicians and other health care providers need to understand the components of SDM and the approaches to supporting and facilitating this process as part of cancer care. This review summarizes recent information regarding patient and physician factors that influence SDM for cancer care, outcomes resulting from successful SDM, and strategies for implementing SDM in oncology practice. We present a conceptual model illustrating the components of SDM in cancer care and provide recommendations for facilitating SDM in oncology practice.

Meeting the Information and Support Needs of Blood Cancer Patients and Caregivers: A Longitudinal Study of a Model of Patient-Centered Information Delivery.

Access to reliable, up-to-date information and resources can assist individuals managing and living with cancer. The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, through its Information Resource Center, provides personalized information and support to individuals affected by blood cancer. To examine its value and impact, we conducted qualitative interviews (n = 18) and an online survey of patients and caregivers (N = 515) after they talked with an Information Resource Center Information Specialist by phone, with a follow-up survey about 6 months later. Respondents most commonly contacted the Information Resource Center to get referrals to support programs (40.4%) and to obtain information about getting a second opinion (36.5%) and financial assistance (36.2%). After talking with an Information Specialist, respondents felt more hopeful (85.9%), more confident in managing care (82.9%), and more knowledgeable about their diagnosis (49.5%) and financial resources (42.4%). After speaking with an Information Specialist, respondents changed how they advocated for themselves/loved one (23.8%), changed how they communicated with doctors/other providers and family/friends (both 15.9%), received financial assistance (22.2%), and took other actions. Among respondents who took actions, most said that the conversation(s) had positively impacted the action. Respondents who spoke with an Information Specialist more than once were more likely to report positive impacts, including changing how they advocate for themselves/loved one and communicate with providers (both p < 0.05). Respondents diagnosed more recently were also more likely to report positive impact, including changing the way they communicate with providers (p < 0.05). Findings highlight the value of cancer helplines and suggest ways they can be most effective.

Metrics to Evaluate the Performance of Cancer Center Leadership: A Systematic Review.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Cancer centers are diverse healthcare organizations comprising clinicians and researchers dedicated to understanding, treating, and controlling cancer in the populations they serve. Although many metrics are used to evaluate cancer center performance, few of these standardized measures have been identified to evaluate cancer center leadership. We performed a systematic review to identify published literature presenting metrics used to evaluate the leadership of cancer centers. Metrics were then classified using 10 a priori-defined categories of evaluation. Overall, we reviewed 34 articles (studies, editorials, interviews). The most commonly discussed leadership evaluation category was Organizational Strategy/Planning (31 of the 34 articles), followed by Leader Characteristics (25 articles), Clinical Performance (21), and Facility Characteristics (20). Organizational Strategy/Planning metrics included governance structure, strategic development, quality assurance and improvement, mission and vision, business planning, and program development. Leader Characteristic metrics included communication, vision/strategic thinking, personal skills, team coordination, leadership style, and staff development. Clinical Performance metrics focused on delivery of and outcomes from clinical services, while Facility Characteristics included space allocation and access to support services. The metrics reviewed in this article may be considered measurable outcomes in evaluating whether cancer center leadership demonstrates key competencies. Additional research should explore the linkage among metrics used to evaluate cancer center leaders, desired competencies for healthcare leaders, and objective measures of whether a cancer center is successful.

Care experiences among dually enrolled older adults with cancer: SEER-CAHPS, 2005-2013.

PURPOSE: Given the associations between poverty and poorer outcomes among older adults with cancer, we sought to understand the effects of dual enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid-as a marker of poverty-on self-reported care experiences among seniors diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study using cancer registry, Medicare claims, and care experience survey data (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER]-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems [CAHPS®]) for a national sample of fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees aged 65 or older. We included people with one incident primary, malignant cancer diagnosed between 2005 and 2011, surveyed within 2 years after diagnosis (n = 9,800; 995 dual enrollees). Medicare CAHPS measures included 5 global ratings and 3 composite scores. RESULTS: After adjustment for potential confounders, people with cancer histories who were dually enrolled were significantly more likely to report better experiences than non-duals on 2 measures (Medicare/their health plan: adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.87; prescription drug plan [PDP]: aOR: 0.54, 95% CI 0.40-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Dual enrollees with cancer reported better experiences than Medicare-only enrollees in terms of their health plan (Medicare FFS or Medicare Advantage) and their PDP. Better ratings among dually enrolled beneficiaries suggest possible divergence between health outcomes and care experiences, warranting additional investigation.

