Changes in Facility Share of Medicaid-insured Patients With Urologic Cancers Following Implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

OBJECTIVE: To examine Medicaid-insurance acceptance at facilities treating urologic cancers following implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, longitudinal study with a pre-post design. We accessed 2010-2017 data from the National Cancer Database, calculating the facility-level change in proportion of urologic cancer patients with Medicaid following implementation of the ACA. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess baseline clinical and demographic factors associated with changes in the proportion of patients at a facility insured through Medicaid. RESULTS: We identified 630 facilities, including 287 in Medicaid expansion states and 343 in non-expansion states associated with 436,082 urologic cancer patients. The mean facility-level change in proportion of patients with Medicaid was + 5.8% (95% CI 5.0%-6.5%) in expansion states versus + 0.6% (95% CI 0.2%-0.9%) in non-expansion states. There were 179 facilities that experienced a decrease in the post-ACA period, representing 13.6% of facilities in expansion states and 40.8% in non-expansion states (P <.001). Factors associated with a decrease in proportion of urologic cancer patients insured by Medicaid included non-expansion state status (OR 8.9, 95% CI 5.3-15.6, P <.001), higher baseline proportion of patients with Medicaid (highest quartile vs lowest: OR 4.6, 95% CI 2.3-9.4, P <.001) and high-income zip code (highest vs lowest quartile: OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.5-6.6, P <.001). CONCLUSION: Urologic cancer care for Medicaid-insured Americans remains unevenly distributed across cancer care centers, even in states that expanded coverage. Our findings suggest that this variation may reflect the effort of some facilities to reduce their financial exposure to increased numbers of Medicaid patients in the wake of ACA-supported state expansions.

'It Just Makes Sense to Me': A qualitative study exploring patient decision-making and experiences with prostate MRI during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Introduction: Although prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used in the diagnosis, staging and active surveillance of prostate cancer, little is known about patient perspectives on MRI. Methods: We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. Interviews focused on experiences with and knowledge of prostate MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy during active surveillance. We purposively sampled patients who received prostate MRI as part of their clinical care, conducted interviews until reaching thematic saturation and performed conventional content analysis to analyse data. Results: Twenty patients aged 51-79 years (mean = 68 years) participated in the study. At diagnosis, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and three (15%) had a grade group 2 tumour. Overall, participants viewed prostate MRI as a valuable tool that accurately localizes and monitors prostate cancer over time, and they considered prostate MRI central to active surveillance monitoring. We identified five thematic categories related to MRI use: (1) the experiential aspects of undergoing an MRI scan; (2) the experience of visualizing one's own prostate and prostate cancer; (3) adequacy of provider explanations of MRI results; (4) confidence in prostate MRI in decision-making; and (5) the role of prostate MRI in longitudinal follow-up, including an interest in using MRI to modify the timing of, or replace, prostate biopsy. Conclusion: Patients value prostate MRI as a tool that enhances their confidence in the initial diagnosis and monitoring of prostate cancer. This work can inform future studies to optimize patient experience, education and counselling during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Differential Effect of Consolidative Thoracic Radiation Therapy in Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Based on Sex.

Purpose: The landmark randomized trial on chest irradiation in extensive disease small cell lung cancer (CREST) demonstrated that consolidative thoracic radiation therapy (cTRT) improved overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) after initial chemotherapy (chemo) in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer, with potentially increased benefit in women compared with men. It is unknown whether similar findings would apply after chemoimmunotherapy became the standard first-line treatment. In this analysis, we report national practice patterns and survival outcomes of cTRT according to patient sex. Methods and Materials: We included patients from de-identified electronic health record-derived database diagnosed with stage IV small cell lung cancer (2014-2021) who completed 4 to 6 cycles of first-line systemic therapy (platinum-doublet chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy). We evaluated OS and PFS using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression with receipt of cTRT as an independent variable and stratified by sex. As a sensitivity analysis, we weighted the models by the inverse probability of receiving cTRT. Results: A total of 1227 patients were included (850 chemotherapy, 377 chemoimmunotherapy). There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between patients who did and did not receive cTRT. Among women, cTRT was associated with superior OS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87) and PFS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.82) compared with those not receiving cTRT. Conversely, no OS or PFS benefit with cTRT was observed in men (OS HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.80-1.31; PFS HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.85-1.47). Findings were similar in weighted analyses. Conclusions: The survival efficacy of cTRT may be moderated by sex, with female patients appearing more likely to benefit than male patients. These findings reflect sex-based survival trends with similar effect sizes to those observed in the CREST trial. Although the underpinnings of this association need to be elucidated, stratification by sex should be considered for randomized-controlled trials studying cTRT in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

