Colon Cancer Disparities in Stage at Presentation and Time to Surgery for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders: A Study with Disaggregated Ethnic Groups.

BACKGROUND: Vast differences in barriers to care exist among Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) groups and may manifest as disparities in stage at presentation and access to treatment. Thus, we characterized AANHPI patients with stage 0-IV colon cancer and examined differences in (1) stage at presentation and (2) time to surgery relative to white patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assessed all patients in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) with stage 0-IV colon cancer from 2004 to 2016 who identified as white, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Native Hawaiian, Korean, Vietnamese, Laotian, Hmong, Kampuchean, Thai, Asian Indian or Pakistani, and Pacific Islander. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression defined adjusted odds ratios (AORs), with 95% confidence intervals (CI), of (1) patients presenting with advanced stage colon cancer and (2) patients with stage 0-III colon cancer receiving surgery at ≥ 60 days versus 30-59 days versus < 30 days postdiagnosis, adjusting for sociodemographic/clinical factors. RESULTS: Among 694,876 patients, Japanese [AOR 1.08 (95% CI 1.01-1.15), p < 0.05], Filipino [AOR 1.17 (95% CI 1.09-1.25), p < 0.001], Korean [AOR 1.09 (95% CI 1.01-1.18), p < 0.05], Laotian [AOR 1.51 (95% CI 1.17-1.95), p < 0.01], Kampuchean [AOR 1.33 (95% CI 1.04-1.70), p < 0.01], Thai [AOR 1.60 (95% CI 1.22-2.10), p = 0.001], and Pacific Islander [AOR 1.41 (95% CI 1.20-1.67), p < 0.001] patients were more likely to present with more advanced colon cancer compared with white patients. Chinese [AOR 1.27 (95% CI 1.17-1.38), p < 0.001], Japanese [AOR 1.23 (95% CI 1.10-1.37], p < 0.001], Filipino [AOR 1.36 (95% CI 1.22-1.52), p < 0.001], Korean [AOR 1.16 (95% CI 1.02-1.32), p < 0.05], and Vietnamese [AOR 1.55 (95% CI 1.36-1.77), p < 0.001] patients were more likely to experience greater time to surgery than white patients. Disparities persisted when comparing among AANHPI subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal key disparities in stage at presentation and time to surgery by race/ethnicity among AANHPI subgroups. Heterogeneity upon disaggregation underscores the importance of examining and addressing access barriers and clinical disparities.

Non-small cell lung cancer disparities in stage at presentation and treatment for Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander women.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders (AANHPI) represent the fastest-growing group in the United States. While described in aggregate, great variations exist within the community. We aimed to determine whether there were differences in stage at presentation and treatment status among AANHPI women with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Between 2004 and 2016, we identified 522 361 female patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC from the National Cancer Database. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to define adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of presenting with stage IV disease and not receiving treatment. RESULTS: AANHPI women were more likely to present with stage IV disease compared to White (54.32% vs. 40.28%, p < 0.001). Aside from Hawaiian, Pakistani, and Hmong women, all other ethnic groups had greater odds of presenting with stage IV disease than White women. AANHPI women <65 years were more likely to present with stage IV disease (p = 0.030). Only Vietnamese women showed a significant difference (aOR = 1.30 [1.06-1.58], p = 0.010) for likelihood of receiving treatment compared to White. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in stage at presentation and treatment status in women with NSCLC were observed among AANHPI ethnic groups when populations were disaggregated.

Gross total resection of spinal chondrosarcoma is associated with improved locoregional relapse-free survival and overall survival.

