Long-term follow-up of smokers following lung and colorectal cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis limits the effectiveness of treatment, increases the risk of cancer recurrence or secondary malignancies, and is associated with poorer quality of life and survival. A cancer diagnosis may provide a meaningful timepoint for quitting, but the prevalence and characteristics of continued smoking through survivorship are poorly understood. METHODS: In the multi-regional Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) cohort, we examined smoking rates and factors associated with continued smoking at long-term follow-up among lung and colorectal cancer patients. This paper builds upon previous CanCORS participant data addressing quit rates and associated characteristics at baseline and 5 months post-diagnosis. RESULTS: At long-term follow-up (median 7.3 years post-diagnosis [IQR = 5.9-8.7]), 16.7% of lung cancer and 11.6% of colorectal cancer survivors continued to smoke combustible cigarettes. Factors independently associated with continued smoking at long-term follow-up included being male, younger, not married or partnered, having Medicare, Medicaid/other public or no insurance, more depression symptoms, smoking more cigarettes per day, and having a history of lung disease (p < .05). Continued smoking did not vary by lung vs. colorectal cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Of active smokers at the time of diagnosis, an important minority of lung and colorectal cancer survivors continued to smoke well into survivorship. Understanding characteristics associated with continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis may help inform the development of tobacco treatment programs for cancer patients and survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR SURVIVORS: While addressing smoking cessation at the time of diagnosis is critical to ensure better long-term treatment outcomes and quality of life, it is essential to continue smoking cessation discussions and efforts throughout care and survivorship.

Differences in Health Care Use and Costs Among Patients With Cancer Receiving Intravenous Chemotherapy in Physician Offices Versus in Hospital Outpatient Settings.

PURPOSE: The current shift in site of care from community oncology practices to the hospital outpatient department to deliver oncology services may have significant implications for the economic and clinical outcomes of cancer care. Therefore, this study compares health care use and costs among patients with cancer receiving intravenous (IV) chemotherapy in physician offices (PO) versus in hospital outpatient settings (HOP). METHODS: This retrospective study, which was based on medical and pharmacy claims data, included patients (age, 18 to 64 years) initiating IV chemotherapy/biologic treatment between January 1, 2006, and August 31, 2012, who were diagnosed with early or metastatic breast cancer, metastatic lung cancer, metastatic colorectal cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Patients were assigned to PO or HOP groups on the basis of where they received > 95% of their IV cancer therapy. RESULTS: The study sample included 18,740 patients (12,899 PO; 5,841 HOP) who had a mean age of 51.6 years and a Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 5.37. Overall office visits (21.8 ± 13.8 PO v 21.2 ± 12.9, P < .005) and outpatient services (50.8 ± 35.5 PO v 48.5 ± 33.6, P < .001) were higher in the PO group than in the HOP group. Cancer-related inpatient hospitalizations (0.6 ± 1.2 PO v 0.7 ± 1.4 HOP, P = .002) were lower in the PO group than in the HOP group. Although quality-of-care metrics were similar between the HOP and PO groups, follow-up all-cause costs ($82,773 PO v $122,473 HOP) and cancer-related health care costs ($69,037 PO v $108,177 HOP) were higher in the HOP group than in the PO group. CONCLUSION: Despite similar resource use, all-cause and cancer-related health care costs in HOP were significantly higher compared with those in PO settings.

Risk of Neutropenia-Related Hospitalization in Patients Who Received Colony-Stimulating Factors With Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.