Characterization of time toxicity in older patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Recognizing that receiving healthcare can be time intensive and burdensome, time toxicity has been conceptualized as the time spent by patients seeking healthcare. This study investigates the association between age at diagnosis and time toxicity for patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC) and identifies major components of care that confer the greatest time toxicity. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among patients with MBC aged 67 or older using the SEER-Medicare database. We assessed time toxicity using the number of encounter days patients interacted with the healthcare system per 100 days, within the first year of starting cancer treatment. We used a Poisson model to analyze the association between age and encounter days, adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors. We stratified the mean encounter days for each age cohort by treatment types. FINDINGS: The final sample included 2949 patients; 51.4% were between 70 and 79 years old, and 81.3% were white. Although unadjusted analysis showed an association between older age and more encounter days (Rate Ratio (RR) 1.12; 95% CI 1.02, 1.22), there was no significant association after adjusting for comorbidities and treatment type. Patients with more than three comorbidities had significantly higher encounter days compared to those without comorbidities [RR 1.36 (95% CI 1.26, 1.46)]. Receipt of radiotherapy [RR: 1.45 95% CI (1.37, 1.54)] was associated with more encounter days compared to not receiving radiotherapy, while receipt of bone-modifying agents was associated with fewer encounter days compared to not using Bone modifying agents [RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.70, 0.79)]. CONCLUSION: Our study identified comorbidities and cancer treatment modality, including radiotherapy, as the factors affecting time toxicity in older patients with MBC. Assessment of an individual's comorbid medical conditions and types of treatment planned are crucial to understanding age-related impacts on encounter days and to support shared decision making in older patients.

Systemic Anticancer Therapy and Overall Survival in Patients With Very Advanced Solid Tumors.

Importance: Two prominent organizations, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Quality Forum (NQF), have developed a cancer quality metric aimed at reducing systemic anticancer therapy administration at the end of life. This metric, NQF 0210 (patients receiving chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life), has been critiqued for focusing only on care for decedents and not including the broader population of patients who may benefit from treatment. Objective: To evaluate whether the overall population of patients with metastatic cancer receiving care at practices with higher rates of oncologic therapy for very advanced disease experience longer survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide population-based cohort study used Flatiron Health, a deidentified electronic health record database of patients diagnosed with metastatic or advanced disease, to identify adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with 1 of 6 common cancers (breast cancer, colorectal cancer, non-small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and urothelial cancer) treated at health care practices from 2015 to 2019. Practices were stratified into quintiles based on retrospectively measured rates of NQF 0210, and overall survival was compared by disease type among all patients treated in each practice quintile from time of metastatic diagnosis using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to July 2023. Exposure: Practice-level NQF 0210 quintiles. Main Outcome and Measure: Overall survival. Results: Of 78 446 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.3 [11.1] years; 52.2% female) across 144 practices, the most common cancer types were NSCLC (34 201 patients [43.6%]) and colorectal cancer (15 804 patients [20.1%]). Practice-level NQF 0210 rates varied from 10.9% (quintile 1) to 32.3% (quintile 5) for NSCLC and 6.8% (quintile 1) to 28.4% (quintile 5) for colorectal cancer. No statistically significant differences in survival were observed between patients treated at the highest and the lowest NQF 0210 quintiles. Compared with patients seen at practices in the lowest NQF 0210 quintiles, the hazard ratio for death among patients seen at the highest quintiles varied from 0.74 (95% CI, 0.55-0.99) for those with renal cell carcinoma to 1.41 (95% CI, 0.98-2.02) for those with urothelial cancer. These differences were not statistically significant after applying the Bonferroni-adjusted critical P = .008. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients with metastatic or advanced cancer treated at practices with higher NQF 0210 rates did not have improved survival. Future efforts should focus on helping oncologists identify when additional therapy is futile, developing goals of care communication skills, and aligning payment incentives with improved end-of-life care.

