Socioeconomic Status and Chronic Health Conditions in Asian Survivors of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancers.

Purpose: While there are known disparities in socioeconomic status (SES) and health outcomes among racially and ethnically minoritized adolescent and young adult (AYA; ages 15-39 years at diagnosis) cancer survivors compared with White survivors, outcomes in the Asian survivor population are understudied. To better understand the association of an AYA cancer diagnosis with SES and health outcomes within a minoritized population, the current study makes comparisons between individuals of the same race or ethnicity with and without a history of AYA cancer. Methods: Non-Hispanic, Asian AYA cancer survivors and non-Hispanic, Asian age- and sex-matched controls were identified from self-reported data in the National Health Interview Survey (2009-2020). Prevalence of chronic health conditions and socioeconomic factors were compared between groups using chi-square tests. Odds of chronic conditions by SES factors were determined within and between survivors and controls using logistic regression methods. Results: One hundred and thirty-one survivors and 1310 controls were included. Survivors were less likely to be married compared with controls; however, there were no differences in other SES factors examined. Survivors had higher odds of at least one chronic condition diagnosis (odds ratio = 4.17, p < 0.001) compared with controls. Of the chronic conditions assessed, survivors had higher odds of arthritis, pulmonary disease, and hypertension compared with controls. Conclusions: Asian AYA cancer survivors are at increased risk of chronic health conditions compared with Asian individuals without a cancer history. Culturally adapted targeted interventions are needed to improve health outcomes for this population.

Impact of Race, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status over Time on the Long-term Survival of Adolescent and Young Adult Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Although there are growing numbers of adolescent and young adult (AYA) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) survivors, long-term overall survival (OS) patterns and disparities in this population are underreported. The aim of the current study was to assess the impact of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), rurality, diagnosis age, sex, and HL stage over time on long-term survival in AYA HL survivors. METHODS: The authors used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry to identify survivors of HL diagnosed as AYAs (ages 15-39 years) between the years 1980 and 2009 and who were alive 5 years after diagnosis. An accelerated failure time model was used to estimate survival over time and compare survival between groups. RESULTS: There were 15,899 5-year survivors of AYA HL identified, with a median follow-up of 14.4 years and range up to 33.9 years from diagnosis. Non-Hispanic black survivors had inferior survival compared with non-Hispanic white survivors [survival time ratio (STR): 0.71, P = 0.002]. Male survivors, older age at diagnosis, those diagnosed at higher stages, and those living in areas of higher SES deprivation had unfavorable long-term survival. There was no evidence of racial or sex-based survival disparities changing over time. CONCLUSIONS: Racial, SES, and sex-based disparities persist well into survivorship among AYA HL survivors. IMPACT: Disparities in long-term survival among AYA HL survivors show no evidence of improving over time. Studies investigating specific factors associated with survival disparities are needed to identify opportunities for intervention.

Young Adult Populations Face Yet Another Barrier to Care With Insurers: Limited Access to Proton Therapy.

PURPOSE: Young patients, including pediatric, adolescent, and young adult (YA) patients, are most likely to benefit from the reduced integral dose of proton beam radiation therapy (PBT) resulting in fewer late toxicities and secondary malignancies. This study sought to examine insurance approval and appeal outcomes for PBT among YA patients compared with pediatric patients at a large-volume proton therapy center. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a cross-sectional cohort study of 284 consecutive patients aged 0 to 39 years for whom PBT was recommended in 2018 through 2019. Pediatric patients were defined as aged 0 to 18 years and YA patients 19 to 39 years. Rates of approval, denials, and decision timelines were calculated. Tumor type and location were also evaluated as factors that may influence insurance decisions. RESULTS: A total of 207 patients (73%) were approved for PBT at initial request. YA patients (n = 68/143, 48%) were significantly less likely to receive initial approval compared with pediatric patients (n = 139/141; 99%) (P < .001). Even after 47% (n = 35 of 75) of the PBT denials for YA patients were overturned, YAs had a significantly lower final PBT approval (72% vs pediatric 99%; P < .001). The median wait time was also significantly longer for YA patients (median, 8 days; interquartile range [IQR] 3-17 vs median, 2 days; IQR, 0-6; P < .001). In those patients requiring an appeal, the median wait time was 16 days (IQR, 9-25). CONCLUSION: Given the decades of survivorship of YA patients, PBT is an important tool to reduce late toxicities and secondary malignancies. Compared with pediatric patients, YA patients are significantly less likely to receive insurance approval for PBT. Insurance denials and subsequent appeal requests result in significant delays for YA patients. Insurers need to re-examine their policies to include expedited decisions and appeals and removal of arbitrary age cutoffs so that YA patients can gain easier access to PBT. Furthermore, consensus guidelines encouraging greater PBT access for YA may be warranted from both medical societies and/or AYA experts.

