Perspectives on Referring for Rectal Cancer Surgery: a Survey Study of Gastroenterologist and General Surgeons in Iowa.

PURPOSE: To understand referral practices for rectal cancer surgical care and to secondarily determine differences in referral practices by two main hypothesized drivers of referral: the rurality of the community endoscopists' practice and their affiliation with a colorectal surgeon. METHODS: Community gastroenterologists and general surgeons in Iowa completed a mailed questionnaire on practice demographics, volume, and referral practices for rectal cancer patients. Rurality was operationalized with RUCA codes. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 53 gastroenterologists (42%) and 120 of 188 general surgeons (64%) (total 144/241, 60%) in Iowa responded. Most performed colonoscopies, including 22 gastroenterologists (100%) and 96 general surgeons (80%). Regular referral of rectal cancer patients to colorectal surgeons was reported for 57% of urban physicians affiliated with a colorectal surgeon, 33% of urban physicians not affiliated with a colorectal surgeon, and 57% and 72% of physicians in large and small rural areas, respectively, who were not affiliated with a colorectal surgeon. High surgeon volume, high hospital volume, and colorectal surgeon specialty were important factors in the referral decisions for over half the physicians. 69% of diagnosing urban general surgeons reported performing rectal cancer surgery about half the time or more, while 85% of small rural and 60% of large rural diagnosing general surgeons reported never or rarely performing rectal cancer surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosing physicians have variable rectal cancer referral practices, including consistency in referred to surgeon and prioritization of volume and specialization. Prioritizing specialized or high-volume rectal cancer surgical care would require changing existing referring patterns.

Referrals and Decision-Making Considerations Involved in Selecting a Surgeon for Rectal Cancer Treatment in the Midwestern United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of superior outcomes for rectal cancer at high-volume, multidisciplinary cancer centers, many patients undergo surgery in low-volume hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine considerations of former patients with rectal cancer when selecting their surgeon and to evaluate which considerations were associated with surgery at high-volume hospitals. DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, patients were surveyed about what they considered when selecting a cancer surgeon. SETTINGS: Study data were obtained via survey and the statewide Iowa Cancer Registry. PATIENTS: All eligible individuals diagnosed with invasive stages II/III rectal cancer from 2013 to 2017 identified through the registry were invited to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the characteristics of the hospital where they received surgery (ie, National Cancer Institute designation, Commission on Cancer accreditation, and rectal cancer surgery volume). RESULTS: Among respondents, 318 of 417 (76%) completed surveys. Sixty-nine percent of patients selected their surgeon based on their physician's referral/recommendation, 20% based on surgeon/hospital reputation, and 11% based on personal connections to the surgeon. Participants who chose their surgeon based on reputation had significantly higher odds of surgery at National Cancer Institute-designated (OR 7.5; 95% CI, 3.8-15.0) or high-volume (OR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.7) hospitals than those who relied on referral. LIMITATIONS: This study took place in a Midwestern state with a predominantly white population, which limited our ability to evaluate racial/ethnic associations. CONCLUSION: Most patients with rectal cancer relied on referrals in selecting their surgeon, and those who did were less likely to receive surgery at a National Cancer Institute-designated or high-volume hospitals compared to those who considered reputation. Future research is needed to determine the impact of these decision factors on clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. In addition, patients should be aware that relying on physician referral may not result in treatment from the most experienced or comprehensive care setting in their area. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897.REMISIONES Y CONSIDERACIONES PARA LA TOMA DE DECISIONES RELACIONADAS CON LA SELECCIÓN DE UN CIRUJANO PARA EL TRATAMIENTO DEL CÁNCER DE RECTO EN EL MEDIO OESTE DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOSANTECEDENTES:A pesar de la evidencia de resultados superiores para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto en centros oncológicos de gran volumen y multidisciplinarios, muchos pacientes se someten a cirugía en hospitales de bajo volumen.OBJETIVOS:Examinar las consideraciones de los antiguos pacientes con cáncer de recto al momento de seleccionar a su cirujano y evaluar qué consideraciones se asociaron con la cirugía en hospitales de gran volumen.DISEÑO:Encuestamos a los pacientes sobre qué aspectos consideraron al elegir un cirujano oncológico para completar este estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTE:Los datos del estudio se obtuvieron mediante una encuesta y el Registro de Cáncer del estado de Iowa.PACIENTES:Se invitó a participar a todas las personas elegibles diagnosticadas con cáncer de recto invasivo en estadios II/III entre 2013 y 2017 identificadas a través del registro.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados principales fueron las características del hospital donde fue realizada la cirugía (es decir, designación del Instituto Nacional del Cáncer, acreditación de la Comisión de Cáncer y volumen de cirugía del cáncer de recto).RESULTADOS:Hubo 318 de 417 (76%) encuestas completadas. El sesenta y nueve por ciento seleccionó a su cirujano en función de la referencia / recomendación de su médico, el 20% por la reputación del cirujano/hospital, y el 11% por sus conexiones personales con el cirujano. Los participantes que eligieron a su cirujano en función a la reputación tuvieron probabilidades significativamente más altas de cirugía en el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer designado (OR = 7,5, IC del 95%: 3,8-15,0) o en hospitales de alto volumen (OR = 2,6, IC del 95%: 1,2-5,7) que aquellos que dependían de la derivación.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio se llevó a cabo en un estado del medio oeste con una población predominantemente blanca, lo que limitó nuestra capacidad para evaluar las asociaciones raciales/étnicas.CONCLUSIONES:La mayoría de los pacientes con cáncer de recto dependían de las derivaciones para seleccionar a su cirujano, y los que lo hacían tenían menos probabilidades de recibir cirugía en un hospital designado por el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer o en hospitales de gran volumen en comparación con los que consideraban la reputación. Se necesitan investigaciones a futuro para determinar el impacto de estos factores de decisión en los resultados clínicos, la satisfacción del paciente y la calidad de vida. Además, los pacientes deben ser conscientes de que depender de la remisión de un médico puede no resultar en el tratamiento más experimentado o integral en su área. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897. (Traducción-Dr Osvaldo Gauto).