Purpose To describe outcomes after granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer who received chemotherapy regimens with low-to-intermediate risk of induction of neutropenia-related hospitalization. Patients and Methods We identified 8,745 patients age ≥ 18 years from a medical and pharmacy claims database for 14 commercial US health plans. This retrospective analysis included patients with breast cancer who began first-cycle chemotherapy from 2008 to 2013 using docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC); docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab (TCH); or doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (conventional-dose AC) regimens. Primary prophylaxis (PP) was defined as G-CSF administration within 5 days of beginning chemotherapy. Outcome was neutropenia, fever, or infection-related hospitalization within 21 days of initiating chemotherapy. Multivariable regressions and number-needed-to-treat analyses were used. Results A total of 4,815 patients received TC (2,849 PP; 1,966 no PP); 2,292 patients received TCH (1,444 PP; 848 no PP); and 1,638 patients received AC (857 PP; 781 no PP) regimen. PP was associated with reduced risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization for TC (2.0% PP; 7.1% no PP; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.29; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.39) and TCH (1.3% PP; 7.1% no PP; AOR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.30), but not AC (4.7% PP; 3.8% no PP; AOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.93) regimens. For the TC regimen, 20 patients (95% CI, 16 to 26) would have to be treated for 21 days to avoid one neutropenia-related hospitalization; with the TCH regimen, 18 patients (95% CI, 13 to 25) would have to be treated. Conclusion Primary G-CSF prophylaxis was associated with low-to-modest benefit in lowering neutropenia-related hospitalization in patients with breast cancer who received TC and TCH regimens. Further evaluation is needed to better understand which patients benefit most from G-CSF prophylaxis in this setting.

Complications Associated With Use of Long-Term Central Venous Catheters Among Commercially Insured Women With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Despite some advantages to their use, long-term central venous catheters (CVCs) are associated with complications for patients who require chemotherapy. Understanding of these risks in commercially insured populations is limited. This information can inform medical policies that ensure the appropriate use of venous access devices. This study's objectives were to assess the extent of variation in use of long-term CVCs in a cohort of commercially insured women with breast cancer, and to assess risks of associated complications. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using health insurance claims between January 2006 and October 2013. The cohort included commercially insured women age ≥ 18 years diagnosed with breast cancer who received infusion chemotherapy (N = 31,047). We conducted matched and case-mix adjusted Cox proportional hazard modeling to assess differences in bloodstream infections and thrombovascular complications between patients using long-term CVCs and those using temporary intravenous catheters. RESULTS: Approximately two thirds of the cohort had a long-term CVC, although rates varied across regions (57% to 75%), health plans (65% to 70%), and insurance coverage (63% to 68%). After propensity score matching, the adjusted hazard ratio for infection was 2.70 (95% CI, 2.31 to 3.16) and thrombovascular complications, 2.61 (95% CI, 2.33 to 2.93) in patients with long-term CVCs compared with those with temporary intravenous catheters. CONCLUSION: Although long-term CVCs may have benefits, they are associated with increased morbidity. Regional and health plan variation in long-term CVC insertion suggests that some of their use reflects provider- or institution-driven variation in practice. Evidence-based guidelines and tools may help decrease discretionary use of long-term CVCs.

Leveraging state cancer registries to measure and improve the quality of cancer care: a potential strategy for California and beyond.

Despite recent increased attention to healthcare performance and the burden of disease from cancer, measures of quality of cancer care are not readily available. In 2013, the California HealthCare Foundation convened an expert workgroup to explore the potential for leveraging data in the California Cancer Registry (CCR), one of the world's largest population-based cancer registries, for measuring and improving the quality of cancer care. The workgroup assessed current registry operations, the value to be gained by linking CCR data with health insurance claims or encounter data and clinical data contained in health system electronic health records, and potential barriers to these linkages. The workgroup concluded that: 1) The CCR mandate should be expanded to include use of its data for quality of cancer care measurement and public reporting; and 2) a system should be developed to support linkage of registry data with both claims data and provider electronic health record data.

Catalog and comparison of societal preferences (utilities) for lung cancer health states: results from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study.