BACKGROUND: Spinal chondrosarcomas are rare malignant osseous tumors. The low incidence of spinal chondrosarcomas and the complexity of spine anatomy have led to heterogeneous treatment strategies with varying curative and survival rates. The goal of this study is to investigate prognostic factors for locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and overall survival (OS) comparing en bloc vs. piecemeal resection for the management of spinal chondrosarcoma. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients who underwent curative-intent resection of primary and metastatic spinal chondrosarcoma over a 25-year period. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were conducted with LRFS as primary endpoint and OS as secondary endpoint. LRFS and OS were modeled using the Kaplan-Meier method and assessed using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: For 72 patients who underwent first resection, the median follow-up time was 5.1 years (95% CI 2.2-7.0). Thirty-three patients (45.8%) had en bloc resection, and 39 (54.2%) had piecemeal resection. Of the 68 patients for whom extent of resection was known, 44 patients had gross total resection (GTR) and 24 patients had subtotal resection. In survival analyses, both LRFS and OS showed statistically significant difference based on the extent of resection (p = 0.001; p = 0.04, respectively). However, only LRFS showed statistically significant difference when assessing the type of resection (p = 0.02). In addition, higher tumor grade and more invasive disease were associated with worse LRFS and OS rates. CONCLUSION: Although in our study en bloc and GTR were associated with improved survival, heterogenous and complex spinal presentations may limit total resection. Therefore, the surgical management should be tailored individually to ensure the best local control and maximum preservation of function.

Comparison of MR-soft tissue based versus biliary stent based alignment for image guidance in pancreatic SBRT.

PURPOSE: The role of biliary stents in image-guided localization for pancreatic cancer has been inconclusive. To date, stent accuracy has been largely evaluated against implanted fiducials on cone beam computed tomography. We aim to use magnetic resonance (MR) soft tissue as a direct reference to examine the geometric and dosimetric impacts of stent-based localization on the newly available MR linear accelerator. METHODS: Thirty pancreatic cancer patients (132 fractions) treated on our MR linear accelerator were identified to have a biliary stent. In our standard adaptive workflow, patients were set up to the target using soft tissue for image registration and structures were re-contoured on daily MR images. The original plan was then projected on treatment anatomy and dose predicted, followed by plan re-optimization and treatment delivery. These online predicted plans were soft tissue-based and served as reference plans. Retrospective image registration to the stent was performed offline to simulate stent-based localization and the magnitude of shifts was taken as the geometric accuracy of stent localization. New predicted plans were generated based on stent-alignment for dosimetric comparison. RESULTS: Shifts were within 3 mm for 90% of the cases (mean = 1.5 mm); however, larger shifts up to 7.2 mm were observed. Average PTV coverage dropped by 1.1% with a maximum drop of 26.8%. The mean increase in V35Gy was 0.15, 0.05, 0.02, and 0.02 cc for duodenum, stomach, small bowel and large bowel, respectively. Stent alignment was significantly worse for all metrics except for small bowel (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Overall discrepancy between stent- and soft tissue-alignment was modest; however, large discrepancies were observed for select cases. While PTV coverage loss may be compensated for by using a larger margin, the increase in dose to gastrointestinal organs at risk may limit the role of biliary stents in image-guided localization.

In pursuit of equity in cancer care: Moving beyond the Affordable Care Act.

Although Medicaid Expansion under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been associated with many improvements for patients with cancer, Snyder et al. provide evidence demonstrating the persistence of racial disparities in cancer. This Editorial describes why insurance coverage alone does not ensure access to health care, highlights various manifestations of structural racism that constitute barriers to access beyond the direct costs of care, and calls for not just equality, but equity, in cancer care.

Spending outcomes among patients with cancer in accountable care organizations 4 years after implementation.

BACKGROUND: The long-term impact of affordable care organizations (ACOs) on cancer spending remains unknown. The authors examined whether practices that became ACOs altered their spending for patients with cancer in the first 4 years after ACO implementation. METHODS: By using national Medicare data from 2011 to 2017, a random sample of 20% of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older with cancer was obtained (n = 866,532), and each patient was assigned to a practice. Practices that became ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program were matched to non-ACO practices. Total, cancer-specific, and service category-specific yearly spending per patient was calculated. A difference-in-differences model was used to determine spending changes associated with ACO status for patients with cancer in the 4 years after ACO implementation. RESULTS: The introduction of ACOs did not have a significant impact on overall spending for patients with cancer in the 2 years after ACO implementation (difference, -$38; 95% CI, -$268, $191; P = .74). Changes in spending also did not differ between ACO and non-ACO patients within service categories or among the 11 cancer types examined. The lack of difference in spending for patients with cancer in ACO and non-ACO practices persisted in the third and fourth years after ACO implementation (difference, -$120; 95% CI, -$284, $525; P = .56). CONCLUSIONS: ACOs did not significantly change spending for patients with cancer in the first 4 years after their implementation compared with non-ACOs. This prompts a reevaluation of the current efficacy of ACOs in reducing spending for cancer care and may encourage policymakers to reconsider the incentive structures of ACOs. LAY SUMMARY: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) were developed to curtail health care spending and improve quality, but their effects on cancer spending in their first 2 years have been minimal. The long-term impact of ACOs on cancer spending remains unknown. By using data from 866,532 Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, the authors observed that the association of a practice with an ACO did not significantly change total yearly spending per patient in the first 4 years after ACO implementation. This finding prompts a reevaluation of the current efficacy of ACOs in reducing spending for cancer care.