Functional decline in older breast cancer survivors treated with and without chemotherapy and non-cancer controls: results from the Hurria Older PatiEnts (HOPE) prospective study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess whether physical functional decline in older women with early-stage breast cancer is driven by cancer, chemotherapy, or a combination of both. METHODS: We prospectively sampled three groups of women aged ≥ 65: 444 with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy (BC Chemo), 98 with early-stage breast cancer not receiving chemotherapy (BC Control), and 100 non-cancer controls (NC Control). Physical function was assessed at two timepoints (T1 [baseline] and T2 [3, 4, or 6 months]) using the Physical Functioning Subscale (PF-10) of the RAND 36-item Short Form. The primary endpoint was the change in PF-10 scores from T1 to T2, analyzed continuously and dichotomously (Yes/No, with "yes" indicating a PF-10 decline > 10 points, i.e., a substantial and clinically meaningful difference). RESULTS: Baseline PF-10 scores were similar across all groups. The BC Chemo group experienced a significant decline at T2, with a median change in PF-10 of -5 (interquartile range [IQR], -20, 0), while BC Control and NC Control groups showed a median change of 0 (IQR, -5, 5; p < 0.001). Over 30% of BC Chemo participants had a substantial decline in PF-10 vs. 8% in the BC Control and 5% in the NC Control groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of older adults with early-stage breast cancer, the combination of breast cancer and chemotherapy contributes to accelerated functional decline. Our findings reinforce the need to develop interventions aimed at preserving physical function, particularly during and after chemotherapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The high prevalence of accelerated functional decline in older women undergoing breast cancer chemotherapy underscores the urgency to develop interventions aimed at preserving physical function and improving health outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL: NCT01472094, Hurria Older PatiEnts (HOPE) with Breast Cancer Study.

Area Vulnerability and Disparities in Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Importance: Area-level measures of sociodemographic disadvantage may be associated with racial and ethnic disparities with respect to receipt of treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but have not been investigated previously, to our knowledge. Objective: To assess the association between area-level measures of social vulnerability and racial and ethnic disparities in the treatment of US Medicare beneficiaries with mRCC from 2015 through 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who were diagnosed with mRCC from January 2015 through December 2019 and were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare Parts A, B, and D from 1 year before through 1 year after presumed diagnosis or until death. Data were analyzed from November 22, 2022, through January 26, 2024. Exposures: Five different county-level measures of disadvantage and 4 zip code-level measures of vulnerability or deprivation and segregation were used to dichotomize whether an individual resided in the most vulnerable quartile according to each metric. Patient-level factors included age, race and ethnicity, sex, diagnosis year, comorbidities, frailty, Medicare and Medicaid dual enrollment eligibility, and Medicare Part D low-income subsidy (LIS). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were receipt and type of systemic therapy (oral anticancer agent or immunotherapy from 2 months before to 1 year after diagnosis of mRCC) as a function of patient and area-level characteristics. Multivariable regression analyses were used to adjust for patient factors, and odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regression and relative risk ratios (RRRs) from multinomial logistic regression are reported. Results: The sample included 15 407 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [6.8] years), of whom 9360 (60.8%) were men; 6931 (45.0%), older than 75 years; 93 (0.6%), American Indian or Alaska Native; 257 (1.7%), Asian or Pacific Islander; 757 (4.9%), Hispanic; 1017 (6.6%), non-Hispanic Black; 12 966 (84.2%), non-Hispanic White; 121 (0.8%), other; and 196 (1.3%), unknown. Overall, 8317 patients (54.0%) received some type of systemic therapy. After adjusting for individual factors, no county or zip code-level measures of social vulnerability, deprivation, or segregation were associated with disparities in treatment. In contrast, patient-level factors, including female sex (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.84) and LIS (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), were associated with lack of treatment, with particularly limited access to immunotherapy for patients with LIS (RRR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.43). Associations between individual-level factors and treatment in multivariable analysis were not mediated by the addition of area-level metrics. Disparities by race and ethnicity were consistently and only observed within the most vulnerable areas, as indicated by the top quartile of each vulnerability deprivation index. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of older Medicare patients diagnosed with mRCC, individual-level demographics, including race and ethnicity, sex, and income, were associated with receipt of systemic therapy, whereas area-level measures were not. However, individual-level racial and ethnic disparities were largely limited to socially vulnerable areas, suggesting that efforts to improve racial and ethnic disparities may be most effective when targeted to socially vulnerable areas.

