Primary care physician continuity, survival, and end-of-life care intensity.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations of primary care physician (PCP) care continuity with cancer-specific survival and end-of-life care intensity. DATA SOURCES: Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results linked to Medicare claims data from 2001 to 2015. STUDY DESIGN: Cox proportional hazards models with mixed effects and hierarchical generalized logistic models were used to examine the associations of PCP care continuity with cancer-specific survival and end-of-life care intensity, respectively. PCP care continuity, defined as having visited the predominant PCP (who saw the patient most frequently before diagnosis) within 6 months of diagnosis. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified Medicare patients diagnosed at age 66.5-94 years with stage-III or IV poor-prognosis cancer during 2001-2012 and followed them up until 2015. Patients who died within 6 months after diagnosis were excluded. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Primary study cohort consisted of 85,467 patients (median survival 22 months), 71.7% of whom had PCP care continuity. Patients with PCP care continuity tended to be older, married, nonblack, non-Hispanic, and to have fewer comorbid conditions (p < 0.001 for all). Patients with PCP care continuity had lower cancer-specific mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91 to 0.95; p = 0.001) than did those without PCP care continuity. Findings of the 2001-2003 cohorts (nearly all of whom died by 2015) show no associations of overall end-of-life care intensity measures with PCP care continuity (adjusted marginal effects: 0.005; 95% CI: -0.016 to 0.026; p = 0.264). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare beneficiaries with advanced poor-prognosis cancer, PCP continuity was associated with modestly improved survival without raising overall aggressive end-of-life care.

Did quality of life for older cancer survivors improve with the turn of the century in the United States?

OBJECTIVES: Although survival after a cancer diagnosis has improved considerably over the past 20 years, little is known about trends in health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) for older prostate, breast, and lung cancer survivors. METHODS: Using a population-based registry with longitudinal patient reported outcomes (the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database linked to Medicare Health Outcomes Survey), we analyzed Medicare Advantage patients diagnosed with cancer during 1998-2011, who completed surveys regarding HRQOL through 2013. 'Early Era' patients were treated during 1998-2003; 'Late Era' patients were treated during 2006-2011. After propensity score matching, post-diagnosis changes in health utility (HU), Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores were calculated and compared between the two eras. RESULT: We identified 208 older patients with prostate, 276 with breast and 76 with lung cancer who were treated in the 'Early Era' and matched to equal numbers in the 'Late Era'. Mean age of patients in early and late era was 72 and 73 years, respectively. The mean post-diagnosis decline in health utility for patients treated in the 'Late Era' was not significantly different from the 'Early Era' for any cancer (Prostate [early vs. late]: -0.06 vs. -0.03, p = .09; Breast: -0.03 vs. -0.04, p = .65; Lung: -0.07 vs. -0.07, p = .95); nor for Physical Component Summary or Mental Component Summary scores. CONCLUSION: Older patients treated for prostate, breast or lung cancer in the later era reported similar outcomes of changes in HRQOL compared to earlier era patients.

