The Perceived Usability of Virtual Visits Among Black Adults' Receiving Oncology Care: A Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: With the COVID-19 pandemic came rapid uptake in virtual oncology care. During this, sociodemographic inequities in access to virtual visits (VVs) have become apparent. To better understand these issues, we conducted a qualitative study to describe the perceived usability and acceptability of VVs among Black adults diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: Adults who self-identified as Black and had a diagnosis of prostate, multiple myeloma, or head and neck cancer were recruited from 2 academic medical centers, and their community affiliates to participate in a semi-structured interview, regardless of prior VV experience. A patient and family advisory board was formed to inform all components of the study. Interviews were conducted between September 2, 2021 and February 23, 2022. Transcripts were organized topically, and themes and subthemes were determined through iterative and interpretive immersion/crystallization cycles. RESULTS: Of the 49 adults interviewed, 29 (59%) had participated in at least one VV. Three overarching themes were derived: (1) VVs felt comfortable and convenient in the right contexts; (2) the technology required for VVs with video presented new challenges, which were often resolved by an audio-only telephone call; and (3) participants reported preferring in-person visits, citing concerns regarding gaps in nonverbal communication, trusting providers, and distractions during VV. CONCLUSION: While VVs were reported to be acceptable in specific circumstances, Black adults reported preferring in-person care, in part due to a perceived lack of interpersonal connectedness. Nonetheless, retaining reimbursement for audio-only options for VVs is essential to ensure equitable access for those with less technology savvy and/or limited device/internet capabilities.

Outcomes of HPV-Associated Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: Impact of Race and Socioeconomic Status.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic factors affecting outcomes of HPV-associated squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) are poorly characterized. METHODS: A custom SEER database identified adult patients with primary nonmetastatic SCCHN and known HPV status diagnosed in 2013 through 2014. Multivariable logistic regression defined associations between patient characteristics and HPV status, with adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals reported. Fine-Gray competing risks regression estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals for cancer-specific mortality (CSM), including a disease subsite * HPV status * race interaction term. RESULTS: A total of 4,735 patients with nonmetastatic SCCHN and known HPV status were identified. HPV-associated SCCHN was positively associated with an oropharyngeal primary, male sex, and higher education, and negatively associated with uninsured status, single marital status, and nonwhite race (P≤.01 for all). For HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCCHN, white race was associated with lower CSM (aHR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.34-0.88; P=.01) and uninsured status was associated with higher CSM (aHR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.19-8.13; P=.02). These associations were not observed in HPV-negative or nonoropharynx SCCHN. Accordingly, there was a statistically significant disease subsite * HPV status * race interaction (Pinteraction<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Nonwhite race and uninsured status were associated with worse CSM in HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCCHN, whereas no such associations were observed in HPV-negative or nonoropharyngeal SCCHN. These results suggest that despite having clinically favorable disease, nonwhite patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCCHN have worse outcomes than their white peers. Further work is needed to understand and reduce socioeconomic disparities in SCCHN.

Does Timing Matter? Surgical Outcomes in High-Grade Sarcomas after Neoadjuvant Radiation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The impact of time to surgical resection after neoadjuvant external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in the high-grade soft tissue and retroperitoneal sarcomas has not been well established. We aimed to evaluate how surgical timing from EBRT affects oncologic and perioperative outcomes. METHODS: We performed a single institution retrospective cohort study of patients with biopsy-proven, high-grade sarcoma who completed neoadjuvant EBRT and resection from January 1, 1999 to September 1, 2018. We collected demographic and clinicopathologic variables, stratifying patients by time interval between EBRT and surgery: <6, 6-8, 8-10, and >10 wk. Primary outcomes collected were as follows: disease-free survival, overall survival, and perioperative complications. RESULTS: Of the 269 patients identified, 146 met inclusion criteria. The median follow-up was 24 mo. Overall and local recurrence were 37% (n = 54) and 14.4% (n = 21), respectively. Time to surgery did not affect recurrence (P = 0.82) or survival (P = 0.88). Positive margins (odds ratio 2.7, confidence interval 1.14, 6.51, P < 0.05) were predictive of recurrence. Primary tumor location, surgical timing, histology, and intraoperative radiation therapy were not associated with differences in recurrence. The overall complication rate was 28%, with 63% from wound infections. Fewer postoperative complications occurred in the < 6-wk cohort versus > 6-wk cohort (15% versus 38%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in oncologic outcomes associated with the timing of surgical resection after EBRT. Patients undergoing resection >6 wk were at higher risk for all complications without impacting wound complication rates. Future studies may include preoperative optimization of patients requiring delays in surgical planning to decrease perioperative complication rates.

