Secondary validation of an ovarian cancer-specific comorbidity index in a US population.

OBJECTIVES: The Ovarian Cancer Comorbidity Index (OCCI) is an age-specific index developed and previously found to be more predictive of overall and cancer-specific survival than the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). The objective was to perform secondary validation of the OCCI in a US population. METHODS: A cohort of ovarian cancer patients undergoing primary or interval cytoreductive surgery from January 2005 to January 2012 was identified in SEER-Medicare. OCCI scores were calculated with the regression coefficients determined from the original developmental cohort for five comorbidities. Cox regression analyses were used to calculate associations between the OCCI risk groups and 5-year overall survival and 5-year cancer-specific survival in comparison to the CCI. RESULTS: A total of 5052 patients were included. Median age was 74 (range 66-82) years. 47% (n=2375) had stage III and 24% (n=1197) had stage IV disease at diagnosis. 67% had a serous histology subtype (n=3403). All patients were categorized as moderate (48.4%) or high risk (51.6%). The prevalence of the five predictive comorbidities were: coronary artery disease 3.7%, hypertension 67.5%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 16.7%, diabetes 21.8%, and dementia 1.2%. Controlling for histology, grade, and age-stratification, worse overall survival was associated with both a higher OCCI (hazard ratio (HR) 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46 to 1.69) and CCI (HR 1.96; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.32). Cancer-specific survival was associated with the OCCI (HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.44) but was not associated with the CCI (HR 1.15; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: This internationally developed comorbidity score for ovarian cancer patients is predictive for both overall and cancer-specific survival in a US population. CCI was not predictive for cancer-specific survival. This score may have research applications when utilizing large administrative datasets.

Medicaid Expansion and Postoperative Mortality in Women with Gynecologic Cancer: A Difference-in-Difference Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The association between Medicaid expansion and postoperative mortality after surgery for gynecologic cancer is unknown. Our objective was to compare 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality after gynecologic cancer surgery before and after 2014 in states that did and did not expand Medicaid. METHODS: We searched the National Cancer Database for women aged 40-64 years old between 2010 and 2016 who underwent surgery for a primary gynecologic malignancy. We used pre/post and quasi-experimental difference-in-difference (DID) multivariable logistic regressions to evaluate mortality pre-2014 (2010-2013) and post-2014 (2014-2016) for states that did and did not expand Medicaid in January 2014. We completed univariable logistic regressions for covariates of interest. RESULTS: Among 169,731 women, 30-day postoperative mortality in expansion states after 2014 significantly decreased for endometrial cancer (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-0.67) and ovarian cancer (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.99) and increased for cervical cancer (OR 3.82, 95% CI 1.12-13.01). Compared with non-expansion states, expansion states had improved 30-day postoperative mortality for endometrial cancer after 2014 (DID OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.96). Univariable analysis demonstrated improved 30-day postoperative mortality for Black women with endometrial cancer in expansion states (DID OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-0.95). There was improved 90-day postoperative mortality for endometrial cancer in expansion states (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.85), and improved 90-day postoperative mortality for Midwestern women with ovarian cancer in expansion states on univariable analysis (DID OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: State Medicaid legislation was associated with improved postoperative survival in women with endometrial cancer and subgroups of women with endometrial and ovarian cancer.

