Racialized economic segregation and inequities in treatment initiation and survival among patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Racialized economic segregation, a form of structural racism, may drive persistent inequities among patients with breast cancer. We examined whether a composite area-level index of racialized economic segregation was associated with real-world treatment and survival in metastatic breast cancer (mBC). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among adult women with mBC using a US nationwide electronic health record-derived de-identified database (2011-2022). Population-weighted quintiles of the index of concentration at the extremes were estimated using census tract data. To identify inequities in time to treatment initiation (TTI) and overall survival (OS), we employed Kaplan-Meier methods and estimated hazard ratios (HR) adjusted for clinical factors. RESULTS: The cohort included 27,459 patients. Compared with patients from the most privileged areas, those from the least privileged areas were disproportionately Black (36.9% vs. 2.6%) or Latinx (13.2% vs. 2.6%) and increasingly diagnosed with de novo mBC (33.6% vs. 28.9%). Those from the least privileged areas had longer median TTI than those from the most privileged areas (38 vs 31 days) and shorter median OS (29.7 vs 39.2 months). Multivariable-adjusted HR indicated less timely treatment initiation (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.83, 0.91, p < 0.01) and worse OS (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.13, 1.25, p < 0.01) among those from the least privileged areas compared to the most privileged areas. CONCLUSION: Racialized economic segregation is a social determinant of health associated with treatment and survival inequities in mBC. Public investments directly addressing racialized economic segregation and other forms of structural racism are needed to reduce inequities in cancer care and outcomes.

Examining ACCURE's Nurse Navigation Through an Antiracist Lens: Transparency and Accountability in Cancer Care.

There are persistent disparities in the delivery of cancer treatment, with Black patients receiving fewer of the recommended cancer treatment cycles than their White counterparts on average. To enhance racial equity in cancer care, innovative methods that apply antiracist principles to health promotion interventions are needed. The parent study for the current analysis, the Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity (ACCURE) intervention, was a system-change intervention that successfully eliminated the Black-White disparity in cancer treatment completion among patients with early-stage breast and lung cancer. The intervention included specially trained nurse navigators who leveraged real-time data to follow-up with patients during their treatment journeys. Community and academic research partners conducted thematic analysis on all clinical notes (n = 3,251) written by ACCURE navigators after each contact with patients in the specialized navigation arm (n = 162). Analysis was informed by transparency and accountability, principles adapted from the antiracist resource Undoing Racism and determined as barriers to treatment completion through prior research that informed ACCURE. We identified six themes in the navigator notes that demonstrated enhanced accountability of the care system to patient needs. Underlying these themes was a process of enhanced data transparency that allowed navigators to provide tailored patient support. Themes include (1) patient-centered advocacy, (2) addressing system barriers to care, (3) connection to resources, (4) re-engaging patients after lapsed treatment, (5) addressing symptoms and side effects, and (6) emotional support. Future interventions should incorporate transparency and accountability mechanisms and examine the impact on racial equity in cancer care.

Effect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene. Objective: To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021. Interventions: In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available. Results: Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance: In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090.

Evaluating the Contribution of Patient-Provider Communication and Cancer Diagnosis to Racial Disparities in End-of-Life Care Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: The quality of end-of-life (EOL) care in the USA remains suboptimal, with significant variations in care by race and across disease subgroups. Patient-provider communication may contribute to racial and disease-specific variations in EOL care outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We examined racial disparities in EOL care, by disease group (cancer vs. non-cancer), and assessed whether racial differences in patient-provider communication accounted for observed disparities. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the 2001-2015 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results - Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems data linked with Medicare claims (SEER-CAHPS). We employed stratified propensity score matching and modified Poisson regression analyses, adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics PARTICIPANTS: Black and White Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older with cancer (N=2000) or without cancer (N=11,524). MAIN MEASURES: End-of-life care measures included hospice use, inpatient hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) stays, and emergency department (ED) visits, during the 90 days prior to death. KEY RESULTS: When considering all conditions together (cancer + non-cancer), Black beneficiaries were 26% less likely than their Whites counterparts to enroll in hospice (adjusted risk ratio [ARR]: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.66-0.83). Among beneficiaries without cancer, Black beneficiaries had a 32% lower likelihood of enrolling in hospice (ARR: 0.68, 95%CI: 0.59-0.79). There was no racial difference in hospice enrollment among cancer patients. Black beneficiaries were also at increased risk for ED use (ARR: 1.12, 95%CI: 1.01-1.26). Patient-provider communication did not explain racial disparities in hospice or ED use. There were no racial differences in hospitalizations or ICU admissions. CONCLUSION: We observed racial disparities in hospice use and ED visits in the 90 days prior to death among Medicare beneficiaries; however, hospice disparities were largely driven by patients without cancer. Condition-specific differences in palliative care integration at the end-of-life may partly account for variations in EOL care disparities across disease groups.