Sex Disparity and Copy Number Alterations in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Although sex differences in the incidence of esophageal cancer are well-established, the independent prognostic value of sex remains unclear. Recently, several groups have performed comprehensive molecular analyses of esophageal tumors,1 providing the opportunity to elucidate the underlying genomic bases for epidemiologic observations. We therefore sought to evaluate the effect of sex on esophageal cancer prognosis and to compare genomic data from tumors in men versus women.

SIU-ICUD consultation on bladder cancer: treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

PURPOSE: To provide a comprehensive overview and update of the Joint Société Internationale d'Urologie-International Consultation on Urological Diseases (SIU-ICUD) Consultation on Bladder Cancer for muscle-invasive presumably node-negative bladder cancer (MIBC). METHODS: Contemporary literature was analyzed for the latest evidence in treatment options, outcomes, including radical surgery, neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment modalities, and bladder-sparing approaches. An international multi-disciplinary expert panel evaluated and graded the data according to guidelines from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. RESULTS: Radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard of care for MIBC patients considered to be surgical candidates. While associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, this has been mitigated with improved technique, minimally invasive technology, and better perioperative care pathways (e.g., enhanced recovery after surgery). Neoadjuvant (NA) cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy improves overall survival and should be offered to eligible ≥ cT2N0 patients. Adjuvant (Adj) cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy may be considered, particularly for pT3-4 and/or pN+ disease without prior NA chemotherapy. Trimodal bladder-preserving treatment via maximum transurethral resection of bladder tumor followed by concurrent chemoradiation is safe and, when combined with early salvage RC for recurrence, offers long-term survival rates in selected patients comparable to RC. Immunotherapy is still experimental and is given either alone or in combination with chemotherapy and/or radiation. CONCLUSION: A multi-disciplinary approach is paramount to achieving optimal outcomes for MIBC patients, irrespective of their age, performance and nutritional status, fitness/frailty, renal and other organ function, or disease severity.

Surveillance Imaging Patterns and Outcomes Following Radiation Therapy and Radical Resection for Localized Extremity and Trunk Soft Tissue Sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Optimal surveillance imaging (SI) regimens following radiation therapy (RT) and radical resection for localized soft tissue sarcoma (STS) are unknown and practice patterns vary. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2014, 94 patients with localized STS of the extremity/trunk treated with preoperative RT and radical resection were identified. Timing of local recurrence (LR), distant recurrence (DR), and SI were evaluated. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine recurrence-free and overall survival (OS), and the method of recurrence detection (SI or due to signs/symptoms) was determined. RESULTS: Median tumor size was 7.5 cm, and 92% were intermediate/high grade. After a median follow-up of 60 months for surviving patients, 30 patients (32%) recurred, including 5 LRs and 26 DRs. The median time to LR and DR was 36.2 months (range 14.4-65.7) and 10.4 months (range 5.2-76.9), respectively, and the 5-year local recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant RFS, and OS was 95, 71, and 76%, respectively. Local SI was performed for 90% of patients, mostly by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 91%). Of the five LRs, two were detected by SI and three had signs/symptoms preceding imaging. All patients underwent distant SI. Of the 26 DRs, 23 (88%) were in the lung. SI detected 22 (85%) DRs, and only 4 of 26 had signs/symptoms prompting imaging. CONCLUSION: Given excellent local control with RT and radical resection for intermediate/high-grade STS of the extremity/trunk, SI of the primary site should be reserved for select patients at high risk of LR. Conversely, due to frequent occurrence of asymptomatic DR in the lungs, periodic lung SI is appropriate. Routine abdominopelvic SI may not be indicated for most histologies.