Updated Analysis of Comparative Toxicity of Proton and Photon Radiation for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Previous comparative effectiveness studies have not demonstrated a benefit of proton beam therapy (PBT) compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. An updated comparison of GI and genitourinary (GU) toxicity is needed. METHODS: We investigated the SEER-Medicare linked database, identifying patients with localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 2010 to 2017. Procedure and diagnosis codes indicative of treatment-related toxicity were identified. As a sensitivity analysis, we also identified toxicity based only on procedure codes. Patients who underwent IMRT and PBT were matched 2:1 on the basis of clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. We then compared GI and GU toxicity at 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. RESULTS: The final sample included 772 PBT patients matched to 1,544 IMRT patients. The frequency of GI toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 3.5% versus 2.5% at 6 months (P = .18), 9.5% versus 10.2% at 12 months (P = .18), and 20.5% versus 23.4% at 24 months (P = .11). The frequency of only procedure codes indicative of GI toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was too low to be reported and not significantly different. The frequency of GU toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 6.8% versus 5.7% (P = .30), 14.3% versus 12.2% (P = .13), and 28.2% versus 25.8% (P = .21) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. When looking only at procedure codes, the frequency of GU toxicity for IMRT was 1.0% at 6 months, whereas it was too infrequent to report for PBT (P = .64). GU toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 3.3% versus 2.1% (P = .10), and 8.7% versus 6.7% (P = .10) at 12 and 24 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this observational study, there were no statistically significant differences between PBT and IMRT in terms of GI or GU toxicity.

Patient experiences with tissue-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Background: Tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests provide estimates of prostate cancer aggressiveness and are increasingly used for patients considering or engaged in active surveillance. However, little is known about patient experiences with genomic testing and its role in their decision-making. Methods: We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- or favourable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. We purposively sampled to include patients who received biopsy-based genomic testing as part of clinical care. The interview guide focused on experiences with genomic testing during patients' decision-making for prostate cancer management and understanding of genomic test results. We continued interviews until thematic saturation was reached, iteratively created a code key and used conventional content analysis to analyse data. Results: Participants' (n = 20) mean age was 68 years (range 51-79). At initial biopsy, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and 3 (15%) had a grade group 2 prostate cancer. The decision to undergo genomic testing was driven by both participants and physicians' recommendations; however, some participants were unaware that testing had occurred. Overall, participants understood the role of genomic testing in estimating their prostate cancer risk, and the test results increased their confidence in the decision for active surveillance. Participants had some misconceptions about the difference between tissue-based gene expression tests and germline genetic tests and commonly believed that tissue-based tests measured hereditary cancer risk. While some participants expressed satisfaction with their physicians' explanations, others felt that communication was limited and lacked sufficient detail. Conclusion: Patients interact with and are influenced by the results of biopsy-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer, despite gaps in understanding about test results. Our findings indicate areas for improvement in patient counselling in order to increase patient knowledge and comfort with genomic testing.

Falls prechemotherapy and toxicity-related hospitalization during adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in older women: Results from the prospective multicenter HOPE trial.