Association between time to diagnosis, time to treatment, and ovarian cancer survival in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the association between time to diagnosis and treatment of advanced ovarian cancer with overall and ovarian cancer specific mortality using a retrospective cross sectional study of a population based cancer registry database. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was searched from 1992 to 2015 for women aged ≥66 years with epithelial ovarian cancer and abdominal/pelvic pain, bloating, difficulty eating, or urinary symptoms within 1 year of cancer diagnosis. Time from presentation to diagnosis and treatment were evaluated as outcomes and covariables. Cox regression models and adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves evaluated 5 year overall and cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: Among 13 872 women, better survival was associated with longer time from presentation to diagnosis (overall survival hazard ratio (HR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.95; cancer specific survival HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.96) and diagnosis to treatment (overall survival HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.96; cancer specific survival HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.96). There was longer time from presentation to diagnosis in Hispanic women (relative risk (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32) and from diagnosis to treatment in non-Hispanic black women (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.54), with lower likelihood of survival at 5 years after adjustment for time to diagnosis and treatment among non-Hispanic black women (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.26) compared with non-Hispanic white women. Gynecologic oncology visit was associated with improved overall (p<0.001) and cancer specific (p<0.001) survival despite a longer time from presentation to treatment (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Longer time to diagnosis and treatment were associated with improved survival, suggesting that tumor specific features are more important prognostic factors than the time interval of workup and treatment. Significant sociodemographic disparities indicate social determinants of health influencing workup and care. Gynecologic oncologist visits were associated with improved survival, highlighting the importance of appropriate referral for suspected ovarian cancer.

Medicaid expansion and 2-year survival in women with gynecologic cancer: a difference-in-difference analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act implemented optional Medicaid expansion starting in 2014, but the association between Medicaid expansion and gynecologic cancer survival is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of Medicaid expansion by comparing 2-year survival among gynecologic cancers before and after 2014 in states that did and did not expand Medicaid using a difference-in-difference analysis. STUDY DESIGN: We searched the National Cancer Database for women aged 40 to 64 years, diagnosed with a primary gynecologic malignancy (endometrial, ovarian, cervical, vulvar, and vaginal) between 2010 and 2016. We used a quasiexperimental difference-in-difference multivariable Cox regression analysis to compare 2-year survival between states that expanded Medicaid in January 2014 and states that did not expand Medicaid as of 2016. We performed univariable subgroup difference-in-difference Cox regression analyses on the basis of stage, income, race, ethnicity, and geographic location. Adjusted linear difference-in-difference regressions evaluated the proportion of uninsured patients on the basis of expansion status after 2014. We evaluated adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves to examine differences on the basis of study period and expansion status. RESULTS: Our sample included 169,731 women, including 78,669 (46.3%) in expansion states and 91,062 (53.7%) in nonexpansion states. There was improved 2-year survival on adjusted difference-in-difference Cox regressions for women with ovarian cancer in expansion than in nonexpansion states after 2014 (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.94; P<.001) with no differences in endometrial, cervical, vaginal, vulvar, or combined gynecologic cancer sites on the basis of expansion status. On univariable subgroup difference-in-difference Cox analyses, women with ovarian cancer with stage III-IV disease (P=.008), non-Hispanic ethnicity (P=.042), those in the South (P=.016), and women with vulvar cancer in the Northeast (P=.022), had improved 2-year survival in expansion than in nonexpansion states after 2014. In contrast, women with cervical cancer in the South (P=.018) had worse 2-year survival in expansion than in nonexpansion states after 2014. All cancer sites had lower proportions of uninsured patients in expansion than in nonexpansion states after 2014. CONCLUSION: There was a significant association between Medicaid expansion and improved 2-year survival for women with ovarian cancer in states that expanded Medicaid after 2014. Despite improved insurance coverage, racial, ethnic, and regional survival differences exist between expansion and nonexpansion states.

Financial toxicity impact on younger versus older adults with cancer in the setting of care delivery.

BACKGROUND: Young adults and other working-age adults with cancer are at risk for cancer-related financial toxicity (FT), including material hardships, depletion of coping resources, and psychological burden. This study compares FT domains in young adults (18-39 years old) (YAs), other working-age adults (40-64 years old), and older adults (≥65 years old) receiving cancer care. METHODS: A total of 311 adults were surveyed using the multi-domain Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer instrument measuring FT (0-10 score indicating least to greatest FT; score ≥5 severe FT). Participants were receiving ambulatory care from March-September 2019. Associations of age with overall FT and material hardship, coping resource depletion, and psychological burden FT domains were tested using Kruskal-Wallis and χ2 tests and multivariable generalized linear models with gamma distribution. RESULTS: YAs (median age, 31.5 years) comprised 9.6% of the sample; other working-age adults comprised 56.9%. Overall, material, coping, and psychological FT scores were worse in younger age adults versus older adults (P < .001 in all multivariable models). Compared with older adults, younger age adults demonstrated worse material hardship (median scores, 3.70 vs 4.80 vs 1.30 for YAs, other working-age, and older adults, respectively; P < .001), coping resource depletion (4.50 vs 3.40 vs 0.80; P < .001), and psychological burden (6.50 vs 7.00 vs 1.00; P < .001). Fifty percent of YAs had severe overall FT versus 40.7% of other working-age adults and 9.6% of older adults (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Younger age adults with cancer bore disproportionate FT. Interventions to address unmet needs are critical components for addressing FT in this population.