Comparative effectiveness of surgery and radiosurgery for stage I non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although surgery is the standard treatment for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has been disseminated as an alternative therapy. The comparative mortalities and toxicities of these treatments for patients of different life expectancies are unknown. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database was used to identify patients who were 67 years old or older and underwent SBRT or surgery for stage I NSCLC from 2007 to 2009. Matched patients were stratified into short life expectancies (<5 years) and long life expectancies (≥5 years). Mortality and complication rates were compared with Poisson regression. RESULTS: Overall, 367 SBRT patients and 711 surgery patients were matched. Acute toxicity (0-1 month) was lower from SBRT versus surgery (7.9% vs 54.9%, P < .001). At 24 months after treatment, there was no difference (69.7% vs 73.9%, P = .31). The incidence rate ratio (IRR) for toxicity from SBRT versus surgery was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.87). Overall mortality was lower with SBRT versus surgery at 3 months (2.2% vs 6.1%, P = .005), but by 24 months, overall mortality was higher with SBRT (40.1% vs 22.3%, P < .001). For patients with short life expectancies, there was no difference in lung cancer mortality (IRR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.40-2.56). However, for patients with long life expectancies, there was greater overall mortality (IRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.11-2.01) as well as a trend toward greater lung cancer mortality (IRR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.95-2.79) with SBRT versus surgery. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT was associated with lower immediate mortality and toxicity in comparison with surgery. However, for patients with long life expectancies, there appears to be a relative benefit from surgery versus SBRT.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: comparison of toxicity.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a technically demanding prostate cancer treatment that may be less expensive than intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Because SBRT may deliver a greater biologic dose of radiation than IMRT, toxicity could be increased. Studies comparing treatment cost to the Medicare program and toxicity are needed. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study by using a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries age ≥ 66 years who received SBRT or IMRT as primary treatment for prostate cancer from 2008 to 2011. Each SBRT patient was matched to two IMRT patients with similar follow-up (6, 12, or 24 months). We calculated the cost of radiation therapy treatment to the Medicare program and toxicity as measured by Medicare claims; we used a random effects model to compare genitourinary (GU), GI, and other toxicity between matched patients. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 1,335 SBRT patients matched to 2,670 IMRT patients. The mean treatment cost was $13,645 for SBRT versus $21,023 for IMRT. In the 6 months after treatment initiation, 15.6% of SBRT versus 12.6% of IMRT patients experienced GU toxicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.53; P = .009). At 24 months after treatment initiation, 43.9% of SBRT versus 36.3% of IMRT patients had GU toxicity (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.63; P = .001). The increase in GU toxicity was due to claims indicative of urethritis, urinary incontinence, and/or obstruction. CONCLUSION: Although SBRT was associated with lower treatment costs, there appears to be a greater rate of GU toxicity for patients undergoing SBRT compared with IMRT, and prospective correlation with randomized trials is needed.

A new approach to understanding racial disparities in prostate cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies addressing racial disparities in treatment for early-stage prostate cancer have focused on the etiology of undertreatment of black men. Our objective was to determine whether racial disparities are attributable to undertreatment, overtreatment, or both. METHODS: Using the SEER-Medicare dataset, we identified men 67­84 years-old diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from 1998 to 2007. We stratified men into clinical benefit groups using tumor aggressiveness and life expectancy. Low-benefit was defined as low-risk tumors and life expectancy <10 years; high-benefit as moderate-risk tumors and life expectancy ≥10 years; all others were intermediate-benefit. Logistic regression modeled the association between race and treatment (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy) across benefit groups. RESULTS: Of 68,817 men (9.8% black and 90.2% white), 56.2% of black and 66.3% of white men received treatment (adjusted odds ratio (OR)=0.65; 95% CI, 0.62­0.69). The percent of low-, intermediate-, and high-benefit men who received treatment was 56.7%, 68.4%, and 79.6%, respectively (P=<0.001). In the low-benefit group, 51.9% of black vs. 57.2% of white patients received treatment (OR=0.74; 95% CI, 0.67­0.81) compared to 57.2% vs. 69.6% in the intermediate-benefit group (OR=0.64; 95% CI, 0.59­0.70). Racial disparity was largest in the high-benefit group (64.2% of black vs. 81.4% of white patients received treatment; OR=0.57; 95% CI, 0.48­0.68). The interaction between race and clinical benefit was significant (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Racial disparities were largest among men most likely to benefit from treatment. However, a substantial proportion of both black and white men with a low clinical benefit received treatment, indicating a high level of overtreatment.

Age-based and sex-based disparities in screening colonoscopy use among medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: The use of screening colonoscopy among older persons is controversial due to variability in life expectancy and sex-based differences in colorectal cancer incidence. We assessed the relation between sex, age, and receipt of screening colonoscopy overall and within strata of life expectancy. METHODS: We used Medicare data to identify beneficiaries during the years 2001 to 2005 who had not undergone a colonoscopy in the prior 3 years. Medicare claims were used to identify screening colonoscopy use; life expectancy was estimated using a life table approach. We used Poisson regression to examine sex and age differences in screening colonoscopy, adjusted for patient demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 161,229 patients (61.9% female; mean age 76.9 y). The screening colonoscopy rates for females and males were 16.9 and 24.4 screening colonoscopies per 1000 person-years, respectively (P<0.001). The screening colonoscopy rate was highest for patients with the longest life expectancy (10 to 15 y: 27.2 screening colonoscopies per 1000 person-years) compared with 3.4 per 1000 person-years in the life expectancy <5-year group. Within specific life expectancy categories, older patients had significantly lower screening rates; in the 10- to 15-year life expectancy category, patients 75 to 79 years old had a lower rate (21.9 screening colonoscopies per 1000 person-years) than patients 68 to 69 years old (34.1 screening colonoscopies per 1000 person-years; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of Medicare beneficiaries, there was evidence of screening colonoscopy use even among patients with a short life expectancy. After accounting for life expectancy, females and older persons were less likely to undergo screening colonoscopy.