Utilization of National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers by Medicare Beneficiaries with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about which patients use National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (NCICCs) nationally. This study aimed to identify sociodemographic characteristics associated with decreased NCICC use among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: This study examined a national cohort of 534,008 Medicare beneficiaries with cancer in 2017 using multivariable logistic regressions for NCICC use. The covariates in the study were sex, age, cancer type, race/ethnicity, dual-eligibility status for Medicaid and Medicare, and NCICC presence in the home state. RESULTS: In 2017, 19.5 % of Medicare beneficiaries with cancer used an NCICC at least once. Dual-eligible beneficiaries had 29 % lower adjusted odds of NCICC use than non-dual-eligible beneficiaries (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.71; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.73; p < 0.001). American Indian/Alaska Native beneficiaries had 40 % lower odds of NCICC use than non-Hispanic white (NHW) beneficiaries (aOR, 0.60; 95 % CI, 0.53-0.68; p < 0.001). Compared with NHW beneficiaries, the odds of NCICC use were higher for black beneficiaries by 15 % (aOR, 1.15; 95 % CI, 1.12-1.18; p < 0.001), for Hispanic beneficiaries by 31 % (aOR, 1.31; 95 % CI, 1.26-1.35; p < 0.001), and for Asian/Pacific Islander beneficiaries by 126 % (aOR, 2.26; 95 % CI, 2.16-2.36; p < 0.001). Utilization declined steadily in older groups, with beneficiaries older than 95 years showing 73 % lower odds of NCICC use than beneficiaries younger than 65 years (aOR, 0.27; 95 % CI, 0.24-0.29; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid-eligible, American Indian/Alaska Native, and older patients are substantially less likely to use NCICCs. Future research should focus on defining and addressing the barriers to NCICC access for these populations.

ACO Spending and Utilization Among Medicare Patients at the End of Life: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life (EOL) costs constitute a substantial portion of healthcare spending in the USA and have been increasing. ACOs may offer an opportunity to improve quality and curtail EOL spending. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether practices that became ACOs altered spending and utilization at the EOL. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicare claims. PATIENTS: We assigned patients who died in 2012 and 2015 to an ACO or non-ACO practice. Practices that converted to ACOs in 2013 or 2014 were matched to non-ACOs in the same region. A total of 23,643 ACO patients were matched to 23,643 non-ACO patients. MAIN MEASURES: Using a difference-in-differences model, we examined changes in EOL spending and care utilization after ACO implementation. KEY RESULTS: The introduction of ACOs did not significantly impact overall spending for patients in the last 6 months of life (difference-in-difference (DID) = $192, 95%CI -$841 to $1125, P = 0.72). Changes in spending did not differ between ACO and non-ACO patients across spending categories (inpatient, outpatient, physician services, skilled nursing, home health, hospice). No differences were seen between ACO and non-ACO patients in rates of ED visits, inpatient admissions, ICU admission, mean healthy days at home, and mean hospice days at 180 and 30 days prior to death. However, non-ACO patients had a significantly greater increase in hospice utilization compared to ACO patients at 180 days (DID P-value = 0.02) and 30 days (DID P-value = 0.01) prior to death. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of hospice care utilization, spending and utilization were not different between ACOs and non-ACO patients at the EOL. Longer follow-up may be necessary to evaluate the impact of ACOs on EOL spending and care.

Healthy days at home: A population-based quality measure for cancer patients at the end of life.