Algorithm to Identify Incident Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Cases Using Claims Data.

PURPOSE: To create an algorithm to identify incident epithelial ovarian cancer cases in claims-based data sets and evaluate performance of the algorithm using SEER-Medicare claims data. METHODS: We created a five-step algorithm on the basis of clinical expertise to identify incident epithelial ovarian cancer cases using claims data for (1) ovarian cancer diagnosis, (2) receipt of platinum-based chemotherapy, (3) no claim for platinum-based chemotherapy but claim for tumor debulking surgery, (4) removed cases with nonplatinum chemotherapy, and (5) removed patients with prior claims with personal history of ovarian cancer code to exclude prevalent cases. We evaluated algorithm performance using SEER-Medicare claims data by creating four cohorts: incident epithelial ovarian cancer, a 5% random sample of cancer-free Medicare beneficiaries, a 5% random sample of incident nonovarian cancer, and prevalent ovarian cancer cases. RESULTS: Using SEER tumor registry data as the gold standard, our algorithm correctly classified 89.9% of incident epithelial ovarian cancer cases (cohort n = 572) and almost 100% of cancer-free controls (n = 97,127), nonovarian cancer (n = 714), and prevalent ovarian cancer cases (n = 3,712). The overall algorithm sensitivity was 89.9%, the positive predictive value was 93.8%, and the specificity and negative predictive value were > 99.9%. Patients were more likely to be correctly classified as incident ovarian cancer if they had stage III or IV disease compared with early stage I or II disease (93.5% v 83.7%, P < .01), and grade 1-4 compared with unknown grade tumors (93.8% v 81.4%, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Our algorithm correctly identified most incident epithelial ovarian cancer cases, especially those with advanced disease. This algorithm will facilitate research in other claims-based data sets where cancer registry data are unavailable.

Temporal trends of healthcare system use between symptomatic presentation and ovarian cancer diagnosis in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in healthcare system use over time between onset of classic ovarian cancer symptoms and ovarian cancer diagnosis in the United States. METHODS: A population-based study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was conducted on patients aged ≥66 years with stage II-IV epithelial ovarian cancer between 1992 and 2015 with at least one of the following diagnosis codes: abdominal pain, bloating, difficulty eating, and/or urinary symptoms. The outcomes were frequency of visit type, frequency of diagnostic modality, and Medicare reimbursement between first symptomatic claim and cancer diagnosis. Jonckheere-Terpstra and Cochran-Armitage tests were used to evaluate trends over time. RESULTS: Among 13 872 women, 13 541 (97.6%) had outpatient, 6466 (46.6%) had inpatient, and 4906 (35.4%) had emergency room visits. The frequency of outpatient (p<0.001) and emergency room visits (p<0.001) increased while the frequency of inpatient visits (p<0.001) decreased between 1992 and 2015. The median number of outpatient visits (p<0.001) and physician specialties seen (p<0.001) increased over time. The median hospital length of stay decreased from 10 days in 1992 to 5 days in 2015 (p<0.001). Between 1992 and 2015, the frequency of ultrasound decreased (p<0.001) while the frequency of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography imaging, and cancer antigen 125 tumor immunoassay increased (p<0.001). Median monthly total (p<0.001), inpatient (p<0.001), and outpatient (p=0.006) reimbursements decreased while emergency room reimbursements increased (p<0.001) over time. CONCLUSION: Healthcare reimbursement between symptomatic presentation and ovarian cancer diagnosis has decreased over time and may reflect the trends in fewer and shorter hospitalizations and increased use of emergency and outpatient management during the evaluation of symptoms of women with ovarian cancer.