BACKGROUND: The EQ-5D and SF-6D are 2 health-related quality-of-life indexes that provide preference-weighted measures for use in cost-effectiveness analyses. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute's Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium included the EQ-5D and SF-12v2 in their survey of newly diagnosed lung cancer patients. Utilities were calculated from patient-provided scores for each domain of the EQ-5D or the SF-6D. Utilities were calculated for categories of cancer type, stage, and treatment. RESULTS: There were 5015 enrolled lung cancer patients with a baseline survey in CanCORS; 2396 (47.8%) completed the EQ-5D, and 2344 (46.7%) also completed the SF-12v2. The mean (standard deviation) utility from the EQ-5D was 0.78 (0.18), and from the SF-6D (derived from SF-12v2) was 0.68 (0.14). The EQ-5D demonstrated a ceiling effect, with 20% of patients reporting perfect scores, translating to a utility of 1.0. No substantial SF-6D floor effects were noted. Utilities increased with age and decreased with stage and comorbidities. Patient-reported (EQ-5D) visual analog scale scores for health status had a moderate (r = 0.48, p < 0.0001) positive correlation with utilities. A subset (n = 1474) completed follow-up EQ-5D questionnaires 11-13 months after diagnosis. Among these patients, there was a nonsignificant decrease in mean utility for stage IV and an increase in mean utility for stages I, II, and III. CONCLUSION: This study generated a catalog of community-weighted utilities applicable to societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analyses of lung cancer interventions and compared utilities based on the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Potential users of these scores should be aware of the limitations and think carefully about their use in specific studies.

Implementing Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Recommendations From an Expert Panel.

PURPOSE: In December 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued a final B-level recommendation indicating that individuals between the ages of 55 and 80 years who have a 30-pack-year smoking history and have smoked within the past 15 years should receive annual low-dose computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening. We convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to create practical guidance for efficiently implementing effective CT lung cancer screening programs. METHODS: The lung cancer screening panel included 12 members, representing a broad range of stakeholders. The panel discussed clinical and system issues related to the implementation of CT lung cancer screening and developed recommendations for implementing CT lung cancer screening programs. RESULTS: The panel identified five main goals that must be achieved to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of implementing CT lung cancer screening: one, accurately identify individuals eligible for screening; two, provide access to screening at qualified facilities for eligible individuals; three, ensure appropriate follow-up for positive and negative screening results; four, promote continuous quality improvement of screening programs and downstream care; and five, provide smoking cessation support for all current smokers. The panel proposed a series of stakeholder-specific recommendations for achieving these goals. CONCLUSION: Implementation of effective and efficient population-based CT lung cancer screening will require involvement and coordination of stakeholders across the health care system to address the data and infrastructural needs that were identified.

Uptake and costs of hypofractionated vs conventional whole breast irradiation after breast conserving surgery in the United States, 2008-2013.

IMPORTANCE: Based on randomized evidence, expert guidelines in 2011 endorsed shorter, hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (WBI) for selected patients with early-stage breast cancer and permitted hypofractionated WBI for other patients. OBJECTIVES: To examine the uptake and costs of hypofractionated WBI among commercially insured patients in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective, observational cohort study, using administrative claims data from 14 commercial health care plans covering 7.4% of US adult women in 2013, we classified patients with incident early-stage breast cancer treated with lumpectomy and WBI from 2008 and 2013 into 2 cohorts: (1) the hypofractionation-endorsed cohort (n = 8924) included patients aged 50 years or older without prior chemotherapy or axillary lymph node involvement and (2) the hypofractionation-permitted cohort (n = 6719) included patients younger than 50 years or those with prior chemotherapy or axillary lymph node involvement. EXPOSURES: Hypofractionated WBI (3-5 weeks of treatment) vs conventional WBI (5-7 weeks of treatment). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Use of hypofractionated and conventional WBI, total and radiotherapy-related health care expenditures, and patient out-of-pocket expenses. Patient and clinical characteristics included year of treatment, age, comorbid disease, prior chemotherapy, axillary lymph node involvement, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, practice setting, and other contextual variables. RESULTS: Hypofractionated WBI increased from 10.6% (95% CI, 8.8%-12.5%) in 2008 to 34.5% (95% CI, 32.2%-36.8%) in 2013 in the hypofractionation-endorsed cohort and from 8.1% (95% CI, 6.0%-10.2%) in 2008 to 21.2% (95% CI, 18.9%-23.6%) in 2013 in the hypofractionation-permitted cohort. Adjusted mean total health care expenditures in the 1 year after diagnosis were $28,747 for hypofractionated and $31,641 for conventional WBI in the hypofractionation-endorsed cohort (difference, $2894; 95% CI, $1610-$4234; P < .001) and $64,273 for hypofractionated and $72,860 for conventional WBI in the hypofractionation-permitted cohort (difference, $8587; 95% CI, $5316-$12,017; P < .001). Adjusted mean total 1-year patient out-of-pocket expenses were not significantly different between hypofractionated vs conventional WBI in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hypofractionated WBI after breast conserving surgery increased among women with early-stage breast cancer in 14 US commercial health care plans between 2008 and 2013. However, only 34.5% of patients with hypofractionation-endorsed and 21.2% with hypofractionation-permitted early-stage breast cancer received hypofractionated WBI in 2013.

