Association of Remote Patient-Reported Outcomes and Step Counts With Hospitalization or Death Among Patients With Advanced Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy: Secondary Analysis of the PROStep Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer undergoing chemotherapy experience significant symptoms and declines in functional status, which are associated with poor outcomes. Remote monitoring of patient-reported outcomes (PROs; symptoms) and step counts (functional status) may proactively identify patients at risk of hospitalization or death. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the association of (1) longitudinal PROs with step counts and (2) PROs and step counts with hospitalization or death. METHODS: The PROStep randomized trial enrolled 108 patients with advanced gastrointestinal or lung cancers undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy at a large academic cancer center. Patients were randomized to weekly text-based monitoring of 8 PROs plus continuous step count monitoring via Fitbit (Google) versus usual care. This preplanned secondary analysis included 57 of 75 patients randomized to the intervention who had PRO and step count data. We analyzed the associations between PROs and mean daily step counts and the associations of PROs and step counts with the composite outcome of hospitalization or death using bootstrapped generalized linear models to account for longitudinal data. RESULTS: Among 57 patients, the mean age was 57 (SD 10.9) years, 24 (42%) were female, 43 (75%) had advanced gastrointestinal cancer, 14 (25%) had advanced lung cancer, and 25 (44%) were hospitalized or died during follow-up. A 1-point weekly increase (on a 32-point scale) in aggregate PRO score was associated with 247 fewer mean daily steps (95% CI -277 to -213; P<.001). PROs most strongly associated with step count decline were patient-reported activity (daily step change -892), nausea score (-677), and constipation score (524). A 1-point weekly increase in aggregate PRO score was associated with 20% greater odds of hospitalization or death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.4; P=.01). PROs most strongly associated with hospitalization or death were pain (aOR 3.2, 95% CI 1.6-6.5; P<.001), decreased activity (aOR 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-7.1; P=.01), dyspnea (aOR 2.6, 95% CI 1.2-5.5; P=.02), and sadness (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.3; P=.03). A decrease in 1000 steps was associated with 16% greater odds of hospitalization or death (aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.3; P=.03). Compared with baseline, mean daily step count decreased 7% (n=274 steps), 9% (n=351 steps), and 16% (n=667 steps) in the 3, 2, and 1 weeks before hospitalization or death, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of a randomized trial among patients with advanced cancer, higher symptom burden and decreased step count were independently associated with and predictably worsened close to hospitalization or death. Future interventions should leverage longitudinal PRO and step count data to target interventions toward patients at risk for poor outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04616768; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04616768. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054675.

Creating research-ready partnerships: the initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control.

BACKGROUND: In 2019-2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in 'real-world' settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs. METHODS: In April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites. RESULTS: Domains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods. CONCLUSIONS: The development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories.

Association of gynecologic oncology versus medical oncology specialty with survival, utilization, and spending for treatment of gynecologic cancers.

BACKGROUND: We examined the association of gynecologic oncology (GYO) versus medical oncology (MEDONC) based care with survival, health care utilization and spending outcomes in women undergoing chemotherapy for advanced gynecologic cancers. METHODS: Women with newly diagnosed stage III-IV uterine, ovarian, and cervical cancers from 2000 to 2015 were identified in SEER-Medicare. We assessed the association of provider specialty with overall survival, emergency department utilization, admissions, and spending. Outcomes were assessed using unadjusted and Inverse Treatment Probability Weighted propensity-score applied, multi-variable cox modeling, Poisson regression, and generalized models of log-transformed data. RESULTS: We identified 7930 gynecologic cancer patients (4360 ovarian, 2934 uterine, 643 cervix). 37% were treated by GYO and 63% by MEDONC. For ovarian patients, GYO care was associated with improved OS (median OS 3.3 v. 2.9 years; HR 0.85, 95%CI 0.80, 0.91, p < .0001) and similar mean spending per month ($4015 v. $4316, mean ratio 0.97 (95% CI 0.93, 1.02), p = .19), compared to MEDONC in adjusted analyses. For uterine patients, GYO care was associated with similar OS, but decreased spending ($3573 v. $4081, mean ratio 0.87 (95% CI.81, 0.93), p < .0001), and decreased ED utilization (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69, 0.85, p < .0001). For cervical patients, GYO care was associated with similar OS, and similar spending. Admissions were more likely in ovarian (RR 1.23, 95%CI 1.11, 1.37, p = .0001) and cervical patients (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05, 1.51, p = .015) treated by GYO, in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: GYO based care was associated with improved OS and equal spending for patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. Uterine and cervix patients had similar OS, and less or equal spending respectively, when treated by GYO compared to MEDONC.