Factors impacting the time to ovarian cancer diagnosis based on classic symptom presentation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ovarian cancer often present with late-stage disease and nonspecific symptoms, but little is known about factors affecting the time to diagnosis (TTD) in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective, population-based study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was conducted. It included women 66 years old or older with stage II to IV epithelial ovarian cancer with at least 1 code for abdominal/pelvic pain, bloating, difficulty eating, or urinary symptoms within 1 year of the cancer diagnosis. TTD was defined from the first claim with a prespecified symptom to the ovarian cancer diagnosis. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess for differences in TTD by group medians. Univariate and generalized linear models with a log-link function evaluated TTD by covariables. RESULTS: For the 13,872 women analyzed, the mean and median times to diagnosis were 2.9 and 1.1 months, respectively. The median TTD differed significantly by first symptom (P < .001), number of symptoms (P < .001), and first physician specialty seen (P < .001). In a multivariable analysis, TTD differed significantly according to race/ethnicity (P < .001), geographic region (P = .001), urban-rural location (P = .031), emergency room presentation (P < .001), and number of specialties seen (P < .001). A shorter TTD was associated with a diagnosis in 2006-2010 (relative risk [RR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.98) or 2011-2015 (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.93) in comparison with 1992-1999. CONCLUSIONS: The time from a symptomatic presentation to care to a diagnosis of ovarian cancer is influenced by clinical and demographic variables. This study's findings reinforce the importance of educating all physicians on ovarian cancer symptoms to aid in diagnosis. LAY SUMMARY: Ovarian cancer is often diagnosed once disease has spread because the classic symptoms of ovarian cancer-abdominal or pelvic pain, bloating, difficulty eating, and urinary issues-can be mistaken for other problems. This study examined the time between when women with classic ovarian cancer symptoms went to a physician and when they received a cancer diagnosis in a large database population. The authors found that the time to diagnosis differed according to the type and number of symptoms and what type of physician a woman saw as well as factors such as race, geographic location, and year of diagnosis.

Sensitivity of Psychosocial Distress Screening to Identify Cancer Patients at Risk for Financial Hardship During Care Delivery.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer frequently encounter financial hardship, yet systematic strategies to identify at-risk patients are not established in care delivery. We assessed sensitivity of distress-based screening to identify patients with cancer-related financial hardship and associated care delivery outcomes. METHODS: A survey of 225 patients at a large cancer center assessed cancer-related financial hardship (0-10 Likert scale; highest quintile scores ≥ 5 defined severe hardship). Responses were linked to electronic medical records identifying patients' distress screening scores 6 months presurvey (0-10 scale) and outcomes of missed cancer care visits and bad debt charges (unrecovered patient charges) within 6 months postsurvey. A positive screen for distress was defined as score ≥ 4. We analyzed screening test characteristics for identifying severe financial hardship within 6 months and associations between financial hardship and outcomes using logistic models. RESULTS: Although patients with positive distress screens were more likely to report financial hardship (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 1.08-1.37; P < .001), a positive distress screen was only 48% sensitive and 70% specific for identifying severe financial hardship. Patients with worse financial hardship scores were more likely to miss oncology care visits within 6 months (for every additional point in financial hardship score from 0 to 10, OR, 1.28; 1.12-1.47; P < .001). Of patients with severe hardship, 72% missed oncology visits versus 35% without severe hardship (P = .006). Patients with worse hardship were more likely to incur any bad debt charges within 6 months (OR, 1.32; 1.13-1.54; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Systematic financial hardship screening is needed to help mitigate adverse care delivery outcomes. Existing distress-based screening lacks sensitivity.