Proton versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: patterns of care and early toxicity.

BACKGROUND: Proton radiotherapy (PRT) is an emerging treatment for prostate cancer despite limited knowledge of clinical benefit or potential harms compared with other types of radiotherapy. We therefore compared patterns of PRT use, cost, and early toxicity among Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer with those of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of all Medicare beneficiaries aged greater than or equal to 66 years who received PRT or IMRT for prostate cancer during 2008 and/or 2009. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with receipt of PRT. To assess toxicity, each PRT patient was matched with two IMRT patients with similar clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. The main outcome measures were receipt of PRT or IMRT, Medicare reimbursement for each treatment, and early genitourinary, gastrointestinal, and other toxicity. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: We identified 27,647 men; 553 (2%) received PRT and 27,094 (98%) received IMRT. Patients receiving PRT were younger, healthier, and from more affluent areas than patients receiving IMRT. Median Medicare reimbursement was $32,428 for PRT and $18,575 for IMRT. Although PRT was associated with a statistically significant reduction in genitourinary toxicity at 6 months compared with IMRT (5.9% vs 9.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38 to 0.96, P = .03), at 12 months post-treatment there was no difference in genitourinary toxicity (18.8% vs 17.5%; OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.54, P = .66). There was no statistically significant difference in gastrointestinal or other toxicity at 6 months or 12 months post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although PRT is substantially more costly than IMRT, there was no difference in toxicity in a comprehensive cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer at 12 months post-treatment.

Characteristics associated with the use of nonanatomic resections among Medicare patients undergoing resections of early-stage lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in access to surgical resection for treatment of early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are well documented. However it is unclear how race, clinical, and hospital characteristics affect the surgical approach among patients undergoing resection. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)/Medicare linked database, we identified patients 67 years of age or older diagnosed with stage I NSCLC who underwent surgical resection from 2000 to 2007. Surgical approach was categorized as lobectomy or segmentectomy (anatomic) versus wedge resection (nonanatomic). We used logistic regression to identify the association between demographic, clinical, and hospital factors and the use of nonanatomic resections. RESULTS: There were 8,986 patients in the sample (mean age, 75 years; 53% women); 12.8% underwent nonanatomic resection. The use of nonanatomic resection increased significantly, from 11.0% in 2000 to 15.9% in 2007 (p=0.008). In multivariable analysis, race was not associated with the receipt of nonanatomic resection. Factors associated with the use of nonanatomic resections included age greater than 80 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.98), T1a primary tumor status, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.55-2.12), and volume of hospital lung resections performed (highest versus lowest hospital volume, OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.23-2.04). More nonanatomic resections were performed in 2007 than in 2000 (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.27-2.37). After stratifying by tumor size, the temporal trend in the use of nonanatomic resection remained significant only among patients with tumors greater than 3 cm. CONCLUSIONS: Since 2000, the use of nonanatomic resections in stage I NSCLC has increased, most significantly among patients with larger tumors. After adjusting for clinical factors, there was no relation between race and type of surgical resection.

Patterns of care and outcomes associated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus conventional radiation therapy for older patients with head-and-neck cancer.

PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) requires a high degree of expertise compared with standard radiation therapy (RT). We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare patients treated with IMRT compared with standard RT to assess outcomes in national practice. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database, we identified patients treated with radiation for cancer of the head and neck from 2002 to 2005. We used multivariate Cox models to determine whether the receipt of IMRT was associated with differences in survival. RESULTS: We identified 1613 patients, 33.7% of whom received IMRT. IMRT was not associated with differences in survival: the 3-year overall survival was 50.5% for IMRT vs. 49.6% for standard RT (p = 0.47). The 3-year cancer-specific survival was 60.0% for IMRT vs. 58.8% (p = 0.45). CONCLUSION: Despite its complexity and resource intensive nature, IMRT use seems to be as safe as standard RT in national community practice, because the use of IMRT did not have an adverse impact on survival.