Prior authorization in gynecologic oncology: An analysis of clinical impact.

BACKGROUND: Prior authorization was designed to minimize unnecessary care and reduce spending but has been associated with delays in necessary care. Our objective was to estimate the occurrence of prior authorization, and impact on cancer care, in gynecologic oncology. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients seen in University of Pennsylvania gynecologic oncology practices (January-March 2021). Using electronic medical records, we measured the incidence of prior authorization during the 3-month period and prior experience of prior authorization for cancer care overall and by type of order (chemotherapy, imaging, surgery, prescription drugs). We assessed the impact of prior authorization occurrence on clinical outcomes (time to service, changes in care). RESULTS: Of the 2112 clinic visits of 1406 unique patients, 5% experienced prior authorization during the 3-month study period. An additional 20% faced prior authorization requests earlier in cancer care. Of the 83 prior authorization requests, imaging accounted for the majority (54%) followed by supportive medications (29%) and chemotherapy (17%). After appeal, 79% of cases were approved. For patients whose prior authorizations were approved, there was a mean of 16 days from order placement to care delivery (95% CI 11-20, range 0-98 days). Of the 17 denials, 3 (18%) led to a substantial change in care (i.e., not receiving planned treatment). CONCLUSION: 25% of gynecologic oncology patients experienced prior authorization during their cancer care. While 80% of claims were ultimately approved, patients experienced over a 2-week delay in care when prior authorization occurred. Reform is needed to reduce the burden of prior authorization in oncology.

Electronic symptom monitoring in pediatric patients hospitalized for chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Using patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring in oncology has resulted in significant benefits for adult patients with cancer. The feasibility of this approach has not been established in the routine care of children with cancer. METHODS: The Pediatric Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (Ped-PRO-CTCAE) is an item library that enables children and caregivers to self-report symptoms. Ten symptom items from the Ped-PRO-CTCAE were uploaded to an online platform. Patients at least 7 years old and their caregivers were prompted by text/email message to electronically self-report daily during a planned hospitalization for chemotherapy administration. Symptom reports were emailed to the clinical team caring for the patient, but no instructions were given regarding the use of this information. Rates of patient participation and clinician responses to reports were systematically tracked. RESULTS: The median age of the participating patients (n = 52) was 11 years (range, 7-18 years). All patients and caregivers completed an initial login, with 92% of dyads completing at least 1 additional symptom assessment during hospitalization (median, 3 assessments; range, 0-40). Eighty-one percent of participating dyads submitted symptom reports on at least half of hospital days, and 54% submitted reports on all hospital days. Clinical actions were taken in response to symptom reports 21% of the time. Most patients felt that the system was easy (73%) and important (79%). Most clinicians found symptom reports easy to understand and useful (97%). CONCLUSIONS: Symptom monitoring using patient-reported outcome measures for hospitalized pediatric oncology patients is feasible and generates data valued by clinicians and patients.

An increase in multi-site practices: The shifting paradigm for gynecologic cancer care delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the number of practice sites per gynecologic oncologist (GO) and geographic access to GOs has changed over time. METHODS: This is a retrospective repeated cross-sectional study using the 2015-2019 Physician Compare National File. All GOs in the 50 United States and Washington, DC, who had completed at least one year of practice were included in the study. All practice sites with complete addresses were included. Linear regression analyses estimated trends in GOs' number of practice sites and geographic dispersion of practice sites. Secondary analyses assessed temporal trends in the number of geographic areas served by at least one GO. RESULTS: Although there was no significant change in the number of GOs from 2015 to 2019 (n = 1328), there was a significant increase in the number of practice sites (881 to 1416, p = 0.03), zip codes (642 to 984, p = 0.03), HSAs (404 to 536, p = 0.04), and HRRs (218 to 230, p = 0.03) containing a GO practice. The mean number of practice sites (1.64 versus 2.13, p < 0.001) and dispersion of practice sites (0.03 versus 0.43 miles, p = 0.049) per GO increased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2015 and 2019, an increasing number of GOs have multi-site practices, and more geographic regions contain a GO practice. Improvements in geographic access to GOs may represent improved access to care for many women in the US, but its effect on patients, physicians, and geographic disparities is unknown.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2021.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring and treatment of recurrent disease are also included. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. This article summarizes the panel's discussions for the 2021 update of the guidelines with regard to systemic therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

The Influence of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Adoption on Prostate Cancer Treatment Patterns.