Patient cost sharing during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: More patients with ovarian cancer are being treated with poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors because regulatory agencies have granted these drugs new approvals for a variety of treatment indications. However, poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are expensive. When administered as a maintenance therapy, these drugs may be administered for months or years. How much of this cost patients experience as out-of-pocket spending is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the out-of-pocket spending that patients experience during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment and to characterize which healthcare services account for that spending. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was performed with a sample of patients with ovarian cancer treated between 2014 and 2017 with olaparib, niraparib, or rucaparib. Patients were identified using MarketScan, a health insurance claims database. All insurance claims during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment were collected. The primary outcome variable was the patients' out-of-pocket spending (copayment, coinsurance, and deductibles) during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment for the medication itself. Other outcomes of interest included out-of-pocket spending for other healthcare services, the types and frequency of other healthcare services used, health plan spending, the estimated proportion of patients' household income used each month for healthcare, and patients' out-of-pocket spending immediately before poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment. RESULTS: We identified 503 patients with ovarian cancer with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range, 50-62 years); 83% of those had out-of-pocket spendings during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment. The median treatment duration was 124 days (interquartile range, 66-240 days). The mean out-of-pocket spending for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors was $305 (standard deviation, $2275) per month. On average, this accounted for 44.8% (standard deviation, 34.8%) of the patients' overall monthly out-of-pocket spending. The mean out-of-pocket spending for other healthcare services was $165 (standard deviation, $769) per month. Health plans spent, on average, $12,661 (standard deviation, $15,668) per month for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and $7108 (standard deviation, $15,254) per month for all other healthcare services. The cost sharing for office visits, laboratory tests, and imaging studies represented the majority of non-poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment out-of-pocket spending. The average amount patients paid for all healthcare services per month during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment was $470 (standard deviation, $2407), which was estimated to be 8.7% of the patients' monthly household income. The mean out-of-pocket spending in the 12 months before poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment was $3110 (standard deviation, $6987). CONCLUSION: Patients can face high out-of-pocket costs for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, although the sum of cost sharing for other healthcare services used during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment is often higher. The spending on healthcare costs consumes a large proportion of these patients' household income. Patients with ovarian cancer experience high out-of-pocket costs for healthcare, both before and during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment.

An economic and disease transmission model of human papillomavirus and oropharyngeal cancer in Texas.

In 2017, 46,157 and 3,127 new oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) cases were reported in the U.S. and Texas, respectively. About 70% of OPC were attributed to human papillomavirus (HPV). However, only 51% of U.S. and 43.5% of Texas adolescents have completed the HPV vaccine series. Therefore, modeling the demographic dynamics and transmission of HPV and OPC progression is needed for accurate estimation of the economic and epidemiological impacts of HPV vaccine in a geographic area. An age-structured population dynamic model was developed for the U.S. state of Texas. With Texas-specific model parameters calibrated, this model described the dynamics of HPV-associated OPC in Texas. Parameters for the Year 2010 were used as the initial values, and the prediction for Year 2012 was compared with the real age-specific incidence rates in 23 age groups for model validation. The validated model was applied to predict 100-year age-adjusted incidence rates. The public health benefits of HPV vaccine uptake were evaluated by computer simulation. Compared with current vaccination program, increasing vaccine uptake rates by 50% would decrease the cumulative cases by 4403, within 100 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of this strategy was $94,518 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Increasing the vaccine uptake rate by 50% can: (i) reduce the incidence rates of OPC among both males and females; (ii) improve the quality-adjusted life years for both males and females; (iii) be cost-effective and has the potential to provide tremendous public health benefits in Texas.