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.

Socioeconomic status and inequities in treatment initiation and survival among patients with cancer, 2011-2022.

BACKGROUND: Lower neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with suboptimal cancer care and reduced survival. Most studies examining cancer inequities across area-level socioeconomic status tend to use less granular or unidimensional measures and pre-date the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we examined the association of area-level socioeconomic status on real-world treatment initiation and overall survival among adults with 20 common cancers. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used electronic health record-derived deidentified data (Flatiron Health Research Database, 2011-2022) linked to US Census Bureau data from the American Community Survey (2015-2019). Area-level socioeconomic status quintiles (based on a measure incorporating income, home values, rental costs, poverty, blue-collar employment, unemployment, and education information) were computed from the US population and applied to patients based on their mailing address. Associations were examined using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for diagnosis year, age, sex, performance status, stage, and cancer type. RESULTS: This cohort included 291 419 patients (47.7% female; median age = 68 years). Patients from low-SES areas were younger and more likely to be Black (21.9% vs 3.3%) or Latinx (8.4% vs 3.0%) than those in high-SES areas. Living in low-SES areas (vs high) was associated with lower treatment rates (hazard ratio = 0.94 [95% confidence interval = 0.93 to 0.95]) and reduced survival (median real-world overall survival = 21.4 vs 29.5 months, hazard ratio = 1.20 [95% confidence interval = 1.18 to 1.22]). Treatment and survival inequities were observed in 9 and 19 cancer types, respectively. Area-level socioeconomic inequities in treatment and survival remained statistically significant in the COVID-19 era (after March 2020). CONCLUSION: To reduce inequities in cancer outcomes, efforts that target marginalized, low-socioeconomic status neighborhoods are necessary.

Mechanisms to enhance racial equity in health care: Developing a model to facilitate translation of the ACCURE intervention.

Background: As medical and public health professional organizations call on researchers and policy makers to address structural racism in health care, guidance on evidence-based interventions to enhance health care equity is needed. The most promising organizational change interventions to reduce racial health disparities use multilevel approaches and are tailored to specific settings. This study examines the Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity (ACCURE) intervention, which changed systems of care at two U.S. cancer centers and eliminated the Black-White racial disparity in treatment completion among patients with early-stage breast and lung cancer. Purpose: We aimed to document key characteristics of ACCURE to facilitate translation of the intervention in other care settings. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants who were involved in the design and implementation of ACCURE and analyzed their responses to identify the intervention's mechanisms of change and key components. Results: Study participants (n = 18) described transparency and accountability as mechanisms of change that were operationalized through ACCURE's key components. Intervention components were designed to enhance either institutional transparency (e.g., a data system that facilitated real-time reporting of quality metrics disaggregated by patient race) or accountability of the care system to community values and patient needs for minimally biased, tailored communication and support (e.g., nurse navigators with training in antiracism and proactive care protocols). Conclusions: The antiracism principles transparency and accountability may be effective change mechanisms in equity-focused health services interventions. The model presented in this study can guide future research aiming to adapt ACCURE and evaluate the intervention's implementation and effectiveness in new settings and patient populations.

Association between low-income subsidies and inequities in orally administered antimyeloma therapy use.

OBJECTIVES: The Medicare Part D low-income subsidy program drastically reduces patient cost sharing and may improve access to and equitable use of high-cost antimyeloma therapy. We compared initiation of and adherence to orally administered antimyeloma therapy between full-subsidy and nonsubsidy enrollees and assessed the association between full subsidies and racial/ethnic inequities in orally administered antimyeloma treatment use. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data to identify beneficiaries diagnosed with multiple myeloma between 2007 and 2015. Separate Cox proportional hazards models assessed time from diagnosis to treatment initiation and time from therapy initiation to discontinuation. Modified Poisson regression examined therapy initiation in the 30, 60, and 90 days following diagnosis and adherence to and discontinuation of treatment in the 180 days following initiation. RESULTS: Receipt of full subsidies was not associated with earlier initiation of or improved adherence to orally administered antimyeloma therapy. Full-subsidy enrollees were 22% (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.38) more likely to experience earlier treatment discontinuation than nonsubsidy enrollees. Receipt of full subsidies did not appear to reduce racial/ethnic inequities in orally administered antimyeloma therapy use. Black full-subsidy and nonsubsidy enrollees were 14% less likely than their White counterparts to ever initiate treatment (full subsidy: aHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73-1.02; nonsubsidy: aHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Full subsidies alone are insufficient to increase uptake or equitable use of orally administered antimyeloma therapy. Addressing known barriers to care (eg, social determinants of health, implicit bias) could improve access to and use of high-cost antimyeloma therapy.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Resources of Frontline Oncology Support Personnel Regarding Financial Burden in Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: Financial navigation services support patients with cancer and address the direct and indirect financial burden of cancer diagnosis and treatment. These services are commonly delivered through a variety of frontline oncology support personnel (FOSP) including navigators, social workers, supportive care providers, and other clinic staff, but the perspective of FOSPs is largely absent from current literature on financial burden in oncology. We surveyed a national sample of FOSPs to understand their perspectives on patient financial burden, resource availability, and barriers and facilitators to assisting patients with cancer-related financial burden. METHODS: We used Qualtrics online survey software and recruited participants using multiple professional society and interest group mailing lists. Categorical responses were described using frequencies, distributions of numeric survey responses were described using the median and IQR, and two open-ended survey questions were categorized thematically using a priori themes, allowing additional emergent themes. RESULTS: Two hundred fourteen FOSPs completed this national survey. Respondents reported a high awareness of patient financial burden and felt comfortable speaking to patients about financial concerns. Patient assistance resources were commonly available, but only 15% described resources as sufficient for the observed needs. A substantial portion of respondents reported moral distress related to this lack of resources. CONCLUSION: FOSPs, who already have requisite knowledge and comfort in discussing patient financial needs, are a critical resource for mitigating cancer-related financial burden. Interventions should leverage this resource but prioritize transparency and efficiency to reduce the administrative and emotional toll on the FOSP workforce and reduce the risk of burnout.