Trends in Cancer Treatment for Oral Cavity, Oropharynx, and Larynx in 2016 Versus 2009: SEER Patterns of Care Studies.

PURPOSE: To determine if there was a higher percentage of patients treated surgically and with advanced radiotherapy in 2016 (N = 897) versus 2009 (N = 1136), the patient and tumor characteristics associated with surgical care and advanced radiotherapy, and if chemotherapy or targeted agent use varied over time for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: We utilized Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Patterns of Care datasets. Rao-Scott Chi-square tests and logistic regressions were applied to determine differences in surgery, advanced radiotherapy (RT), and chemotherapy by year. RESULTS: There was a lower prevalence of surgery only treatment in 2016 versus 2009 with exception of oral cavity stages IVB/IVC and unknown, and larynx stage unknown. Advanced RT was more common in 2016 for patients receiving definitive RT among all sites, excluding stages I/II glottic larynx. Among each site (oral cavity, oropharynx, and larynx) lower stage was associated with increased odds of surgery. Among each site, advanced RT was more common in patients receiving definitive versus postoperative RT. For the larynx site, 2016 versus 2009 was associated with greater odds of advanced RT. Systemic treatment with fluorouracil, taxanes, or cetuximab was less prevalent in 2016. CONCLUSION: In 2016 versus 2009, there was largely not a higher percentage of patients treated surgically. There was a higher prevalence of advanced RT for definitive care. Further investigations of these patterns are needed, including trend analysis.

Gynecologic oncologist impact on adjuvant chemotherapy care for stage II-IV ovarian cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the impact gynecologic oncologists have on ovarian cancer adjuvant chemotherapy care from their role as surgeons recommending adjuvant chemotherapy care and their role as adjuvant chemotherapy providers while considering rural-urban differences. METHODS: Multivariable adjusted logistic regressions and Cox proportional hazards models were developed using a population-based, retrospective cohort of stage II-IV and unknown stage ovarian cancer patients diagnosed in Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri in 2010-2012 whose medical records were abstracted in 2017-2018. RESULTS: Gynecologic oncologist surgeons (versus other type of surgeon) were associated with increased odds of adjuvant chemotherapy initiation (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-4.33) and having a gynecologic oncologist adjuvant chemotherapy provider (OR 10.0; 95% CI 4.58-21.8). Independent of type of surgeon, rural patients were less likely to have a gynecologic oncologist chemotherapy provider (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.30-0.91). Gynecologic oncologist adjuvant chemotherapy providers (versus other providers) were associated with decreased surgery-to-chemotherapy time (rural: 6 days; urban: 8 days) and increased distance to chemotherapy (rural: 22 miles; urban: 11 miles). Rural women (versus urban) traveled 38 miles farther when their chemotherapy provider was a gynecologic oncologist and 27 miles farther when it was not. CONCLUSION: Gynecologic oncologist surgeons may impact adjuvant chemotherapy initiation. Gynecologic oncologists serving as adjuvant chemotherapy providers were associated with some care benefits, such as reduced time from surgery-to-chemotherapy, and some care barriers, such as travel distance. The barriers and benefits of having a gynecologic oncologist involved in adjuvant chemotherapy care, including rural-urban differences, warrant further research in other populations.