BACKGROUND: Older women with breast cancer frequently experience toxicity-related hospitalizations during adjuvant chemotherapy. Although the geriatric assessment can identify those at risk, its use in clinic remains limited. One simple, low-cost marker of vulnerability in older persons is fall history. Here, the authors examined whether falls prechemotherapy can identify older women at risk for toxicity-related hospitalization during adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. METHODS: In a prospective study of women >65 years old with stage I-III breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, the authors assessed baseline falls in the past 6 months as a categorical variable: no fall, one fall, and more than one fall. The primary end point was incident hospitalization during chemotherapy attributable to toxicity. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between falls and toxicity-related hospitalization, adjusting for sociodemographic, disease, and geriatric covariates. RESULTS: Of the 497 participants, 60 (12.1%) reported falling before chemotherapy, and 114 (22.9%) had one or more toxicity-related hospitalizations. After adjusting for sociodemographic, disease, and geriatric characteristics, women who fell more than once within 6 months before chemotherapy had greater odds of being hospitalized from toxicity during chemotherapy compared to women who did not fall (50.0% vs. 20.8% experienced toxicity-related hospitalization, odds ratio, 4.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-11.54, p = .003). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of older women with early breast cancer, women who experienced more than one fall before chemotherapy had an over 4-fold increased risk of toxicity-related hospitalization during chemotherapy, independent of sociodemographic, disease, and geriatric factors.

Incarceration and screen-detectable cancer diagnosis among adults in Connecticut.

Although incarcerated adults are at elevated risk of dying from cancer, little is known about cancer screening in carceral settings. This study compared stage-specific incidence of screen-detectable cancers among incarcerated and recently released people with the general population, as a reflection of screening practices. We calculated the age- and sex-standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for early- and late-stage cancers for incarcerated and recently released adults compared to the general Connecticut population between 2005 and 2016. Our sample included 143 cancer cases among those incarcerated, 406 among those recently released, and 201 360 in the general population. The SIR for early-stage screen-detectable cancers was lower among incarcerated (SIR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.43) and recently released (SIR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.88) individuals than the general population. Incidence of late-stage screen-detectable cancer was lower during incarceration (SIR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.88) but not after release (SIR = 1.32, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.82). Findings suggest that underscreening and underdetection of cancer may occur in carceral settings.

Trends in new and persistent opioid use in older adults with and without cancer.

BACKGROUND: The impact of ongoing efforts to decrease opioid use on patients with cancer remains undefined. Our objective was to determine trends in new and additional opioid use in patients with and without cancer. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program-Medicare for opioid-naive patients with solid tumor malignancies diagnosed from 2012 through 2017 and a random sample of patients without cancer. We identified 238 470 eligible patients with cancer and further focused on 4 clinical strata: patients without cancer, patients with metastatic cancer, patients with nonmetastatic cancer treated with surgery alone ("surgery alone"), and patients with nonmetastatic cancer treated with surgery plus chemotherapy or radiation therapy ("surgery+"). We identified new, early additional, and long-term additional opioid use and calculated the change in predicted probability of these outcomes from 2012 to 2017. RESULTS: New opioid use was higher in patients with cancer (46.4%) than in those without (6.9%) (P < .001). From 2012 to 2017, the predicted probability of new opioid use was more stable in the cancer strata (relative declines: 0.1% surgery alone; 2.4% surgery+; 8.8% metastatic cancer), than in the noncancer stratum (20.0%) (P < .001 for each cancer to noncancer comparison). Early additional use declined among surgery patients (‒14.9% and ‒17.5% for surgery alone and surgery+, respectively) but was stable among patients with metastatic disease (‒2.8%, P = .50). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid prescribing declined over time at a slower rate in patients with cancer than in patients without cancer. Our study suggests important but tempered effects of the changing opioid climate on patients with cancer.