PURPOSE: To our knowledge it is unknown whether stereotactic body radiation therapy of prostate cancer is a substitute for other radiation treatments or surgery, or for expanding the pool of patients who undergo treatment instead of active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare we identified men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2007 and 2011. We developed physician-hospital networks by identifying the treating physician of each patient based on the primary treatment received and subsequently assigning each physician to a hospital. We examined the relative distribution of prostate cancer treatments stratified by whether stereotactic body radiation therapy was performed in a network by fitting logistic regression models with robust SEs to account for patient clustering in networks. RESULTS: We identified 344 physician-hospital networks, including 30 (8.7%) and 314 (91.3%) in which stereotactic body radiation therapy was and was not performed, respectively. Networks in which that therapy was and was not done did not differ with time in the performance of robotic and radical prostatectomy, and active surveillance (all p >0.05). The relationship with intensity modulated radiation therapy did not show any consistent temporal pattern. In networks in which it was performed less intensity modulated radiation therapy was initially done but there were similar rates in later years. Brachytherapy trends differed among networks in which stereotactic body radiation therapy was vs was not performed with a lower brachytherapy rate in networks in which stereotactic body radiation therapy was done (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery and active surveillance rates did not differ in networks in which stereotactic body radiation therapy was vs was not performed but when that therapy was done there was a lower brachytherapy rate. Stereotactic body radiation therapy may represent more of an alternative to brachytherapy than to active surveillance.

NCCN Patient Advocacy Summit: Delivering Value for Patients Across the Oncology Ecosystem.

As the oncology ecosystem shifts from service-based care to outcomes and value-based care, stakeholders cite concerns regarding the lack of patient experience data that are important to the patient community. To address the patient perspective and highlight the challenges and opportunities within policy and clinical decision-making to improve patient-centered care, NCCN hosted the NCCN Patient Advocacy Summit: Delivering Value for Patients Across the Oncology Ecosystem on December 11, 2019, in Washington, DC. The summit featured multidisciplinary panel discussions, keynote speakers, and patient advocate presentations exploring the implications for patient-centered care within a shifting health policy landscape. This article encapsulates and expounds upon the discussions and presentations from the summit.

Comparative toxicity outcomes of proton-beam therapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer in the postoperative setting.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing utilization of proton-beam therapy (PBT) in the postprostatectomy setting, no data exist regarding toxicity outcomes relative to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The authors compared acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity outcomes in patients with prostate cancer (PC) who received treatment with postprostatectomy IMRT versus PBT. METHODS: With institutional review board approval, patients with PC who received adjuvant or salvage IMRT or PBT (70.2 gray with an endorectal balloon) after prostatectomy from 2009 through 2017 were reviewed. Factors including combined IMRT and PBT and/or concurrent malignancies prompted exclusion. A case-matched cohort analysis was performed using nearest-neighbor 3-to-1 matching by age and GU/GI disorder history. Logistic and Cox regressions were used to identify univariate and multivariate associations between toxicities and cohort/dosimetric characteristics. Toxicity-free survival (TFS) was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Three hundred seven men (mean ± SD age, 59.7 ± 6.3 years; IMRT, n = 237; PBT, n = 70) were identified, generating 70 matched pairs. The median follow-up was 48.6 and 46.1 months for the IMRT and PBT groups, respectively. Although PBT was superior at reducing low-range (volumes receiving 10% to 40% of the dose, respectively) bladder and rectal doses (all P ≤ .01), treatment modality was not associated with differences in clinician-reported acute or late GU/GI toxicities (all P ≥ .05). Five-year grade ≥2 GU and grade ≥1 GI TFS was 61.1% and 73.7% for IMRT, respectively, and 70.7% and 75.3% for PBT, respectively; and 5-year grade ≥3 GU and GI TFS was >95% for both groups (all P ≥ .05). CONCLUSIONS: Postprostatectomy PBT minimized low-range bladder and rectal doses relative to IMRT; however, treatment modality was not associated with clinician-reported GU/GI toxicities. Future prospective investigation and ongoing follow-up will determine whether dosimetric differences between IMRT and PBT confer clinically meaningful differences in long-term outcomes.

