Telehealth Availability for Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth was an important strategy for maintaining continuity of cancer care during the coronavirus pandemic and has continued to play a role in outpatient care; however, it is unknown whether services are equally available across cancer hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with common cancers to contextualize the impact of access barriers to technology on overall access to health care. METHODS: We conducted a national cross-sectional secret shopper study from June to November 2020 to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with colorectal, breast, and skin (melanoma) cancer. We examined facility-level factors to determine predictors of telehealth availability. RESULTS: Of the 312 investigated facilities, 97.1% (n=303) provided telehealth services for at least 1 cancer site. Telehealth was less available to new compared to established patients (n=226, 72% vs n=301, 97.1%). The surveyed cancer hospitals more commonly offered telehealth visits for breast cancer care (n=266, 85%) and provided lower access to telehealth for skin (melanoma) cancer care (n=231, 74%). Most hospitals (n=163, 52%) offered telehealth for all 3 cancer types. Telehealth availability was weakly correlated across cancer types within a given facility for new (r=0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.23) and established (r=0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.21) patients. Telehealth was more commonly available for new patients at National Cancer Institute-designated facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, and major teaching sites, with high total admissions and below-average timeliness of care. Telehealth availability for established patients was highest at Academic Comprehensive Cancer Programs, nongovernment and nonprofit facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, Accountable Care Organizations, and facilities with a high number of total admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in telehealth services for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic, we identified differences in access across cancer hospitals, which may relate to measures of clinical volume, affiliation, and infrastructure.

Acceptance of Simulated Adult Patients With Medicaid Insurance Seeking Care in a Cancer Hospital for a New Cancer Diagnosis.

Importance: Although there have been significant increases in the number of US residents insured through Medicaid, the ability of patients with Medicaid to access cancer care services is less well known. Objective: To assess facility-level acceptance of Medicaid insurance among patients diagnosed with common cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This national cross-sectional secret shopper study was conducted in 2020 in a random sample of Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities in the United States using a simulated cohort of Medicaid-insured adult patients with colorectal, breast, kidney, and melanoma skin cancer. Exposures: Telephone call requesting an appointment for a patient with Medicaid with a new cancer diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Acceptance of Medicaid insurance for cancer care. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with Medicaid acceptance for colorectal, breast, kidney, and skin cancer. High access hospitals were defined as those offering care across all 4 cancer types surveyed. Explanatory measures included facility-level factors from the 2016 American Hospital Association Annual Survey and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services General Information database. Results: A nationally representative sample of 334 facilities was created, of which 226 (67.7%) provided high access to patients with Medicaid seeking cancer care. Medicaid acceptance differed by cancer site, with 319 facilities (95.5%) accepting Medicaid insurance for breast cancer care; 302 (90.4%), colorectal; 290 (86.8%), kidney; and 266 (79.6%), skin. Comprehensive community cancer programs (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7; P = .007) were significantly less likely to provide high access to care for patients with Medicaid. Facilities with nongovernment, nonprofit (vs for-profit: OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-10.8; P = .03) and government (vs for-profit: OR, 6.6; 95% CI, 1.6-27.2; P = .01) ownership, integrated salary models (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5; P = .001), and average (vs above-average: OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.4-29.6; P = .02) or below-average (vs above-average: OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 1.5-47.5; P = .02) effectiveness of care were associated with high access to Medicaid. State Medicaid expansion status was not significantly associated with high access. Conclusions and Relevance: This study identified access disparities for patients with Medicaid insurance at centers designated for high-quality care. These findings highlight gaps in cancer care for the expanding population of patients receiving Medicaid.

Access to telehealth services for colorectal cancer patients in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic yielded rapid telehealth deployment to improve healthcare access, including for surgical patients. METHODS: We conducted a secret shopper study to assess telehealth availability for new patient and follow-up colorectal cancer care visits in a random national sample of Commission on Cancer accredited hospitals and investigated predictive facility-level factors. RESULTS: Of 397 hospitals, 302 (76%) offered telehealth for colorectal cancer patients (75% for follow-up, 42% for new patients). For new patients, NCI-designated Cancer Programs offered telehealth more frequently than Integrated Network (OR: 0.20, p = 0.01), Academic Comprehensive (OR: 0.18, p = 0.001), Comprehensive Community (OR: 0.10, p < 0.001), and Community (OR: 0.11, p < 0.001) Cancer Programs. For follow-up, above average timeliness of care hospitals offered telehealth more frequently than average hospitals (OR: 2.87, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: We identified access disparities and predictive factors for telehealth availability for colorectal cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. These factors should be considered when constructing telehealth policies.