Did changes in drug reimbursement after the medicare modernization act affect chemotherapy prescribing?

PURPOSE: The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) decreased fee-for-service (FFS) payments for outpatient chemotherapy. We assessed how this policy affected chemotherapy in FFS settings versus in integrated health networks (IHNs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined 5,831 chemotherapy regimens for 3,613 patients from 2003 to 2006 with colorectal cancer (CRC) or lung cancers in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research Surveillance Consortium. Patients were from four geographically defined regions, seven large health maintenance organizations, and 15 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. The outcome of interest was receipt of chemotherapy that included at least one drug for which reimbursement declined after the MMA. RESULTS: The odds of receiving an MMA-affected drug were lower in the post-MMA era: the odds ratio (OR) was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89). Important differences across cancers were detected: for CRC, the OR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.92); for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the OR was 1.60 (95% CI, 1.09 to 2.35); and for small-cell lung cancer, the OR was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.34 to 1.16). After the MMA, FFS patients were less likely to receive MMA-affected drugs: OR, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89). No pre- versus post-MMA difference in the use of MMA-affected drugs was detected among IHN patients: OR, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.56). Patients with CRC were less likely to receive an MMA-affected drug in both FFS and IHN settings in the post- versus pre-MMA era, whereas patients with NSCLC were the opposite: OR, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.09 to 2.35) for FFS and 6.33 (95% CI, 2.09 to 19.11) for IHNs post- versus pre-MMA. CONCLUSION: Changes in reimbursement after the passage of MMA appear to have had less of an impact on prescribing patterns in FFS settings than the introduction of new drugs and clinical evidence as well as other factors driving adoption of new practice patterns.

Medical oncologists' perceptions of financial incentives in cancer care.

PURPOSE: The cost of cancer care continues to increase at an unprecedented rate. Concerns have been raised about financial incentives associated with the chemotherapy concession in oncology practices and their impact on treatment recommendations. METHODS: The objective of this study was to measure the physician-reported effects of prescribing chemotherapy or growth factors or making referrals to other cancer specialists, hospice, or hospital admissions on medical oncologists' income. US medical oncologists involved in the care of a population-based cohort of patients with lung or colorectal cancer from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study were surveyed regarding their perceptions of the impact of prescribing practices or referrals on their income. RESULTS: Although most oncologists reported that their incomes would be unaffected, compared with salaried oncologists, physicians in fee-for-service practice, and those paid a salary with productivity incentives were more likely to report that their income would increase from administering chemotherapy (odds ratios [ORs], 7.05 and 7.52, respectively; both P < .001) or administering growth factors (ORs, 5.60 and 6.03, respectively; both P < .001). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of oncologists who are not paid a fixed salary report that their incomes increase when they administer chemotherapy and growth factors. Further research is needed to understand the impact of these financial incentives on both the quality and cost of care.