Cost-Effectiveness of Surveillance for Distant Recurrence in Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Optimal distant recurrence (DR) surveillance strategies for extremity soft tissue sarcoma (STS) are unknown. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of different imaging modalities performed at guideline-specified intervals. METHODS: We developed a Markov model simulating lifetime outcomes for 54-year-old patients after definitive treatment for American Joint Committee on Cancer stage II-III extremity STS using four surveillance strategies: watchful waiting (WW), chest X-ray (CXR), chest computed tomography (CCT), and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT). Probabilities, utilities, and costs were extracted from the literature and Medicare claims to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). RESULTS: CCT was the most effective and most costly strategy with CXR the most cost-effective strategy at a societal willing-to-pay (WTP) of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The ICER was $12,113/QALY for CXR versus $104,366/QALY for CCT while PET/CT was never cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated CCT becomes the preferred imaging modality as the lifetime risk of DR increases beyond 33% or as the WTP increases beyond $120,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal DR surveillance imaging for stage II-III extremity STS should be individualized based on patients' risks for DR. These results suggest CXR, or CCT performed at more protracted intervals, may be preferred for lower-risk patients (i.e., DR risk <33%), whereas CCT may be preferred for higher-risk patients (i.e., DR risk >33%). Further study of optimal strategies is needed. In the interim, these findings may help to refine guidelines to reduce resource overutilization during routine surveillance of lower-risk sarcoma patients.

Broadening Eligibility Criteria and Diversity among Patients for Cancer Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Certain populations have been historically underrepresented in clinical trials. Broadening eligibility criteria is one approach to inclusive clinical research and achieving enrollment goals. How broadened trial eligibility criteria affect the diversity of eligible participants is unknown. METHODS: Using a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database, we identified a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with 22 cancer types between April 1, 2013 and December 31, 2022 who received systemic therapy (N=235,234) for cancer. We evaluated strict versus broadened eligibility criteria using performance status and liver, kidney, and hematologic function around first line of therapy. We performed logistic regression to estimate odds ratios for exclusion by strict criteria and their association with measures of patient diversity, including sex, age, race or ethnicity, and area-level socioeconomic status (SES); estimated the impact of broadening criteria on the number and distribution of eligible patients; and performed Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios for real-world overall survival (rwOS) comparing patients meeting strict versus broadened criteria. RESULTS: When applying common strict cutoffs for eligibility criteria to patients with complete data and weighting each cancer type equally, 48% of patients were eligible for clinical trials. Female (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25 to 1.35), older (age 75+ vs. 18 to 49 years old: odds ratio, 3.04; 95% CI, 2.85 to 3.24), Latinx (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.39 to 1.54), non-Latinx Black (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.16), and lower-SES patients were more likely to be excluded using strict eligibility criteria. Broadening criteria increased the number of eligible patients by 78%, with the strongest impact for older, female, non-Latinx Black, and lower-SES patients. Patients who met only broadened criteria had worse rwOS versus those with strict criteria (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.34). CONCLUSIONS: Data-driven evaluation of clinical trial eligibility criteria may optimize the eligibility of certain historically underrepresented groups and promote access to more inclusive trials. (Sponsored by Flatiron Health.).

Sex Differences in Odds of Brain Metastasis and Outcomes by Brain Metastasis Status after Advanced Melanoma Diagnosis.

Sex differences in cancer are well-established. However, less is known about sex differences in diagnosis of brain metastasis and outcomes among patients with advanced melanoma. Using a United States nationwide electronic health record-derived de-identified database, we evaluated patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma from 1 January 2011-30 July 2022 who received an oncologist-defined rule-based first line of therapy (n = 7969, 33% female according to EHR, 35% w/documentation of brain metastases). The odds of documented brain metastasis diagnosis were calculated using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, practice type, diagnosis period (pre/post-2017), ECOG performance status, anatomic site of melanoma, group stage, documentation of non-brain metastases prior to first-line of treatment, and BRAF positive status. Real-world overall survival (rwOS) and progression-free survival (rwPFS) starting from first-line initiation were assessed by sex, accounting for brain metastasis diagnosis as a time-varying covariate using the Cox proportional hazards model, with the same adjustments as the logistic model, excluding group stage, while also adjusting for race, socioeconomic status, and insurance status. Adjusted analysis revealed males with advanced melanoma were 22% more likely to receive a brain metastasis diagnosis compared to females (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09, 1.36). Males with brain metastases had worse rwOS (aHR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.28) but not worse rwPFS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.95, 1.14) following first-line treatment initiation. Among patients with advanced melanoma who were not diagnosed with brain metastases, survival was not different by sex (rwOS aHR: 1.06 [95% CI: 0.97, 1.16], rwPFS aHR: 1.02 [95% CI: 0.94, 1.1]). This study showed that males had greater odds of brain metastasis and, among those with brain metastasis, poorer rwOS compared to females, while there were no sex differences in clinical outcomes for those with advanced melanoma without brain metastasis.

