The impact of socioeconomic status on stage at presentation, receipt of diagnostic imaging, receipt of treatment and overall survival in colorectal cancer patients.

Socioeconomic factors influence patterns of care in colorectal cancer. Our study investigates the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on stage at presentation, receipt of diagnostic imaging, receipt of treatment and overall survival (OS) in a universal healthcare system. The Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) was accessed to identify a cohort of patients diagnosed with colorectal adenocarcinoma from 2007 to 2016 in Ontario, Canada. SES was measured using median neighborhood income divided into quintiles (Q1-Q5; Q1 = lowest income). Logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate stage, imaging and treatment. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate OS. All endpoints were adjusted for demographics and comorbidities with OS models also adjusting for stage, imaging and treatment. In total, 39 802 colon and 13 164 rectal patients were identified. Lower SES was associated with advanced stage at presentation in both cohorts (Q1 vs Q5: Colon odds ratio [OR] = 1.08, P = .046, rectal OR = 1.25, P < .0001). Lower SES colon patients were less likely to receive adjuvant oxaliplatin (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.78, P < .001) and all palliative chemotherapies studied including oxaliplatin (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.60, P < 0.0001), irinotecan (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.65, P < .0001), bevacizumab (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.70, P < .001), cetuximab (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.40, P = .0053) and panitumumab (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.54, P = .0036). In rectal patients, lower SES was associated with decreased receipt of rectal cancer resection for stages I-III (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.78, P < .001), adjuvant oxaliplatin (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.72, P = .0020) and palliative chemotherapies including oxaliplatin (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.59, P < .001), irinotecan (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.53, P < .001) and bevacizumab (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.71, P = .046). All survival models identified poorer OS for lower SES patients (total colorectal; Q1 vs Q5: Hazard ratio [HR] = 1.25, P < .0001). These findings suggest disparities persist even within universal healthcare.

The cost of chemotherapy administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Cancer treatment is a significant driver of healthcare costs worldwide, however, the economic impact of treating patients with anti-neoplastic agents is poorly elucidated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the direct costs associated with administering intravenous chemotherapy in an outpatient setting. METHODS: We systematically searched four databases from 2010 to present and extracted hourly administration costs and the respective components of each estimate. Separate analyses were conducted of Canadian and United States (US) studies, respectively, to address a priori hypotheses regarding heterogeneity amongst estimates. The Drummond checklist was used to assess risk-of-bias. Data were summarized using medians with interquartile ranges and five outliers were identified; costs were presented in 2019 USD. RESULTS: Forty-four studies were analyzed, including sub-analyses of 19 US and seven Canadian studies. 26/44 studies were of moderate-high quality. When components of administration cost were evaluated, physician costs were reported most frequently (24 studies), followed by lab tests (13) and overhead costs (9). The median estimate (excluding outliers) was $142/hour (IQR = $103-166). The median administration cost in the US was $149/hour (IQR = $118-158), and was $128/hour (IQR = $102-137) in Canada. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently a paucity of literature addressing the costs of chemotherapy administration, and existing studies utilize a patchwork of reporting methodologies which renders direct comparison challenging. Our results demonstrate that the cost of administering chemotherapy is approximately $125-150/hour, globally. This value is dependent upon the region of analysis, inclusiveness of cost subcomponents as well as the methodology used to estimate unit prices, as described here.

Three-Dimensional Printing for Planning of Structural Heart Interventions.

Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a process leading to the creation of a physical 3D model used for teaching, patient education, device evaluation, and procedural planning. 3D printed models of patient-specific anatomy can be generated from 3D transesophageal, cardiac MRI, or cardiac computed tomographic datasets. This article discusses the potential advantages of 3D printing, reviews the different modalities to acquire a 3D dataset, and highlights the application of 3D printing to enhance patient screening and procedural planning in structural heart intervention.