Second primary anal and oropharyngeal cancers in cervical cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Human papilloma virus infection is responsible for approximately 31,500 new cancers in the United States annually. Almost all cervical cancers are linked to human papilloma virus infection. As early identification and treatment of cervical cancer improve, the incidence of cervical cancer has decreased and survival has improved. However, survivors continue to remain at risk for other human papilloma virus-related malignancies. The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of primary anal and oropharyngeal cancers among women with a history of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. STUDY DESIGN: A population-based cohort of 21,060 women diagnosed with cervical squamous cell carcinoma from 1973 through 2014 was identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program-9 data. Standardized incidence ratios for anal and oropharyngeal cancers were calculated to estimate the risk of a second primary human papilloma virus-related malignancy based on incidence in the general population. Results were further stratified by age (20-53, 54 years old or older) and latency period (2-11, 12-59, 60-119, 120 months or longer). The number needed to screen for oropharyngeal and anal cancers was estimated using study results and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-reported incidence rates. RESULTS: Cervical squamous cell cancer survivors had a higher risk of being diagnosed with oropharyngeal cancer (standardized incidence ratio, 4.36, 95% confidence interval, 1.19-11.15) and anal cancer (standardized incidence ratio, 2.20, 95% confidence interval, 1.28-3.52). Patients diagnosed with cervical cancer between ages 20 and 53 years had an increased risk of anal cancer (standardized incidence ratio, 3.53, 95% confidence interval, 1.15-8.23). Age 54 years or older at cervical cancer diagnosis was associated with increased oropharyngeal cancer risk only (standardized incidence ratio, 5.04, 95% confidence interval, 1.37-12.91). Latency stratification was significant for increased OPC risk between 2-11 months and 12-59 months after diagnosis. At 120 months or longer, there was an increased risk of both oropharyngeal cancer (standardized incidence ratio, 7.97, 95% confidence interval, 2.17-20.42) and anal cancer (standardized incidence ratio, 2.60, 95% confidence interval, 1.34-4.54). The estimated number needed to screen for oropharyngeal cancer (number needed to screen for oropharyngeal cancer, 282) and anal cancer (number needed to screen for anal cancer, 1272) is significantly less than the number needed to screen for cervical cancer. CONCLUSION: Squamous cell cervical cancer survivors have a substantially increased risk of anal and oropharyngeal cancers. This increased risk is significant 10 or more years after the cervical cancer diagnosis. Health care providers and survivors should be aware of this increased risk. The development of effective and economical surveillance methods for anal and oropharyngeal cancers in cervical cancer survivors is urgently needed.

Evaluation of effectiveness of survivorship programmes: how to measure success?

Although the number of cancer survivors has increased substantially in the past two decades, the evidence base regarding the effectiveness of cancer survivorship programmes is inadequate. Survivorship programmes tend to evaluate their effectiveness by assessing changes in patient-reported outcomes, symptoms and health status, knowledge, and receipt of cancer surveillance in programme participants. However, more comprehensive and high-quality evaluations of survivorship programmes are needed, including assessments using a broader set of measures. These expanded evaluations can include assessments of programme structure; long-term outcomes, such as survival, quality-adjusted life-years, and functional status; receipt of social support, nutritional, rehabilitative, and fertility preservation services; programme value, including costs and avoidance of inappropriate resource utilisation; and ability of programmes to increase access to needed survivorship care services and health equity. In this Series paper, we provide examples of assessment measures for currently used survivorship programmes, discuss the rationale for and potential benefits of expanded types of evaluation measures, and identify how these measures correspond to several evaluation frameworks. We conclude that use of a common, expanded set of measures to facilitate broad comparisons across survivorship programmes and thorough and systematic evaluations will help to identify the optimal programmes for individual survivors, improve outcomes, and prove the value of survivorship care.

The health care experience of patients with cancer during the last year of life: Analysis of the SEER-CAHPS data set.

BACKGROUND: Providing high-quality medical care for individuals with cancer during their last year of life involves a range of challenges. An important component of high-quality care during this critical period is ensuring optimal patient satisfaction. The objective of the current study was to assess factors influencing health care ratings among individuals with cancer within 1 year before death. METHODS: The current study used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) data set, a new data resource linking patient-reported information from the CAHPS Medicare Survey with clinical information from the National Cancer Institute's SEER program. The study included 5102 Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with cancer who completed CAHPS between 1998 and 2011 within 1 year before their death. Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined associations between patient demographic and insurance characteristics with 9 measures of health care experience. RESULTS: Patients with higher general or mental health status were significantly more likely to indicate excellent experience with nearly all measures examined. Sex, race/ethnicity, and education also were found to be significant predictors for certain ratings. Greater time before death predicted an increased likelihood of higher ratings for health plan and specialist physician. Clinical characteristics were found to have few significant associations with experience of care. Individuals in fee-for-service Medicare plans (vs Medicare Advantage) had a greater likelihood of excellent experience with health plans, getting care quickly, and getting needed care. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with cancer within 1 year before death, experience with health plans, physicians, and medical care were found to be associated with sociodemographic, insurance, and clinical characteristics. These findings provide guidance for the development of programs to improve the experience of care among individuals with cancer. Cancer 2017;123:336-344. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Regulations and policies regarding e-cigarettes.