Impact of provider type and number of providers on surveillance testing among survivors of head and neck cancers.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for follow-up after head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment recommend frequent clinical examinations and surveillance testing. Here, the authors describe real-world follow-up care for HNC survivors and variations in surveillance testing. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, this study examined a population-based cohort of HNC survivors between 2001 and 2011 Usage of cross-sectional head and neck imaging (CHNI), chest imaging (CI), positron emission tomography (PET), fiberoptic nasopharyngolaryngoscopy (FNPL), and, in irradiated patients, thyroid function testing (TFT) was captured over 2 consecutive surveillance years. Multivariate modeling with logistic regression analyses was used to assess variations by clinical factors, nonclinical factors, number and types of providers seen and their evolution over time. RESULTS: Among 13,836 HNC survivors, the majority saw a medical, radiation, or surgical oncologist and a primary care provider (PCP; 81.7%) in their first year of surveillance. However, only 58.1% underwent either PET or CHNI, 47.8% underwent CHNI, 64.1% underwent CI, 32.5% underwent PET scans, 55.0% underwent FNPL, and 55.9% underwent TFT. In multivariate analyses, patients who followed up with more providers and those who followed up with both a PCP and an oncologist were more likely to undergo surveillance testing (P < .007). However, adjusting for providers seen did not explain the variations in surveillance testing rates based on age, race, education, income level, and place of residence. Over time, there was a gradual increase in the use of PET scans and TFT during surveillance years. CONCLUSIONS: In this large SEER-Medicare data study, only half of HNC survivors received the recommended testing, and greater compliance was seen in those who followed up with both an oncologist and a PCP. More attention is needed to minimize variations in surveillance testing across sociodemographic groups.

Employment disruption following the diagnosis of endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oncologic treatment has been associated with unemployment. As endometrial cancer is highly curable, it is important to assess whether patients experience employment disruption after treatment. We evaluated the frequency of employment change following endometrial cancer diagnosis and assessed factors associated with it. METHODS: A cohort of patients 18-63 years-old who were diagnosed with endometrial cancer (January 2009-December 2017) were identified in the Truven MarketScan database, an insurance claims database of commercially insured patients in the United States. All patients who were working full- or part-time at diagnosis were included and all employment changes during the year following diagnosis were identified. Clinical information, including use of chemotherapy and radiation, were identified using Common Procedural Terminology codes, and International Statistical Classification of Diseases codes. Cox proportional hazards models incorporating measured covariates were used to evaluate the impact of treatment and demographic variables on change in employment status. RESULTS: A total of 4381 women diagnosed with endometrial cancer who held a full-time or part-time job 12 months prior to diagnosis were identified. Median age at diagnosis was 55 and a minority of patients received adjuvant therapy; 7.9% received chemotherapy, 4.9% received external-beam radiation therapy, and 4.1% received chemoradiation. While most women continued to work following diagnosis, 21.7% (950) experienced a change in employment status. The majority (97.7%) of patients had a full-time job prior to diagnosis. In a multivariable analysis controlling for age, region of residence, comorbidities, insurance plan type and presence of adverse events, chemoradiation recipients were 34% more likely to experience an employment change (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01-1.78), compared to those who only underwent surgery. CONCLUSION: Approximately 22% of women with employer-subsidized health insurance experienced a change in employment status following the diagnosis of endometrial cancer, an often-curable disease. Chemoradiation was an independent predictor of change in employment.

Lifetime health care costs of oropharyngeal cancer for commercially insured patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Incidence of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) is expected to increase but its health care cost is unknown. The purpose for this study was to estimate the phase-specific lifetime health care costs of OPC for commercially insured individuals in the United States. METHODS: We used the Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounter Database to identify our patient population. Cox survival analysis was used to estimate patients' monthly survival probabilities. We determined the ratios of the cumulative costs up to a particular survival probability and the costs from that time point to death for all subjects who died before end of the 5-year follow-up period. This relationship was then used to predict phase-specific lifetime health care costs. RESULTS: Our study included 2445 patients with OPC. The predicted phase-specific lifetime health care costs attributable to OPC were $88 872, $24 038, and $1537 in the initial, continuous, and terminal phases, respectively, among commercially insured patients.