A multidimensional view of racial differences in access to prostate cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in prostate cancer treatment and outcomes are widespread and poorly understood. In the current study, the authors sought to determine whether access to care, measured across multiple dimensions, contributed to racial differences in prostate cancer. METHODS: The Philadelphia Area Prostate Cancer Access Study (P2 Access) included 2374 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2012 and 2014. Men were surveyed to assess their experiences accessing care (response rate of 51.1%). The authors determined appointment availability at 151 urology practices using simulated patient telephone calls and calculated travel distances using geospatial techniques. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between 5 different domains of access (availability, accessibility, accommodation, affordability, and acceptability) and receipt of treatment, perceived quality of care, and physician-patient communication. RESULTS: There were 1907 non-Hispanic white and 394 black men in the study cohort. Overall, approximately 85% of the men received definitive treatment with no differences noted by race. Black men were less likely to report a high quality of care (69% vs 81%; P<.001) and good physician-patient communication (60% vs 71%; P<.001) compared with white men. In adjusted models, none of the 5 domains of access were found to be associated with definitive treatment overall or with radical prostatectomy. All access domains were associated with perceived quality of care and communication, although these domains did not mediate racial disparities. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, the current study presents the first comprehensive assessment of prostate cancer care access, treatment, and patient experience, demonstrating that although access was related to overall perceived quality of care and better physician-patient communication, it did not appear to explain observed racial differences. Cancer 2017;123:4449-57. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

The early adoption of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and stereotactic body radiation treatment among older Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Several new prostate cancer treatments have emerged since 2000, including 2 radiotherapies with similar efficacy at the time of their introduction: intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The objectives of this study were to compare their early adoption patterns and identify factors associated with their use. METHODS: By using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, patients who received radiation therapy during the 5 years after IMRT introduction (2001-2005) and the 5 years after SBRT introduction (2007-2011) were identified. The outcome of interest was the receipt of new radiation therapy (ie, IMRT or SBRT) compared with the existing standard radiation therapies at that time. The authors fit a series of multivariable, hierarchical logistic regression models accounting for patients nested within health service areas to examine the factors associated with the receipt of new radiation therapy. RESULTS: During 2001 to 2005, 5680 men (21%) received IMRT compared with standard radiation (n = 21,555). Men who received IMRT were older, had higher grade tumors, and lived in more populated areas (P < .05). During 2007 through 2011, 595 men (2%) received SBRT compared with standard radiation (n = 28,255). Men who received ng SBRT were more likely to be white, had lower grade tumors, lived in more populated areas, and were more likely to live in the Northeast (P < .05). Adjusting for cohort demographic and clinical factors, the early adoption rate for IMRT was substantially higher than that for SBRT (44% vs 4%; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: There is a stark contrast in the adoption rates of IMRT and SBRT at the time of their introduction. Further investigation of the nonclinical factors associated with this difference is warranted. Cancer 2017;123:2945-54. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Comparison of Site of Death, Health Care Utilization, and Hospital Expenditures for Patients Dying With Cancer in 7 Developed Countries.

IMPORTANCE: Differences in utilization and costs of end-of-life care among developed countries are of considerable policy interest. OBJECTIVE: To compare site of death, health care utilization, and hospital expenditures in 7 countries: Belgium, Canada, England, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study using administrative and registry data from 2010. Participants were decedents older than 65 years who died with cancer. Secondary analyses included decedents of any age, decedents older than 65 years with lung cancer, and decedents older than 65 years in the United States and Germany from 2012. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Deaths in acute care hospitals, 3 inpatient measures (hospitalizations in acute care hospitals, admissions to intensive care units, and emergency department visits), 1 outpatient measure (chemotherapy episodes), and hospital expenditures paid by insurers (commercial or governmental) during the 180-day and 30-day periods before death. Expenditures were derived from country-specific methods for costing inpatient services. RESULTS: The United States (cohort of decedents aged >65 years, N = 211,816) and the Netherlands (N = 7216) had the lowest proportion of decedents die in acute care hospitals (22.2.% and 29.4%, respectively). A higher proportion of decedents died in acute care hospitals in Belgium (N = 21,054; 51.2%), Canada (N = 20,818; 52.1%), England (N = 97,099; 41.7%), Germany (N = 24,434; 38.3%), and Norway (N = 6636; 44.7%). In the last 180 days of life, 40.3% of US decedents had an intensive care unit admission compared with less than 18% in other reporting nations. In the last 180 days of life, mean per capita hospital expenditures were higher in Canada (US $21,840), Norway (US $19,783), and the United States (US $18,500), intermediate in Germany (US $16,221) and Belgium (US $15,699), and lower in the Netherlands (US $10,936) and England (US $9342). Secondary analyses showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients older than 65 years who died with cancer in 7 developed countries in 2010, end-of-life care was more hospital-centric in Belgium, Canada, England, Germany, and Norway than in the Netherlands or the United States. Hospital expenditures near the end of life were higher in the United States, Norway, and Canada, intermediate in Germany and Belgium, and lower in the Netherlands and England. However, intensive care unit admissions were more than twice as common in the United States as in other countries.