Impact of Surgeon Type and Rurality on Treatment and Survival of Ovarian Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend ovarian cancer patients receive cancer-directed surgery from a gynecologic oncologist surgeon. We aimed to determine if rurality impacts type of surgeon and estimate if the interaction between rurality and type of surgeon impacts cytoreductive surgery, chemotherapy initiation, and survival. METHODS: Our population-based cohort of Iowan (N=675) ovarian cancer patients included women diagnosed with histologically confirmed stages IB-IV cancer in 2010 to 2016 at the ages of 18 to 89 years old and who received cancer-directed surgery in Iowa. Multivariable logistic regression analysis and Cox proportional hazards models were used. RESULTS: Rural (vs. urban) patients were less likely to receive surgery from a gynecologic oncologist (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30-0.78). Rural patients with a gynecologic oncologist (vs. nongynecologic oncologist) surgeon were more likely to receive cytoreduction (OR: 2.84; 95% CI: 1.31-6.14) and chemotherapy (OR: 4.22; 95% CI: 1.82-9.78). Gynecologic oncologist-provided surgery conferred a 3-year cause-specific survival advantage among rural patients (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.33-0.97) and disadvantage among urban patients (hazard ratio: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.02-3.06) in the model without treatment covariates. Significance dissipated in models with treatment variables. DISCUSSION: The variation in the gynecologic oncologist survival advantage may be because of treatment, referral, volume, or nongynecologic oncologist surgeons' specialty difference by rurality. This is the first study to investigate the ovarian cancer survival advantage of having a gynecologic oncologist surgeon by rurality.

Provider Viewpoints in the Management and Referral of Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rectal cancer treated at specialized or high-volume hospitals have better outcomes, but a minority of these patients are treated there. Physician recommendations are important considerations for patients with rectal cancer when making treatment decisions, yet little is known about the factors that affect these physician referral patterns. METHODS: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted in 2018-2019 with Iowa gastroenterologists (GIs) and general surgeons (GSs) who performed colonoscopies in a community setting. A thematic approach was used to analyze and code qualitative data. RESULTS: We interviewed 10 GIs and 6 GSs with self-reported averages of 15.5 y in practice, 1100 endoscopic procedures annually, and 6 rectal cancer diagnoses annually. Physicians believed surgeon experience and colorectal specialization were directly related to positive outcomes in rectal cancer resections. Most GSs performed resections on patients they diagnosed and typically only referred patients to colorectal surgeons (CRS) in complex cases. Conversely, GIs generally referred to CRS in all cases. Adhering to existing referral patterns due to the pressure of health care networks was a salient theme for both GIs and GSs. CONCLUSIONS: While respondents believe that high volume/specialization is related to improved surgical outcomes, referral recommendations are heavily influenced by existing referral networks. Referral practices also differ by diagnosing specialty and suggest rural patients may be less likely to be referred to a CRS because more GSs perform colonoscopies in rural areas and tend to keep patients for resection. System-level interventions that target referral networks may improve rectal cancer outcomes at the population level.

Disparities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis between immigrant and native-born women: A meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To synthesize existing observational evidence to identify disparities in stage at breast cancer diagnosis between foreign- and native-born women. We hypothesized immigrant women would be less likely than natives to be diagnosed at a localized stage. METHODS: Systematic searches for studies detailing stage at breast cancer diagnosis by birthplace in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science yielded 11 relevant cohort studies from six countries. Odds ratios were pooled using random effects models. RESULTS: Foreign-born women were 12% less likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer at a localized stage than natives (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82-0.95). A similar disadvantage was observed in immigrants from Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and developing or in transition nations; immigrants from developed countries experienced the least disparity. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis confirmed the presence of significant differences in breast cancer stage at diagnosis as per nativity. Across diverse immigrant groups and host countries, foreign-born women were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with localized breast cancer than native women; the magnitude of the disparity varied by region and economic condition of immigrants' birthplace.

Meta-Analysis of VTE Risk: Ovarian Cancer Patients by Stage, Histology, Cytoreduction, and Ascites at Diagnosis.

Venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) have been a leading secondary cause of death among ovarian cancer patients, prompting multiple studies of risk factors. The objective of this meta-analysis is to quantify the associations between VTE and the most commonly reported risk factors among ovarian cancer patients. PubMed, Embase, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were used to identify observational studies. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed quality via the Newcastle-Ottawa tool. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled odds ratios for VTE with each of the following exposures: advanced cancer stage, clear cell histology, serous histology, ascites at diagnosis, and complete cytoreduction. The I 2 and Q tests were used to evaluate heterogeneity. Twenty cohort studies with 6,324 total ovarian cancer patients, 769 of whom experienced a VTE, were included. The odds of VTE in ovarian cancer patients were higher among patients with cancer stage III/IV (versus cancer stage I/II, pooled odds ratio (OR) 2.73; 95% CI 1.84-4.06; I 2= 64%), clear cell (versus nonclear cell) histology (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.55-2.89; I 2 = 6%), and ascites (versus no ascites) at diagnosis (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.51-2.96; I 2 = 32%). Serous (versus nonserous) histology (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.91-1.75; I 2 = 42%) and complete (versus incomplete) cytoreduction (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.27-4.11; I 2 = 88%) were not associated with VTE. This meta-analysis quantifies the significantly elevated odds of VTE in ovarian cancer patients with advanced stage at diagnosis, clear cell histology, and ascites at diagnosis. Further studies are needed to account for confounders and inform clinical decision-making tools.

Impact of Rurality on Stage IV Ovarian Cancer at Diagnosis: A Midwest Cancer Registry Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: We aim to understand if rurality impacts patients' odds of presenting with stage IV ovarian cancer at diagnosis independent of distance to primary care provider and the socioeconomic status of a patient's residential census tract. METHODS: A cohort of 1,000 women with ovarian cancer in Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri were sampled and analyzed from the cancer registries' statewide population data. The sample contained those with a histologically confirmed primary ovarian cancer diagnosis in 2011-2012. All variables were captured through an extension of standard registry protocol using standardized definitions and abstraction manuals. Chi-square tests and a multivariable logistic regression model were used. FINDINGS: At diagnosis, 111 women in our sample had stage IV cancer and 889 had stage I-III. Compared to patients with stage I-III cancer, patients with stage IV disease had a higher average age, more comorbidities, and were more often living in rural areas. Multivariate analysis showed that rural women (vs metropolitan) had a greater odds of having stage IV ovarian cancer at diagnosis (odds ratio = 2.41 and 95% confidence interval = 1.33-4.39). CONCLUSION: Rural ovarian cancer patients have greater odds of having stage IV cancer at diagnosis in Midwestern states independent of the distance they lived from their primary care physician and the socioeconomic status of their residential census tract. Rural women's greater odds of stage IV cancer at diagnosis could affect treatment options and mortality. Further investigation is needed into reasons for these findings.

Failure to Provide Adequate Palliative Care May Be Medical Neglect.

Doctors are required to notify Child Protective Services (CPS) if parents do not provide appropriate medical care for their children. But criteria for reporting medical neglect are vague. Which treatments properly fall within the realm of shared decision-making in which parents can decide whether to accept doctors' recommendations? Which treatments are so clearly in the child's interest that it would be neglectful to refuse them? When to report medical neglect concerns to CPS may be controversial. It would seem inhumane to allow a child to suffer because of parental refusal to administer proper analgesia. In this ethics rounds, we present a case of an adolescent with chronic pain who is terminally ill. Her parents were not adherent to recommended analgesia regimens. Her palliative care team had to decide whether to report the case to CPS.

Racial/ethnic differences in thyroid cancer incidence in the United States, 2007-2014.

BACKGROUND: Small tumor diagnostic tools including ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and computed tomography (CT) could be causing rising and racially/ethnically different thyroid cancer incidence rates due to variable overdiagnosis of indolent tumors. Papillary tumors and <40 mm tumors are most likely to be overdiagnosed as indolent tumors by FNA and CT. METHODS: Age-adjusted incidence rates (AAIRs) for the years 2007-2014 were calculated for race/ethnicity (white, Hispanic, Asian, African American, Native American) by patient/tumor characteristics for microscopically confirmed malignant thyroid cancer cases in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program 18 database (SEER 18; N = 93,607). Multivariate analysis determined cancer patients' odds ratios of diagnosis with papillary thyroid carcinoma (vs other histologies) and tumors <40 mm (vs ≥40 mm). RESULTS: For both males and females, there were statistically significant differences in incidence rates between race/ethnicity, with whites having the highest AAIRs and African Americans the lowest AAIRs. Among thyroid cancer patients, tumor size and histology differed significantly by race and insurance coverage after controlling for age, sex, stage, and tumor sequence. Non-whites with thyroid cancer (vs whites) were less associated with small tumors (odds ratio [OR], 0.51-0.79; P < .0001). Medicaid and uninsured patients with thyroid cancer were less associated with tumors <40 mm (OR, 0.55-0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.76) and papillary carcinoma (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93). CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of small tumors is occurring at greater rates in whites (vs non-whites) and insured (vs Medicaid and uninsured) patients; consequently, these groups may be vulnerable to unnecessary tests and treatments or potentially aided by early detection. Guidelines that define postdetection interventions may be needed to limit the overtreatment of indolent and small papillary carcinomas. Cancer 2018;124:1483-91. © 2018 American Cancer Society.