Cost Effectiveness of Transplant, Conventional Chemotherapy, and Novel Agents in Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for multiple myeloma (MM) have been rapidly evolving. Newly developed treatment regimens are likely to be more effective but also cost more than conventional therapies. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to compare the cost effectiveness of different classes of MM treatment. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases for studies published during 1990-2018 comparing the cost effectiveness of transplant, chemotherapeutic and novel MM treatments. Titles and abstracts were independently reviewed for eligibility by two investigators. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the 16-item, validated Quality of Health Economics Studies instrument. RESULTS: Twenty-four publications were included in the systematic review and summarized according to treatment regimen and line. For first-line treatment, transplant was the most cost-effective option for transplant-eligible MM patients [the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $4053-€45,460 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and $3848-$72,852 per life-year gained (LYG)], and the ICER for novel agents compared with conventional chemotherapy was $59,076 per QALY and $220,681 per LYG. For second-line treatment, in comparisons of novel agent-based regimens, ICERs were inconsistent. However, bortezomib-based regimens, lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, and pomalidomide plus dexamethasone were each cost effective compared with dexamethasone alone (ICERs showed cost saving, £30,153 per QALY gained, and €39,911 per LYG, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: For transplant-eligible MM patients, transplant is a cost-effective first-line treatment. More cost-effectiveness analyses comparing novel agents in the first-line treatment regimen are warranted to determine which agent or regimen is the most cost effective. In the second-line setting, it is unclear which novel agent-based regimen is most cost effective, but bortezomib-based regimens, lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, and pomalidomide plus dexamethasone were each cost effective compared with dexamethasone alone.

Direct medical cost of oropharyngeal cancer among patients insured by Medicaid in Texas.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate the direct 2-year mean incremental medical care costs for incident oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) from the perspective of the Texas Medicaid program. METHODS: OPC patients treated from 2008 to 2012 were selected in the Texas Medicaid database. Using a two-step 1:1 propensity score matching method, we selected controls to determine the differential cost associated with OPC. Monthly and yearly direct costs were estimated for 2 years after the cancer diagnosis. For patients without 2-year complete follow-up, a generalized linear model with gamma distribution and log link function was applied to predict costs for the censored months. RESULTS: A total of 352 patients with OPC and the same number of controls were included in the study. Among OPC patients, 204 (58%) were covered by Medicaid and Medicare, and 148 patients (42%) were insured under Medicaid only. The adjusted first- and second-year mean differential costs were $45,102 and $11,684 for Medicaid-only enrollees and $5734 and $2162 for Medicaid-Medicare dual-eligible enrollees, respectively. Being male, Hispanic, Medicaid-only eligible, living in the Harlingen region, and having more comorbidities were positively associated with monthly cost. Lubbock residents experienced lower costs. CONCLUSIONS: The direct incremental medical costs associated with OPCs among patients insured by Texas Medicaid were substantial in the first 2 years after cancer diagnosis and should be considered in assessing the economic consequences of increasing the investment in HPV vaccination in Texas.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) scores and gynecologic oncology surgical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) is a national survey of inpatient experience. This study evaluated the association between HCAHPS survey results and outcomes in gynecologic cancer surgery. METHODS: This observational study used HCAHPS survey data from 2009 to 2011 to assign hospitals into score terciles. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was used to identify admissions during the same time period for gynecologic cancer-specific surgeries. Data sources were linked at the hospital level. Postoperative complications, mortality, and prolonged length of stay were compared between higher and lower scoring hospitals. Complications were grouped as 'surgical', 'medical', or 'care team'. Mixed effects models were used to evaluate the associations between hospitals' HCAHPS scores and outcomes after adjustment for patient and hospital-level variables. RESULTS: 17,509 linked encounters in 651 hospitals across the U.S. were identified, with 51% uterine, 40% ovarian, and 9% cervical cancer surgical admissions. In-hospital mortality was lower in hospitals in the top HCAHPS score terciles compared to bottom HCAHPS score tercile (odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95% CI: 0.31-0.94). Surgery in higher scoring HCAHPS hospitals was associated with less 'surgical' complications (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.98). No association was found between 'medical', 'care team', overall complications, or prolonged hospitalization (p > 0.05) and HCAHPS scores. CONCLUSIONS: Gynecologic oncology surgeries performed in top HCAHPS tercile hospitals were associated with lower in-hospital mortality and surgical complications compared to surgeries performed in bottom tercile hospitals. Associations between HCAHPS scores and other adverse events were not seen.

