Disparities in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Gastric Cancer in Relation to Disabilities.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated potential disparities in the diagnosis, treatment, and survival of gastric cancer (GC) patients with and without disabilities. METHODS: We linked Korean National Disability Registry data with the Korean National Health Insurance database and Korean Central Cancer Registry data. This study included a total of 16,849 people with disabilities and 58,872 age- and sex-matched control subjects in whom GC had been diagnosed. RESULTS: When compared to GC patients without disabilities, patients with disabilities tended to be diagnosed at a later stage (localized stage 53.7% vs 59.0% or stage unknown 10.7% vs 6.9%), especially those with severe disabilities (P < 0.001). This was more evident in patients with mental impairment (localized stage 41.7% and stage unknown 15.2%). In addition, not receiving treatment was more common in patients with disabilities than those without disabilities (29.3% vs 27.2%, P < 0.001), and this disparity was more evident in those with severe disabilities (35.4%) and in those with communication (36.9%) and mental (32.3%) impairment. Patients with disabilities were at slightly higher risk of overall mortality as well as GC-specific mortality compared to people without disabilities (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.14-1.21 and aHR = 1.12, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-1.16, respectively), and these disparities were more pronounced in those with severe disabilities (aHR = 1.62 and 1.51, respectively). DISCUSSION: Patients with disabilities, especially severe disabilities, were diagnosed with GC at a later stage, received less staging evaluation and treatment, and their overall survival rate was slightly worse compared to those without disabilities.

Incidence and Prognosis of Subsequent Cholangiocarcinoma in Patients with Hepatic Resection for Bile Duct Stones.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) often develops after the hepatic resection for hepatolithiasis as well as indwelling it. We studied the incidence and prognosis of subsequent CCA in patients with hepatolithiasis in South Korea. METHODS: We identified individuals with diagnosed CCA at the time of or after surgery, during 2002-2016, from the Korean National Health Insurance. The incidences and survival rates of subsequent CCA were analyzed and compared with concomitant CCA. The standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of CCA in this cohort were evaluated in the standard Korean population. All data were stratified by the presence of intrahepatic or extrahepatic CCA, age and sex. RESULTS: Of the 7852 patients with hepatectomy for BDS, 433 (5.84%) had concomitant CCA. Over the 12-year follow-up, 107 of 7419 (1.98%) patients were diagnosed with subsequent CCA. Patients with hepatic resection for BDS revealed higher SIRs for subsequent CCA (12.89, 95% CI 10.96-15.15) in cases of both intrahepatic CCA (13.40, 10.55-17.02) and extrahepatic CCA (12.42, 9.98-15.46). The median survival time for subsequent CCA was 0.87 years, while that for concomitant CCA was 2.79 years. Having subsequent CCA (HR 2.71, 95% CI 2.17-3.40) and being male (HR 1.28, 1.05-1.57) were related to a shorter survival time. The CCA site and age at CCA diagnosis were not related to prognoses. CONCLUSIONS: Subsequent CCA developed in 2% of the patients with hepatic resection for benign BDS until 10 years and was associated with poorer prognoses than concomitant CCA. Future studies focused on the long-term surveillance for CCA in such patients are needed.

Attitudes towards second opinion services in cancer care: a nationwide survey of oncologists in Korea.

OBJECTIVE: Second opinion is a common phenomenon in many health systems, especially in the care of patients with cancer. However, it is not clear whether second opinion seeking should be promoted or discouraged and how second opinion services and policies can be better formalized to maximize the benefits and minimize the disadvantages. METHODS: A nationwide survey was conducted with a representative sample of 678 physicians involved in cancer care (75.5% participation rate) recruited in 13 cancer centres. RESULTS: Most physicians involved with cancer care perceived patients' second opinion seeking as a legitimate right (96.0%) and they acknowledged the need for second opinion services under certain conditions (98.2%). Many believed that second opinions can enhance patient satisfaction (77.3%) and quality of care (74.3%), but they also had concerns about increase in healthcare and societal costs (91.3%) and concentration in a high-volume centre (90.7%). While the majority agreed with the involvement of the first opinion physicians in the second opinion services (69.5%), there were mixed opinions regarding the desirability of remote (teleconsultation) second opinion services (49.0%) and coverage by national health insurance (51.9%). CONCLUSION: Physicians were generally positive to second opinion services and expected positive consequences in terms of patient satisfaction and quality of care. However, they had concerns about the consequences regarding cost and equity, and disagreements were observed regarding the way to improve second opinion services. The physicians' opinions revealed in our study will be helpful in developing clearer guidelines used to maximize the benefits of second opinion services.