Assessing the pre-implementation context for financial navigation in rural and non-rural oncology clinics.

Background: Financial navigation (FN) is an evidence-based intervention designed to address financial toxicity for cancer patients. FN's success depends on organizations' readiness to implement and other factors that may hinder or support implementation. Tailored implementation strategies can support practice change but must be matched to the implementation context. We assessed perceptions of readiness and perceived barriers and facilitators to successful implementation among staff at nine cancer care organizations (5 rural, 4 non-rural) recruited to participate in the scale-up of a FN intervention. To understand differences in the pre-implementation context and inform modifications to implementation strategies, we compared findings between rural and non-rural organizations. Methods: We conducted surveys (n = 78) and in-depth interviews (n = 73) with staff at each organization. We assessed perceptions of readiness using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale. In-depth interviews elicited perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing FN in each context. We used descriptive statistics to analyze ORIC results and deductive thematic analysis, employing a codebook guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to synthesize themes in barriers and facilitators across sites, and by rurality. Results: Results from the ORIC scale indicated strong perceptions of organizational readiness across all sites. Staff from rural areas reported greater confidence in their ability to manage the politics of change (87% rural, 76% non-rural) and in their organization's ability to support staff adjusting to the change (96% rural, 75% non-rural). Staff at both rural and non-rural sites highlighted factors reflective of the Intervention Characteristics (relative advantage) and Implementation Climate (compatibility and tension for change) domains as facilitators. Although few barriers to implementation were reported, differences arose between rural and non-rural sites in these perceived barriers, with non-rural staff more often raising concerns about resistance to change and compatibility with existing work processes and rural staff more often raising concerns about competing time demands and limited resources. Conclusions: Staff across both rural and non-rural settings identified few, but different, barriers to implementing a novel FN intervention that they perceived as important and responsive to patients' needs. These findings can inform how strategies are tailored to support FN in diverse oncology practices.

Financial Assistance Processes and Mechanisms in Rural and Nonrural Oncology Care Settings.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer are at heightened risk of experiencing financial hardship. Financial navigation (FN) is an evidence-based approach for identifying and addressing patient and caregiver financial needs. In preparation for the implementation of a multisite FN intervention, we describe existing processes (ie, events and actions) and mechanisms (ie, how events work together) connecting patients to financial assistance, comparing rural and nonrural practices. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with stakeholders (ie, administrators, providers, and staff) at each of the 10 oncology care sites across a single state (five rural and five nonrural practices). We developed process maps for each site and analyzed stakeholder perspectives using thematic analysis. After reporting findings back to stakeholders, we synthesized themes and process maps across rural and nonrural sites separately. RESULTS: Eighty-three stakeholders were interviewed. We identified six core elements of existing financial assistance processes across all sites: distress screening (including financial concerns), referrals, resource connection points, and pharmaceutical, insurance, and community/foundation resources. Processes differed by rurality; however, facilitators and barriers to identifying and addressing patient financial needs were consistent. Open communication between staff, providers, patients, and caregivers was a primary facilitator. Barriers included insufficient staff resources, challenges in routinely identifying needs, inadequate preparation of patients for anticipated medical costs, and limited tracking of resource availability and eligibility. CONCLUSION: This study identified a clear need for systematic implementation of oncology FN to equitably address patient and caregiver financial hardship. Results have informed our current efforts to implement a multisite FN intervention, which involves comprehensive financial toxicity screening and systematization of intake and referrals.

Improving Diversity in Clinical Trials by Using Real-world Data to Define Eligibility Criteria.

This Viewpoint discusses the need for thoughtful, modernized eligibility criteria with equity prioritization in clinical trials.