Estimating Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis After Screening Mammography Among Older Women in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Overdiagnosis is increasingly recognized as a harm of breast cancer screening, particularly for older women. OBJECTIVE: To estimate overdiagnosis associated with breast cancer screening among older women by age. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study comparing the cumulative incidence of breast cancer among older women who continued screening in the next interval with those who did not. Analyses used competing risk models, stratified by age. SETTING: Fee-for-service Medicare claims, linked to the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program. PATIENTS: Women 70 years and older who had been recently screened. MEASUREMENTS: Breast cancer diagnoses and breast cancer death for up to 15 years of follow-up. RESULTS: This study included 54 635 women. Among women aged 70 to 74 years, the adjusted cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 6.1 cases (95% CI, 5.7 to 6.4) per 100 screened women versus 4.2 cases (CI, 3.5 to 5.0) per 100 unscreened women. An estimated 31% of breast cancer among screened women were potentially overdiagnosed. For women aged 75 to 84 years, cumulative incidence was 4.9 (CI, 4.6 to 5.2) per 100 screened women versus 2.6 (CI, 2.2 to 3.0) per 100 unscreened women, with 47% of cases potentially overdiagnosed. For women aged 85 and older, the cumulative incidence was 2.8 (CI, 2.3 to 3.4) among screened women versus 1.3 (CI, 0.9 to 1.9) among those not, with up to 54% overdiagnosis. We did not see statistically significant reductions in breast cancer-specific death associated with screening. LIMITATIONS: This study was designed to estimate overdiagnosis, limiting our ability to draw conclusions on all benefits and harms of screening. Unmeasured differences in risk for breast cancer and differential competing mortality between screened and unscreened women may confound results. Results were sensitive to model specifications and definition of a screening mammogram. CONCLUSION: Continued breast cancer screening was associated with greater incidence of breast cancer, suggesting overdiagnosis may be common among older women who are diagnosed with breast cancer after screening. Whether harms of overdiagnosis are balanced by benefits and for whom remains an important question. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Clinical trial data sharing: a cross-sectional study of outcomes associated with two U.S. National Institutes of Health models.

The impact and effectiveness of clinical trial data sharing initiatives may differ depending on the data sharing model used. We characterized outcomes associated with models previously used by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH): National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's (NHLBI) centralized model and National Cancer Institute's (NCI) decentralized model. We identified trials completed in 2010-2013 that met NIH data sharing criteria and matched studies based on cost and/or size, determining whether trial data were shared, and for those that were, the frequency of secondary internal publications (authored by at least one author from the original research team) and shared data publications (authored by a team external to the original research team). We matched 77 NHLBI-funded trials to 77 NCI-funded trials; among these, 20 NHLBI-sponsored trials (26%) and 4 NCI-sponsored trials (5%) shared data (OR 6.4, 95% CI: 2.1, 19.8). From the 4 NCI-sponsored trials sharing data, we identified 65 secondary internal and 2 shared data publications. From the 20 NHLBI-sponsored trials sharing data, we identified 188 secondary internal and 53 shared data publications. The NHLBI's centralized data sharing model was associated with more trials sharing data and more shared data publications when compared with the NCI's decentralized model.

Current use of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program surgical risk calculator in academic surgery: a mixed-methods study.

Background: This study aims to quantitatively assess use of the NSQIP surgical risk calculator (NSRC) in contemporary surgical practice and to identify barriers to use and potential interventions that might increase use. Materials and methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of surgeons at seven institutions. The primary outcomes were self-reported application of the calculator in general clinical practice and specific clinical scenarios as well as reported barriers to use. Results: In our sample of 99 surgeons (49.7% response rate), 73.7% reported use of the NSRC in the past month. Approximately half (51.9%) of respondents reported infrequent NSRC use (<20% of preoperative discussions), while 14.3% used it in ≥40% of preoperative assessments. Reported use was higher in nonelective cases (30.2% vs 11.1%) and in patients who were ≥65 years old (37.1% vs 13.0%), functionally dependent (41.2% vs 6.6%), or with surrogate consent (39.9% vs 20.4%). NSRC use was not associated with training status or years in practice. Respondents identified a lack of influence on the decision to pursue surgery as well as concerns regarding the calculator's accuracy as barriers to use. Surgeons suggested improving integration to workflow and better education as strategies to increase NSRC use. Conclusions: Many surgeons reported use of the NSRC, but few used it frequently. Surgeons reported more frequent use in nonelective cases and frail patients, suggesting the calculator is of greater utility for high-risk patients. Surgeons raised concerns about perceived accuracy and suggested additional education as well as integration of the calculator into the electronic health record.