BACKGROUND: Healthy Days at Home (HDAH) is a novel population-based outcome measure. In this study, its use as a potential measure for cancer patients at the end of life (EOL) was explored. METHODS: Patient demographics and health care use among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer who died over the years 2014 to 2017 were identified. The HDAH was calculated by subtracting the following components from 180 days: number of days spent in inpatient and outpatient hospital observation, the emergency room, skilled nursing facilities (SNF), inpatient psychiatry, inpatient rehabilitation, long-term hospitals, and inpatient hospice. How HDAH and its components varied by beneficiary demographics and health care market were evaluated. A patient-level linear regression model with HDAH as the outcome, hospital referral region (HRR) random effects, and market fixed effects were specified, as well as beneficiary age, sex, and comorbidities as covariates. RESULTS: The 294,751 beneficiaries at the EOL showed a mean number of 154.0 HDAH (out of 180 days). Inpatient (10.7 days) and SNF (9.7 days) resulted in the most substantial reductions in HDAH. Males had fewer adjusted HDAH (153.1 vs 155.7, P < .001) than females; Medicaid-eligible patients had fewer HDAH compared with non-Medicaid-eligible patients (152.0 vs 154.9; P < .001). Those with hematologic malignancies had the fewest number of HDAH (148.9). Across HRRs, HDAH ranged from 10.8 fewer to 10.9 more days than the national mean. At the HRR-level, home hospice was associated with greater HDAH, whereas home health was associated with fewer HDAH. CONCLUSIONS: HDAH may be a useful measure to understand, quantify, and improve patient-centered outcomes for cancer patients at EOL.

Role of Radiation Therapy for Newly Diagnosed Retroperitoneal Sarcoma.

OPINION STATEMENT: Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare, aggressive, and heterogenous tumors, comprising approximately 1% of adult cancers with over 50 different subtypes. The mainstay of treatment for retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) includes surgical resection. The addition of radiation therapy (RT), either preoperatively or postoperatively, has been used to potentially decrease the risk of local recurrence. The recently published results from STRASS (EORTC-STBSG 62092-22092), which randomized patients to receive or not receive preoperative radiation, indicate no abdominal recurrence-free survival benefit (primary endpoint) nor overall survival benefit to date from the addition of preoperative RT prior to surgical resection in patients with RPS. Keeping in mind caveats of subgroup analyses, the data show a significant reduction in local recurrence with radiation therapy in resected patients and non-significant trends toward improved abdominal recurrence-free survival in all patients and improved local control and abdominal recurrence-free survival in patients with liposarcoma and low-grade sarcoma. Given the high rate of local failure with surgery alone, it is possible that higher RT dose and/or selective RT dose painting may improve outcomes. Prior to treatment, the authors encourage multidisciplinary review and discussion of management options at a sarcoma center for patients with RPS. Selective use of RT may be considered for patients at high risk of local recurrence.

Practice Consolidation Among US Medical Oncologists, 2015-2022.

PURPOSE: Health care consolidation has significantly affected cancer care delivery, with oncology practices undergoing substantial consolidation over the past two decades. This study investigates practice consolidation trends among medical oncologists (MOs), factors associated with consolidation, and changes in MO geographic distribution. METHODS: Medicare data from 2015 to 2022 were used to assess MO practice consolidation in hospital referral regions (HRRs), linked with regional health care market data and physician demographics. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) was used to measure consolidation, and the Gini coefficient was used to measure MO distribution across counties. Multivariable linear regression explored factors associated with MO practice consolidation. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2022, the number of MOs increased by 14.5% (11,727-13,433), whereas the number of MO practices decreased by 18.0% (2,774-2,276). The mean number of MOs per practice increased by 40% (4.26-5.95; P < .001). The percentage of MOs in small practices decreased, whereas larger practices saw an increase. MO consolidation, as indicated by the HHI, increased by 9% (median HHI, 0.3204-0.3480). HRRs with higher baseline hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to have MO practice consolidation. Despite MO practice consolidation, the county-level distribution of MOs did not change substantially. CONCLUSION: On the basis of Federal Trade Commission classifications, MO practices were highly concentrated in 2015 and consolidated even further by 2022. While distribution of MOs at the county level remained stable, further research is needed to assess the effects of rapid consolidation on cancer care cost, quality, and access. These data have important implications for policymakers and payers as they design programs that ensure high-quality, affordable cancer care.