Racial differences in time from prostate cancer diagnosis to treatment initiation: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Timely delivery of care has been identified by the Institute of Medicine as an indicator for quality health care, and treatment delay is a potentially modifiable obstacle that can contribute to the disparities among African American (AA) and Caucasian patients in prostate cancer recurrence and mortality. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiologic and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database, we compared time from diagnosis to treatment in AA and Caucasian prostate cancer patients. METHODS: A total of 2506 AA and 21,454 Caucasian patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from 2004 through 2007 and treated within 12 months were included. Linear regression was used to assess potential differences in time to treatment between AA and Caucasian patients, after adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical covariates. RESULTS: Time from diagnosis to definitive (prostatectomy and radiation) treatment was longer for AA patients in all risk groups, and most pronounced in high-risk cancer (96 versus 105 days, P < .001). On multivariate analysis, racial differences to any and definitive treatment persisted (ß = 7.3 and 7.6, respectively, for AA patients). Delay to definitive treatment was longer in high-risk (versus low-risk) disease and in more recent years. CONCLUSIONS: AA patients with prostate cancer experienced longer time from diagnosis to treatment than Caucasian patients with prostate cancer. AA patients appear to experience disparities across all aspects of this disease process, and together these factors in receipt of care plausibly contribute to the observed differences in rates of recurrence and mortality among AA and Caucasian patients with prostate cancer.

Sociodemographic Inequities in Telemedicine Use Among US Patients Initiating Treatment in Community Cancer Centers During the Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic, 2020-2022.

PURPOSE: Although telemedicine was seen as a way to improve cancer care during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, there is limited information regarding inequities in its uptake. This study assessed sociodemographic factors associated with telemedicine use among patients initiating treatment for 20 common cancers. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used deidentified electronic health record-derived patient data from a nationwide network of community cancer practices, linked to area-level Census information. We included adults (age 18 years and older) who initiated first-line systemic cancer treatment between March 2020 and December 2022 (follow-up through March 2023). Exposures include race/ethnicity, insurance status, and area-level social determinants of health (eg, block group socioeconomic status [SES]). The outcome was telemedicine use within 90 days after treatment initiation. Associations were examined using logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, performance status, stage, and cancer type. RESULTS: This study included 36,993 patients (48.6% women; median age, 69 years), of whom 15.1% used telemedicine services. Black (12.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.78 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.88]) and uninsured (9.2%; OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.73]) patients were less likely to use telemedicine services than their White and well-insured counterparts (14.5% and 15.0%, respectively). Patients in rural (9.7%; OR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.46 to 0.57]), suburban (11.8%; OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.74]), and low SES areas (9.9%; OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.43]) were less also likely to use telemedicine than their counterparts in urban (16.6%) or high SES (21.6%) areas. CONCLUSION: Nearly one sixth of patients initiating cancer treatment during the pandemic used telemedicine, but there were substantial inequities. The proliferation of telemedicine may perpetuate cancer care inequities if marginalized populations do not have equitable access.

Racial and Ethnic Inequities in US Oncology Clinical Trial Participation From 2017 to 2022.

Importance: There is increasing recognition from regulatory agencies that racial and ethnic representation in clinical trials is inadequate and linked to health inequities. The extent of racial inequities in clinical trial participation is unclear because prior studies have synthesized enrollment data from published trials, which often do not report participant race and ethnicity. Objective: To evaluate racial and ethnic inequities in oncology clinical trial participation in a contemporary cohort of patients with cancer before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database, which includes data for approximately 280 US cancer clinics (approximately 800 sites of care). The study included Latinx, non-Latinx Black (hereinafter, Black), and non-Latinx White (reference; hereinafter, White) patients aged 18 years or older who had been diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, metastatic colorectal cancer, metastatic breast cancer, multiple myeloma, or metastatic pancreatic cancer between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2022 (follow-up through December 31, 2022). Data analysis was performed between August 1, 2022, and February 7, 2023. Exposures: Electronic health record-documented race and ethnicity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was oncology trial participation (ie, receipt of a clinical study drug). Stratified cause-specific hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for likelihood of participation. Participation was assessed overall, by cancer type, and by period of diagnosis (2017-2019 vs 2020-2022). Results: Of the 50 411 patients in this study, 28 878 (57.3%) were women and 21 533 (42.7%) were men. Black and Latinx patients were younger than White patients, with a median age of 65 (IQR, 57-72), 64 (IQR, 54-73), and 68 (IQR, 60-76) years, respectively. Oncology trial participation was lower among Black patients (307 of 6912 [4.4%]) and Latinx patients (166 of 3973 [4.2%]) relative to White patients (2858 of 39 526 [7.2%]) over the entire study period. Inequities in participation were observed across the 5 cancer types studied, with notably large inequities observed among Black patients (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.36-0.81]) and Latinx patients (HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.27-0.77]) with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Moreover, inequities between Black and White patients in terms of participation widened among those diagnosed in the COVID-19 era (2020-2022: HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.40-0.60] vs 1.00 [95% CI, 0.93-1.09]) relative to those diagnosed before the pandemic (2017-2019: HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.53-0.70] vs 1 [reference]). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that oncology trial participation was lower among Black and Latinx patients relative to White patients across all 5 cancer types examined. These findings, including potentially widening inequities in the COVID-19 era, support the need for regulatory guidance to improve enrollment of participants from historically excluded racial and ethnic populations in clinical trials.