A case-matched study of toxicity outcomes after proton therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The authors assessed whether proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer (PCa) was associated with differing toxicity compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using case-matched analysis. METHODS: From 2010 to 2012, 394 patients who had localized PCa received 79.2 Gray (Gy) relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) delivered with either PBT (181 patients) or IMRT (213 patients). Patients were case-matched on risk group, age, and prior gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) disorders, resulting in 94 matched pairs. Both exact matching (risk group) and nearest-neighbor matching (age, prior GI/GU disorders) were used. Residual confounding was adjusted for by using multivariable regression. Maximum acute and late GI/GU Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events-graded toxicities were compared using univariate and multivariable logistic and Cox regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Bladder and rectum dosimetry variables were significantly lower for PBT versus IMRT (P ≤ .01). The median follow-up was 47 months (range, 5-65 months) for patients who received IMRT and 29 months (range, 5-50 months) for those who received PBT. On multivariable analysis, which exploited case matching and included direct adjustment for confounders and independent predictors, there were no statistically significant differences between IMRT and PBT in the risk of grade ≥ 2 acute GI toxicity (odds ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06-1.24; P = .09), grade ≥ 2 acute GU toxicity (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.32-1.51; P = .36), grade ≥ 2 late GU toxicity (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.22-1.41; P = .22), and grade ≥ 2 late GI toxicity (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.53-2.94; P = .62). CONCLUSIONS: In this matched comparison of prospectively collected toxicity data on patients with PCa who received treatment with contemporary IMRT and PBT techniques and similar dose-fractionation schedules, the risks of acute and late GI/GU toxicities did not differ significantly after adjustment for confounders and predictive factors.

Variation in performance of candidate surgical quality measures for muscle-invasive bladder cancer by hospital type.

OBJECTIVE: To test the association between hospital type and performance of candidate quality measures for treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) using a large national tumour registry. Proposed quality measures include receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, timely treatment, adequate lymph node dissection, and continent urinary diversion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, patients with stage ≥II urothelial carcinoma treated with radical cystectomy (RC) from 2003 to 2010 were identified. Hospitals were grouped by type and annual RC volume: community, comprehensive low volume (CLV), comprehensive high volume (CHV), academic low volume (ALV), and academic high volume (AHV) groups. Logistic regression models were used to test the association between hospital group and performance of quality measures, adjusting for year, demographic, and clinical/pathological characteristics; generalised estimating equations were fitted to the models to adjust for clustering at the hospital level. RESULTS: In all, 23 279 patients underwent RC at community (12.4%), comprehensive (CLV 38%, CHV 5%), and academic (ALV 17%, AHV 28%) hospitals. While only 0.8% (175) of patients met all four quality criteria, 61% of patients treated at AHV hospitals met two or more quality metric indicators compared with ALV (45%), CHV (44%), CLV (38%), and community (37%) hospitals (P < 0.001). After adjustment, patients were more likely to receive two or more quality measures when treated at AHV (odds ratio [OR] 2.4, confidence interval [CI] 2.0-2.9), ALV (OR 1.3, CI 1.1-1.6), and CHV (OR 1.3, CI 1.03-1.7) hospitals compared with community hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing RC at AHV hospitals were more likely to meet quality criteria. However, performance remains low across hospital types, highlighting the opportunity to improve quality of care for MIBC.

Bias in estimating the causal hazard ratio when using two-stage instrumental variable methods.

Two-stage instrumental variable methods are commonly used to estimate the causal effects of treatments on survival in the presence of measured and unmeasured confounding. Two-stage residual inclusion (2SRI) has been the method of choice over two-stage predictor substitution (2SPS) in clinical studies. We directly compare the bias in the causal hazard ratio estimated by these two methods. Under a principal stratification framework, we derive a closed-form solution for asymptotic bias of the causal hazard ratio among compliers for both the 2SPS and 2SRI methods when survival time follows the Weibull distribution with random censoring. When there is no unmeasured confounding and no always takers, our analytic results show that 2SRI is generally asymptotically unbiased, but 2SPS is not. However, when there is substantial unmeasured confounding, 2SPS performs better than 2SRI with respect to bias under certain scenarios. We use extensive simulation studies to confirm the analytic results from our closed-form solutions. We apply these two methods to prostate cancer treatment data from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare and compare these 2SRI and 2SPS estimates with results from two published randomized trials.