Trends in Utilization and Medicare Spending on Short-Course Radiation Therapy for Breast and Prostate Cancer: An Episode-Based Analysis From 2015 to 2019.

PURPOSE: Evidence supports the value of shorter, similarly efficacious, and potentially more cost-effective hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) regimens in many clinical scenarios for breast cancer (BC) and prostate cancer (PC). However, practice patterns vary considerably. We used the most recent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data to assess trends in RT cost and practice patterns among episodes of BC and PC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all external beam RT episodes for BC and PC from 2015 to 2019 to assess predictors of short-course RT (SCRT) use and calculated spending differences. Multivariable logistic regression defined adjusted odds ratios of receipt of SCRT over longer-course RT (LCRT) by treatment modality, age, year of diagnosis, type of practice, and the interaction between year and treatment setting. Medicare spending was evaluated using multivariable linear regression controlling for duration of RT regimen (SCRT vs LCRT) in addition to the above covariables. RESULTS: Of 143,729 BC episodes and 114,214 PC episodes, 63,623 (44.27%) and 25,955 (22.72%) were SCRT regimens, respectively. Median total spending for SCRT regimens among BC episodes was $9418 (interquartile range [IQR], $7966-$10,983) versus $13,602 (IQR, $11,814-$15,499) for LCRT. Among PC episodes, median total spending was $6924 (IQR, $4,509-$12,905) for stereotactic body RT, $18,768 (IQR, $15,421-$20,740) for moderate hypofractionation, and $27,319 (IQR, $25,446-$29,421) for LCRT. On logistic regression, receipt of SCRT was associated with older age among both BC and PC episodes as well as treatment at hospital-affiliated over freestanding sites (P < .001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: In this evaluation of BC and PC RT episodes from 2015 to 2019, we found that shorter-course RT resulted in lower costs than longer-course RT. SCRT was also more common in hospital-affiliated sites. Future research focusing on potential payment incentives encouraging SCRT when clinically appropriate in the 2 most common cancers treated with RT will be valuable as the field continues to prospectively evaluate cost-effective hypofractionation in other disease sites.

Determinants of Commercial Prices for Common Radiation Therapy Procedures.

PURPOSE: Using hospital-reported price data, we analyzed whether various market factors including radiation oncology practice consolidation were associated with higher commercial prices for radiation therapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We evaluated commercial prices paid by private insurers for 4 common RT procedures-intensity modulated RT (IMRT) planning, IMRT delivery, 3-dimensional RT (3D-RT) planning, and 3D-RT delivery-reported among the 2096 hospitals in the United States that deliver RT according to the Medicare Provider of Service file. To assess price variation within hospitals, we evaluated the ratio of the 90th percentile price to the 10th percentile price among different private insurers. To assess regional variation, we similarly compared median commercial prices at the 90th and 10th percentile hospitals in each Hospital Referral Region. We generated multivariable models to test the association of various hospital, health system, regional, and market factors on median hospital commercial prices. RESULTS: A total of 1004 hospitals (47.9%) reported at least 1 commercial price for any of the 4 RT procedures considered in this study. National median commercial prices for IMRT planning and IMRT delivery were $4073 (interquartile ratio [IQR], $2242-$6305) and $1666 (IQR, $1014-$2619), respectively. Prices for 3D-RT planning and 3D-RT delivery were $2824 (IQR, $1339-$4738) and $616 (IQR, $419-877), respectively. Within hospitals, the 90th percentile price paid by a private insurer was 2.3 to 2.5 times higher on average than the 10th percentile price, depending on the procedure. Within each Hospital Referral Region, the median price at the 90th percentile hospital was between 2.4 and 3.2 times higher than at the 10th percentile hospital. On multivariable analysis, higher prices were generally observed at hospitals with for-profit ownership, teaching status, and affiliation with large health systems. Levels of radiation oncology practice consolidation were not significantly associated with any prices. CONCLUSIONS: Commercial prices for common RT procedures vary by more than a factor of 2 depending on a patient's private insurer and hospital of choice. Higher prices were more likely to be found at for-profit hospitals, teaching hospitals, and hospitals affiliated with large health systems.