Dynamic Cross-Task Representation Adaptation for Clinical Targets Co-Segmentation in CT Image-Guided Post-Prostatectomy Radiotherapy.

Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy requires precise delineations of prostate bed (PB), i.e., the clinical target volume, and surrounding organs at risk (OARs) to optimize radiotherapy planning. Segmenting PB is particularly challenging even for clinicians, e.g., from the planning computed tomography (CT) images, as it is an invisible/virtual target after the operative removal of the cancerous prostate gland. Very recently, a few deep learning-based methods have been proposed to automatically contour non-contrast PB by leveraging its spatial reliance on adjacent OARs (i.e., the bladder and rectum) with much more clear boundaries, mimicking the clinical workflow of experienced clinicians. Although achieving state-of-the-art results from both the clinical and technical aspects, these existing methods improperly ignore the gap between the hierarchical feature representations needed for segmenting those fundamentally different clinical targets (i.e., PB and OARs), which in turn limits their delineation accuracy. This paper proposes an asymmetric multi-task network integrating dynamic cross-task representation adaptation (i.e., DyAdapt) for accurate and efficient co-segmentation of PB and OARs in one-pass from CT images. In the learning-to-learn framework, the DyAdapt modules adaptively transfer the hierarchical feature representations from the source task of OARs segmentation to match up with the target (and more challenging) task of PB segmentation, conditioned on the dynamic inter-task associations learned from the learning states of the feed-forward path. On a real-patient dataset, our method led to state-of-the-art results of PB and OARs co-segmentation. Code is available at https://github.com/ladderlab-xjtu/DyAdapt.

Associations With Virtual Visit Use Among Patients Receiving Radiation Therapy.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to test for patient characteristics associated with virtual versus office visits among radiation oncology patients. Methods and Materials: Using the electronic health record, we extracted encounter data and corresponding patient information for the 6 months before and 6 months of COVID-19-enabled virtual visits (October 1, 2019, to March 22, 2020 vs March 23, 2020, to September 1, 2020) at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center. Encounters during COVID-19 were categorized as in-person or virtual visits. We compared patient demographic variables including race, age, sex, marital status, preferred language, insurance status, and tumor type during the pre-COVID-19 period as a baseline versus during the COVID-19 period. Multivariable analyses examined associations between these variables and virtual visit use. Results: We analyzed 4974 total encounters (2287 before COVID-19 and 2687 during COVID-19) for 3960 unique patients. All (100%) pre-COVID-19 encounters were in-person. During COVID-19, 21% of encounters were via virtual visits. There were no differences identified in pre- versus during-COVID-19 patient characteristics. However, we found significant differences in patient characteristics for in-person versus virtual encounters during COVID-19. On multivariable analysis, virtual visit use was less common among patients who were Black versus White (odds ratio [OR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.99; P = .044) and not married versus married (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98; P = .037). Patients with head and neck (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.97; P = .034), breast (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.62; P ≤ .001), gastrointestinal/abdominal (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.63; P = .001), or hematologic malignancy (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-0.95; P = .043) diagnoses were less likely to be scheduled for virtual visits relative to patients with genitourinary malignancy. No Spanish-speaking patients engaged in a virtual visit. We did not identify differences in the insurance status or sex of patients scheduled for virtual visits. Conclusions: We found significant differences in virtual visit use by patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Further investigation into implications of differential virtual visit use including social and structural determinants and subsequent clinical outcomes is indicated.