Assessing the impact of screening colonoscopy on mortality in the medicare population.

BACKGROUND: Some have recommended against routine screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) among patients ≥75 years of age, while others have suggested that screening colonoscopy (SC) is less beneficial for women than men. We estimated the expected benefits (decreased mortality from CRC) and harms (SC-related mortality) of SC based on sex, age, and comorbidity. OBJECTIVE: To stratify older patients according to expected benefits and harms of SC based on sex, age, and comorbidity. DESIGN: Retrospective study using Medicare claims data. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries 67-94 years old with and without CRC. MAIN MEASURES: Life expectancy, CRC- and colonoscopy-attributable mortality rates across strata of sex, age, and comorbidity, pay-off time (i.e. the minimum time until benefits from SC exceeded harms), and life-years saved for every 100,000 SC. KEY RESULTS: Increasing age and comorbidity were associated with lower CRC-attributable mortality. Due to shorter life expectancy and CRC-attributable mortality, the benefits associated with SC were substantially lower among patients with greater comorbidity. Among men aged 75-79 years with no comorbidity, the number of life-years saved was 459 per 100,000 SC, while men aged 67-69 with ≥3 comorbidities had 81 life-years saved per 100,000 SC. There was no evidence that SC was less effective in women. Among men and women 75-79 with no comorbidity, number of life-years saved was 459 and 509 per 100,000 SC, respectively; among patients with ≥3 comorbidities, there was no benefit for either men or women. CONCLUSIONS: Although the effectiveness of SC was equivalent for men and women, there was substantial variation in SC effectiveness within age groups, arguing against screening recommendations based solely on age.

Screening colonoscopy use among individuals at higher colorectal cancer risk.

GOALS: To describe screening colonoscopy use in those with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is an effective means of screening for CRC and is preferred for individuals at higher risk. We therefore derived population-based estimates of colonoscopy use and analyzed how individual characteristics and family history correlate with colonoscopy. STUDY: Individuals between the ages of 41 and 75 years who responded to the Cancer Control Module of the 2000 National Health Interview Study were analyzed. Screening colonoscopy was defined as having a colonoscopy for screening purposes within the last 10 years. Screening colonoscopy was the dependent variable and family history was the independent variable in a logistic regression model that included self-described sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 13,160 individuals in the analysis, 6.8% had a family history of CRC, corresponding to approximately 5.5 million individuals in the United States. Those with a family history were significantly more likely to report screening colonoscopy (27.8%) than those without a family history (7.7%; P<0.001). In those with a family history, screening colonoscopy significantly correlated with tobacco use, education, and age. There was no trend for increased screening colonoscopy with having multiple family members or a young family member with CRC. CONCLUSIONS: Over 5.5 million people in the US have a family history of CRC, and only 1 in 4 report having had a screening colonoscopy by the year 2000. Improving knowledge about CRC and addressing other barriers to screening in this group will be important components of improving screening colonoscopy utilization.

Hospital and surgeon procedure volume as predictors of outcome following rectal cancer resection.

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgeon and hospital procedure volume as predictors of outcomes for patients with rectal cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although a "volume-outcome" relationship exists for several major cancer operations, the impact of procedure volume on outcomes following rectal cancer surgery remains uncertain, and it has not been determined whether hospital or surgeon volume is a more important predictor of outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database identified 2,815 rectal cancer patients aged 65 and older who had surgery for a primary tumor diagnosed in 1992-1996 in a SEER area. Hospital- and surgeon-specific procedure volume was ascertained based on the number of claims submitted over the 5-year study period. Outcome measures were mortality at 30 days and 2 years, overall survival, and the rate of abdominoperineal resections. Age, sex, race, comorbid illness, cancer stage, and socioeconomic status were used to adjust for differences in case mix. RESULTS: Neither hospital- nor surgeon-specific procedure volume was significantly associated with 30-day postoperative mortality or rates of rectal sphincter-sparing operations. Although an association between hospital volume and mortality at 2 years was evident, this finding was no longer significant once surgeon-specific volume was controlled for. In contrast, surgeon-specific volume was associated with 2-year mortality and remained an important predictor even after adjustment for hospital volume. Surgeon volume was also better than hospital procedure volume at predicting long-term survival. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon-specific experience as measured by procedure volume can have a significant impact on survival for patients with rectal cancer.