Relative Burden of Cancer and Noncancer Mortality Among Long-Term Survivors of Breast, Prostate, and Colorectal Cancer in the US.

Importance: Improvements in cancer outcomes have led to a need to better understand long-term oncologic and nononcologic outcomes and quantify cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific mortality risks among long-term survivors. Objective: To assess absolute and relative cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific mortality rates among long-term survivors of cancer, as well as associated risk factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 627 702 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer who received a diagnosis between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2014, who received definitive treatment for localized disease and who were alive 5 years after their initial diagnosis (ie, long-term survivors of cancer). Statistical analysis was conducted from November 2022 to January 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival time ratios (TRs) were calculated using accelerated failure time models, and the primary outcome of interest examined was death from index cancer vs alternative (nonindex cancer) mortality across breast, prostate, colon, and rectal cancer cohorts. Secondary outcomes included subgroup mortality in cancer-specific risk groups, categorized based on prognostic factors, and proportion of deaths due to cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific causes. Independent variables included age, sex, race and ethnicity, income, residence, stage, grade, estrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status, prostate-specific antigen level, and Gleason score. Follow-up ended in 2019. Results: The study included 627 702 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.1 [12.3] years; 434 848 women [69.3%]): 364 230 with breast cancer, 118 839 with prostate cancer, and 144 633 with colorectal cancer who survived 5 years or more from an initial diagnosis of early-stage cancer. Factors associated with shorter median cancer-specific survival included stage III disease for breast cancer (TR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.53-0.55) and colorectal cancer (colon: TR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.58-0.62; rectal: TR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.69-0.74), as well as a Gleason score of 8 or higher for prostate cancer (TR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.58-0.63). For all cancer cohorts, patients at low risk had at least a 3-fold higher noncancer-specific mortality compared with cancer-specific mortality at 10 years of diagnosis. Patients at high risk had a higher cumulative incidence of cancer-specific mortality than noncancer-specific mortality in all cancer cohorts except prostate. Conclusions and Relevance: This study is the first to date to examine competing oncologic and nononcologic risks focusing on long-term adult survivors of cancer. Knowledge of the relative risks facing long-term survivors may help provide pragmatic guidance to patients and clinicians regarding the importance of ongoing primary and oncologic-focused care.

End-of-Life Systemic Oncologic Treatment in the Immunotherapy Era: The Role of Race, Insurance, and Practice Setting.

PURPOSE: Receipt of antineoplastic systemic treatment near end of life (EOL) has been shown to harm patient and caregiver experience, increase hospitalizations, intensive care unit and emergency department use, and drive-up costs; yet, these rates have not declined. To understand factors contributing to use of antineoplastic EOL systemic treatment, we explored its association with practice- and patient-level factors. METHODS: We included patients from a real-world electronic health record-derived deidentified database who received systemic therapy for advanced or metastatic cancer diagnosed starting in 2011 and died within 4 years between 2015 and 2019. We assessed use of EOL systemic treatment at 30 and 14 days before death. We divided treatments into three subcategories: chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy and immunotherapy in combination, and immunotherapy (with/without targeted therapy), and estimated conditional odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for patient and practice factors using multivariable mixed-level logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 57,791 patients from 150 practices, 19,837 received systemic treatment within 30 days of death. We observed 36.6% of White patients, 32.7% of Black patients, 43.3% of commercially insured patients, and 37.0% of Medicaid patients received EOL systemic treatment. White patients and those with commercial insurance were more likely to receive EOL systemic treatment than Black patients or those with Medicaid. Treatment at community practices was associated with higher odds of receiving 30-day systemic EOL treatment than treatment at academic centers (adjusted OR, 1.51). We observed large variations in EOL systemic treatment rates across practices. CONCLUSION: In a large real-world population, EOL systemic treatment rates were related to patient race, insurance type, and practice setting. Future work should examine factors that contribute to this usage pattern and its impact on downstream care.[Media: see text].