Cervical, Vaginal, and Vulvar Cancer Costs Incurred by the Medicaid Program in Publicly Insured Patients in Texas.

OBJECTIVES: To determine from the perspective of the State of Texas, the direct medical care costs associated with cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancers in Texas Medicaid enrollees. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a case-control study and searched Texas Medicaid databases between 2008 and 2012 for eligible cancer patients. A comparison group was selected for each cancer site using a 2-step 1:1 propensity score matching method. Patients were followed for 2 years after cancer diagnosis to estimate monthly and yearly direct medical costs. For each cancer site, the differential cost between patients and the matched comparison individuals was the estimated cost associated with cancer. RESULTS: The study included 583 cervical, 62 vaginal, and 137 vulvar cancer patients and equal numbers of cancer-free comparison individuals. Among the cases, 322 cervical cancer patients, 46 vaginal cancer patients, and 102 vulvar cancer patients were Medicaid-Medicare dual eligible enrollees. For Medicaid-only enrollees, the adjusted first- and second-year mean total differential costs were US $19,859 and $3,110 for cervical cancer, US $19,627 and $4,582 for vaginal cancer, and US $7,631 and $777 for vulvar cancer patients, respectively. For Medicaid-Medicare dual eligible enrollees, adjusted first- and second-year mean total differential costs incurred by Medicaid were US $2,565 and $792 for cervical cancer, US $1,293 and $181 for vaginal cancer, and US $1,774 and $1,049 for vulvar cancer patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The direct medical costs associated with cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancers in Texas Medicaid were substantial in the first 2 years after cancer diagnosis, but dual eligibility for Medicare coverage attenuated Medicaid costs.

Impact of Serious Mental Illness on Medicaid and Other Public Healthcare Costs in Texas.

Medicaid-enrolled adults with serious mental illness may be dually-enrolled in Medicare, and may receive health care services from other state and local programs. To understand cross-program costs of care, we linked 2012 payment data across Medicaid, Medicare, state, and local programs. Average costs were calculated according to presence/absence of SMI, Medicare coverage, SSI coverage, medical comorbidities, and other characteristics. Costs for Medicaid adults with SMI were 57.4% greater than adults without SMI, but only 23.6% of costs were SMI-related. Greater costs were associated with Medicaid-Medicare dual-eligibility, multiple SMI diagnoses, and medical comorbidities. The results support cross-program efforts such as joint Medicaid-Medicare managed care and integrated care.

Mean treatment cost of incident cases of penile cancer for privately insured patients in the United States.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to estimate the short-term cost of treating newly diagnosed penile cancer and determine the correlates of penile cancer treatment cost in the United States. METHODS: The Truven MarketScan database was used to identify commercially insured patients with penile cancer newly diagnosed during 2011 to 2014. A control group without HPV-related cancer diagnosis was selected by matching to the case group by the propensity score method. Total healthcare costs in the 2 years after the cancer diagnosis index date were measured for each patient. The mean difference between case and control groups was considered the cancer-related cost. For patients without complete 2-year data, a generalized linear regression was performed to predict cost for censored months and identify predictors associated with monthly cost. RESULTS: A total of 250 patients with newly diagnosed penile cancer and 250 matched controls were included in the study. The adjusted mean differential healthcare cost for penile cancer was $76,404 in the first 2 years. For the penile cancer group, cost peaked in month 1 at $10,202 and dropped substantially each month thereafter until month 7, when the cost was $4,295. After month 7, the monthly cost remained steady at $2,700 to $4,200. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated average cost of penile cancer for insured patients in the United States was about $76,000 in the first 2 years after diagnosis. Monthly cost was directly related to age, length of follow-up, comorbidity score, and prediagnosis cost.