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a growing public health concern because of a dramatic increase in use by adolescents and the uncertainty of potential health impacts. These health concerns and lack of an established federal regulatory scheme have led many local and state governments to address the regulatory void for e-cigarettes by incorporating them into the statutory definition of tobacco or by passing laws specific to the use of e-cigarettes. In August 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule deeming e-cigarettes within their authority; providing uniform requirements like premarket approval applications, Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents reporting, and warning labels; and establishing 18 years as a minimum age of purchase. Although the impact on the public's health remains uncertain, regulations and laws governing e-cigarettes continue to develop. This review highlights the available data regarding safety and public health impacts of e-cigarettes and details the status of US regulations and policies affecting their sale and use. Cancer 2017;123:3007-14. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP): Sustaining Quality and Reducing Disparities in Guideline-Concordant Breast and Colon Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) pilot was designed to improve quality of cancer care and reduce disparities at community hospitals. The NCCCP's primary intervention was the implementation of the Commission on Cancer Rapid Quality Reporting System (RQRS). The RQRS is a hospital-based data collection and evaluation system allowing near real-time assessment of selected breast and colon cancer quality of care measures. Building on previous NCCCP analyses, this study examined whether improvements in quality cancer care within NCCCP hospitals early in the program were sustained and whether improvements were notable for minority or underserved populations. METHODS: We compared changes in concordance with three breast and two colon cancer quality measures approved by the National Quality Forum for patients diagnosed at NCCCP hospitals from 2006 to 2007 (pre-RQRS), 2008 to 2010 (early-RQRS), and 2011 to 2013 (later-RQRS). Data were obtained from NCCCP sites participating in the Commission on Cancer Rapid Quality Reporting System. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of concordance with breast and colon cancer quality measures. RESULTS: The sample included 13,893 breast and 5,546 colon cancer patients. After RQRS initiation, all five quality measures improved significantly and improvements were sustained through 2013. Quality of care measures showed sustained improvements for both breast and colon cancer patients and for vulnerable patient subgroups including black, uninsured, and Medicaid-covered patients. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvements in NCCCP hospitals were sustained throughout the duration of the program, both overall and among minority and underserved patients. Because many individuals receive cancer treatment at community hospitals, facilitating high-quality care in these environments must be a priority. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Quality improvement programs often improve practice, but the methods are not maintained over time. The implementation of a real-time quality reporting system and a network focused on improving quality of care sustained quality improvement at select community cancer centers. The NCCCP pilot increased numbers of patients receiving guideline-concordant care for breast and colon cancer in community settings, and initial improvements noted in earlier years of RQRS were sustained into later years, both overall and among minority and underserved patients. National initiatives that improve care for diverse patient groups are important for reducing and eliminating barriers to care.

Examining colorectal cancer survivors' surveillance patterns and experiences of care: a SEER-CAHPS study.

PURPOSE: We examined associations between experiences of care and adherence to surveillance guidelines among Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiaries with colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Using linked data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End results (SEER) cancer registry program and the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) patient experience surveys (SEER-CAHPS), we identified local/regional CRC survivors diagnosed in 1999-2009 aged 65+, who underwent surgical resection and completed a CAHPS survey <36 months of diagnosis. Adherence for a 3-year observation period was defined as receiving a colonoscopy; ≥2 carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) tests; and each year had ≥2 office visits and ≥1 computerized tomography test. RESULTS: Many of the 314 participants reported ratings of a 9 or 10 out of 10 for overall care (55.4%), personal doctor (58.6%), health plan (59.6%), and specialist doctor (47.0%). Adherence to post-resection surveillance was 76.1% for office visits, 36.9% for CEA testing, 48.1% for colonoscopy, and 10.3% for CT Imaging. Overall, 37.9% of the sample were categorized as non-adherent (adhering to ≤1 surveillance guideline). In multivariable models, ratings of personal doctor and specialist doctor were positively associated with adherence to office visits, and ratings of personal doctor were associated with adherence overall. CONCLUSIONS: Findings point to the potentially important role of patient-provider relationships in adherence to office visits for CRC surveillance. As adherence may increase survival among CRC survivors, further investigation is needed to identify specific components of this relationship that impact office visit adherence, and other potentially modifiable drivers of surveillance guidelines.