Uptake and economic impact of first-cycle colony-stimulating factor use during adjuvant treatment of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: In 2002, pegfilgrastim was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the benefits of dose-dense breast cancer chemotherapy, especially for hormone receptor (HR) -negative tumors, were reported. We examined first-cycle colony-stimulating factor use (FC-CSF) before and after 2002 and estimated US expenditures for dose-dense chemotherapy. METHODS: We identified patients in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare greater than 65 years old with stages I to III breast cancer who had greater than one chemotherapy claim within 6 months of diagnosis(1998 to 2005) and classified patients with an average cycle length less than 21 days as having received dose-dense chemotherapy. The associations of patient, tumor, and physician-related factors with the receipt of any colony-stimulating factor (CSF) and FC-CSF use were analyzed by using generalized estimating equations. CSF costs were estimated for patients who were undergoing dose-dense chemotherapy. RESULTS: Among the 10,773 patients identified, 5,266 patients (48.9%) had a CSF claim. CSF use was stable between 1998 and 2002 and increased from 36.8% to 73.7% between 2002 and 2005, FC-CSF use increased from 13.2% to 67.9%, and pegfilgrastim use increased from 4.1% to 83.6%. In a multivariable analysis, CSF use was associated with age and chemotherapy type and negatively associated with black/Hispanic race, rural residence, and shorter chemotherapy duration. FC-CSF use was associated with high socioeconomic status but not with age or race/ethnicity. The US annual CSF expenditure for women with HR-positive tumors treated with dose-dense chemotherapy is estimated to be $38.8 million. CONCLUSION: A rapid increase in FC-CSF use occurred over a short period of time, which was likely a result of the reported benefits of dose-dense chemotherapy and the ease of pegfilgrastim administration. Because of the increasing evidence that elderly HR-positive patients do not benefit from dose-dense chemotherapy, limiting pegfilgrastim use would combat the increasing costs of cancer care.

Prevalence, predictors, and patient outcomes associated with physician co-management: findings from the Los Angeles Women's Health Study.

BACKGROUND: Physician co-management, representing joint participation in the planning, decision-making, and delivery of care, is often cited in association with coordination of care. Yet little is known about how physicians manage tasks and how their management style impacts patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To describe physician practice style using breast cancer as a model. We characterize correlates and predictors of physician practice style for 10 clinical tasks, and then test for associations between physician practice style and patient ratings of care. METHODS: We queried 347 breast cancer physicians identified by a population-based cohort of women with incident breast cancer regarding care using a clinical vignette about a hypothetical 65-year-old diabetic woman with incident breast cancer. To test the association between physician practice style and patient outcomes, we linked medical oncologists' responses to patient ratings of care (physician n=111; patient n=411). RESULTS: After adjusting for physician and practice setting characteristics, physician practice style varied by physician specialty, practice setting, financial incentives, and barriers to referrals. Patients with medical oncologists who co-managed tasks had higher patient ratings of care. CONCLUSION: Physician practice style for breast cancer is influenced by provider and practice setting characteristics, and it is an important predictor of patient ratings. We identify physician and practice setting factors associated with physician practice style and found associations between physician co-management and patient outcomes (e.g., patient ratings of care).

Physician characteristics and variability of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use among Medicare patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Drugs are usually approved for a specific indication on the basis of randomized trials. However, once approved, these treatments are often used differently than as tested in trials. We performed an analysis to determine the patterns of use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database to identify patients age 65 years or older with breast, lung, or colon cancer diagnosed between 1995 and 2005 who had one ESA and chemotherapy claim. Associations of patient, tumor, and physician-related factors with receipt of ESAs were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 21,091 patients analyzed, 5,099 (24.2%) received ESAs for 1 week or less (misuse), and 1,601 (7.6%) received ESAs for more than 14 weeks (prolonged use). Receipt of ESAs while not actively receiving chemotherapy (off label) occurred in 2,876 patients (13.6%). In a multivariable analysis, ESA misuse was associated with MD degree, female sex of physician, and earlier year of medical school graduation. Private practice physicians (odds ratio [OR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.84) and high-volume physicians (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.85) were less likely to use 1 week or less of ESA treatment. Treatment by high-volume oncologists (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.55) and by oncologists who graduated from US medical schools (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.42) predicted prolonged-duration ESA use, whereas female oncologists (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.93) were less likely to prescribe prolonged ESA treatment. Private practice physicians (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.38) and high-volume providers (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.33 to 1.87) were more likely to prescribe more than 24 weeks of ESA treatment. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated widespread variability in the use of ESAs. Physician characteristics exerted substantial influence on ESA use. Policies to discourage inappropriate use of cancer therapies are needed.