Increased expression of nucleophosmin is associated with the pathophysiology of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

OBJECTIVE: Nucleophosmin (NPM1) has been suggested to be involved in the pathophysiologic mechanism of inflammatory disorders. We measured the expression level of NPM1 in nasal polyp (NP) tissues of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). We also assessed the correlation between NPM1 expression and other parameters such as eosinophilic infiltration, inflammatory cytokines, and clinical indicators such as Lund-Mackay computed tomography (CT) score. METHODS: Thirty patients with CRSwNP were included. We performed pre-operative CT scan to determine Lund-Mackay CT scores. During endoscopic sinus surgery, we harvested NP tissues from patients with CRSwNP. We performed Sirius red staining to evaluate eosinophilia and conducted immunohistochemical staining for NPM1 and real-time PCR for cytokines including interleukin (IL)-5, IL-17A, and IL-32. RESULTS: The mRNA expression of NPM1 was significantly up-regulated in eosinophilic NP tissues (RQ 0.58 ± 0.06), compared to non-eosinophilic NP tissues (RQ 0.38 ± 0.08, p < 0.05). In the epithelium of NP tissue, a significant positive correlation was observed between eosinophilic infiltration and NPM1 expression. The expression of NPM1 was significantly correlated with that of IL-5 (r = 0.6229, p = 0.0004), IL-17A (r = 0.5971, p = 0.001), and IL-32 (r = -0.5985, p = 0.0068). There was no significant correlation between the mRNA expression of NPM1 and the Lund-Mackay CT score (Spearman r = -0.2563, p = 0.1879). CONCLUSION: Expression of NPM1 was significantly increased in eosinophilic NP tissues from patients with CRSwNP. We observed an association between NPM1 expression and various pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-5, IL-17, and IL-32 and eosinophilic infiltration, which is thought to contribute to the pathophysiology of NP.

Molecular analysis of sunitinib resistant renal cell carcinoma cells after sequential treatment with RAD001 (everolimus) or sorafenib.

Sequential application of target drugs is standard procedure after renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients develop resistance. To optimize the sequence, antitumour effects of the mTOR inhibitor RAD001 or the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sorafenib on RCC cells with acquired resistance to the TKI sunitinib was evaluated. RCC cells were exposed to 1 µM sunitinib for 24 hrs (as control) and for 8 weeks (to induce resistance) and then switched to RAD001 (5 nM) or sorafenib (5 µM) for a further 8 weeks. Tumour cell growth, cell cycle progression, cell cycle regulating proteins and intracellular signalling were then investigated. Short-term application of sunitinib (24 hrs) induced cell growth blockade with accumulation in the G2/M phase. RCC cells became resistant to sunitinib after 8 weeks, demonstrated by accelerated cell growth along with enhanced cdk1, cdk2, loss of p27, activation of Akt, Rictor and Raptor. Switching to sorafenib only slightly reduced growth of the sunitinib resistant RCC cells and molecular analysis indicated distinct cross-resistance. In contrast, full response was achieved when the cancer cells were treated with RAD001. p19 and p27 strongly increased, phosphorylated Akt, Rictor and Raptor decreased and the tumour cells accumulated in G0/G1. It is concluded that an mTOR-inhibitor for second-line therapy could be the strategy of choice after first-line sunitinib failure.

Flow Starting Point and Voiding Mechanisms Measured by Simultaneous Registrations of Intravesical, Intra-abdominal, and Intraurethral Pressures in Awake Rats.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to apply a new surgical procedure that allows for the successful monitoring of intraurethral pressure (IUP) changes in the cystometry of awake Sprague-Dawley rats. METHODS: Twenty-six female Sprague-Dawley rats were grouped according to the catheterization method (bladder only; bladder and urethra; or bladder, urethra, and abdomen). Using an arbitrarily determined initial point of the first phase among four rat micturition phases on the simultaneous curves as a reference point, we compared the time differences to the points on an intravesical pressure (IVP) and those on IUP or a detrusor pressure (DP) curve from intra-abdominal pressure (IAP). RESULTS: In awake rat, the start of urethral flow on IUP curve corresponded to the initial point of the second phase, which is same to the results on the anesthetized rat. However, certain results, such as micturition pressure (MP) and intraluminal pressure high-frequency oscillations (IPHFOs), differed between awake and anesthetized rats. Most MP values were checked after the end of urethral flow on the IUP curve, which is due to the peculiar methodology such as transvesical catheterization. Urethral flow was not completely interrupted during the IPHFOs, which suggests the presence of urethral wall tension against the flow during voiding. After removal of the superimposed effects of IAP from IVP, the DP curve clearly showed a peculiar shape, highlighting the possibility of using IAP in place of IUP to detect the flow starting point on the IVP curve. CONCLUSIONS: Awake rat cystometry results have been interpreted based on those in anesthetized rats. However, our awake cystometry data were substantially different in terms of voiding time compared to those of anesthetized rats. This discovery warrants careful interpretation of the voiding parameters in awake rat cystometry.