Disparities in Adolescent and Young Adult Sarcoma Survival: Analyses of the Texas Cancer Registry and the National SEER Data.

PURPOSE: Examine disparities in survival for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) diagnosed with bone and soft tissue sarcomas in Texas compared with national estimates. METHODS: AYAs with sarcomas diagnosed between 1995 and 2012 at ages 15-39 years were identified from the Texas Cancer Registry (TCR) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Patient demographic, treatment, and clinical characteristics were compared between TCR and SEER using chi-squared tests. Five-year survival was computed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards (CPH) models evaluated the factors associated with the risk of mortality between and within the two datasets. RESULTS: Sarcoma patients in TCR were more likely to be Hispanic, uninsured, diagnosed at late stage, and have lower rates of surgery as the first line of treatment than those in SEER. In Texas, 5-year survival was 68.7% versus 72.2% in SEER (p < 0.001). However, after including surgery in our fully adjusted CPH model, survival differences between the two datasets were no longer observed. In these models, males, and those living in nonmetropolitan areas were more likely to die than their counterparts in both datasets. In TCR, those who lived in the U.S. and Mexico border had higher mortality. In SEER, Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks had higher mortality. CONCLUSION: The adjusted AYA sarcoma survival in Texas was similar to that of SEER, but patients in Texas were more likely to be uninsured and have lower surgery rates. Those living in the U.S. and Mexico border in Texas faced lower survival. These results are important for delineating effective care for this high-risk patient group.

Validation of prognostic scoring and assessment of clinical benefit for patients with bone sarcomas enrolled in phase I clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: We sought to validate the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) and MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) prognostic scoring systems for the selection of bone sarcoma patients for phase I clinical trials and to identify additional risk factors related to survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the baseline characteristics and outcomes of 92 bone sarcoma patients who were referred to MDACC's Phase I Clinical Trials Program. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients with Ewing sarcoma (N = 47), osteosarcoma (N = 22), chondrosarcoma (N = 16), and other tumors (N = 7) were evaluated; 78 were enrolled in at least 1 of 43 different phase I trials. The median overall survival (OS) was 8.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.8-13.7 months). Independent factors that predicted shorter survival were male sex, >2 metastatic sites, >3 previous therapies, hemoglobin level <10.5 g/dL, platelet count >200 x103/L, creatinine level ≥1.3 mg/dL, and lactate dehydrogenase level >ULN. Patients with good RMH scores (0-1) had longer OS than patients with poor RMH scores (2-3) (HR = 5.8, 95% CI = 2.9-11.0; P < 0.0001), as did patients with low MDACC scores (0-1) as compared to patients with higher MDACC scores (2-4) (HR = 3.2, 95% CI = 1.9-5.6; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The RMH prognostic score can be used to predict the OS of bone cancer patients referred for phase I trials. The MDACC score added no value to the RMH score and therefore does not have a role in assessment of patients with bone tumors. Patients with advanced bone sarcomas should be considered for phase I trials.