Ethical dilemmas in prioritizing patients for scarce radiotherapy resources.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve all patients who would benefit from it. Allocation systems are needed to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in resource-limited contexts. These systems should be informed by allocation principles deemed relevant to stakeholders. This study explores the ethical dilemmas and views of decision-makers engaged in real-world prioritization of scarce radiotherapy resources at a cancer center in Rwanda in order to identify relevant principles. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology clinicians, program leaders, and clinical advisors. Interviews explored the factors considered by decision-makers when prioritizing patients for radiotherapy. The framework method of thematic analysis was used to characterize these factors. Bioethical analysis was then applied to determine their underlying normative principles. RESULTS: Participants considered both clinical and non-clinical factors relevant to patient prioritization for radiotherapy. They widely agreed that disease curability should be the primary overarching driver of prioritization, with the goal of saving the most lives. However, they described tension between curability and competing factors including age, palliative benefit, and waiting time. They were divided about the role that non-clinical factors such as social value should play, and agreed that poverty should not be a barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple competing principles create tension with the agreed upon overarching goal of maximizing lives saved, including another utilitarian approach of maximizing life-years saved as well as non-utilitarian principles, such as egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and deontology. Clinical guidelines for patient prioritization for radiotherapy can combine multiple principles into a single allocation system to a significant extent. However, conflicting views about the role that social factors should play, and the dynamic nature of resource availability, highlight the need for ongoing work to evaluate and refine priority setting systems based on stakeholder views.

Protocol for a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to increase supplemental breast MRI screening among patients with extremely dense breasts.

BACKGROUND: Increased breast density augments breast cancer risk and reduces mammography sensitivity. Supplemental breast MRI screening can significantly increase cancer detection among women with dense breasts. However, few women undergo this exam, and screening is consistently lower among racially minoritized populations. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics ("nudges") can promote evidence-based practices by improving clinician decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. Nudges directed toward clinicians and patients may facilitate the implementation of supplemental breast MRI. METHODS: Approximately 1600 patients identified as having extremely dense breasts after non-actionable mammograms, along with about 1100 clinicians involved with their care at 32 primary care or OB/GYN clinics across a racially diverse academically based health system, will be enrolled. A 2 × 2 randomized pragmatic trial will test nudges to patients, clinicians, both, or neither to promote supplemental breast MRI screening. Before implementation, rapid cycle approaches informed by clinician and patient experiences and behavioral economics and health equity frameworks guided nudge design. Clinicians will be clustered into clinic groups based on existing administrative departments and care patterns, and these clinic groups will be randomized to have the nudge activated at different times per a stepped wedge design. Clinicians will receive nudges integrated into the routine mammographic report or sent through electronic health record (EHR) in-basket messaging once their clinic group (i.e., wedge) is randomized to receive the intervention. Independently, patients will be randomized to receive text message nudges or not. The primary outcome will be defined as ordering or scheduling supplemental breast MRI. Secondary outcomes include MRI completion, cancer detection rates, and false-positive rates. Patient sociodemographic information and clinic-level variables will be examined as moderators of nudge effectiveness. Qualitative interviews conducted at the trial's conclusion will examine barriers and facilitators to implementation. DISCUSSION: This study will add to the growing literature on the effectiveness of behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies to promote evidence-based interventions. The design will facilitate testing the relative effects of nudges to patients and clinicians and the effects of moderators of nudge effectiveness, including key indicators of health disparities. The results may inform the introduction of low-cost, scalable implementation strategies to promote early breast cancer detection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05787249. Registered on March 28, 2023.

Cluster Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial Testing Behavioral Economic Implementation Strategies to Improve Tobacco Treatment for Patients With Cancer Who Smoke.

PURPOSE: Few cancer centers systematically engage patients with evidence-based tobacco treatment despite its positive effect on quality of life and survival. Implementation strategies directed at patients, clinicians, or both may increase tobacco use treatment (TUT) within oncology. METHODS: We conducted a four-arm cluster-randomized pragmatic trial across 11 clinical sites comparing the effect of strategies informed by behavioral economics on TUT engagement during oncology encounters with cancer patients. We delivered electronic health record (EHR)-based nudges promoting TUT across four nudge conditions: patient only, clinician only, patient and clinician, or usual care. Nudges were designed to counteract cognitive biases that reduce TUT engagement. The primary outcome was TUT penetration, defined as the proportion of patients with documented TUT referral or a medication prescription in the EHR. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the parameters of a linear model. RESULTS: From June 2021 to July 2022, we randomly assigned 246 clinicians in 95 clusters, and collected TUT penetration data from their encounters with 2,146 eligible patients who smoke receiving oncologic care. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the clinician nudge led to a significant increase in TUT penetration versus usual care (35.6% v 13.5%; OR = 3.64; 95% CI, 2.52 to 5.24; P < .0001). Completer-only analysis (N = 1,795) showed similar impact (37.7% clinician nudge v 13.5% usual care; OR = 3.77; 95% CI, 2.73 to 5.19; P < .0001). Clinician type affected TUT penetration, with physicians less likely to provide TUT than advanced practice providers (ITT OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.88; P = .004). CONCLUSION: EHR nudges, informed by behavioral economics and aimed at oncology clinicians, appear to substantially increase TUT penetration. Adding patient nudges to the implementation strategy did not affect TUT penetration rates.

Breast cancer molecular diagnostics in Rwanda: a cost-minimization study of immunohistochemistry versus a novel GeneXpert® mRNA expression assay.

Objective: To compare the financial and time cost of breast cancer biomarker analysis by immunohistochemistry with that by the Xpert® STRAT4 assay. Methods: We estimated costs (personnel, location, consumables and indirect) and time involved in breast cancer diagnosis at the Butaro Cancer Centre of Excellence, Rwanda, using time-driven activity-based costing. We performed a cost-minimization analysis to compare the cost of biomarker analysis for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 status with immunohistochemistry versus STRAT4. We performed sensitivity analyses by altering laboratory-specific parameters for the two methods. Findings: We estimated that breast cancer diagnosis in Rwanda costs 138.29 United States dollars (US$) per patient when conducting biomarker analysis by immunohistochemistry. At a realistic immunohistochemistry antibody utilization efficiency of 70%, biomarker analysis comprises 48.7% (US$ 67.33) of diagnostic costs and takes 33 min. We determined that biomarker analysis with STRAT4 yields a reduction in diagnosis cost of US$ 7.33 (10.9%; 7.33/67.33), and in pathologist and technician time of 20 min (60.6%; 20/33), per patient. Our sensitivity analysis revealed that no cost savings would be made in laboratories with antibody utilization efficiencies over 90%, or where only estrogen and/or progesterone receptor status are assessed; however, such operational efficiencies are unlikely, and more laboratories are pursuing human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 analysis as targeted therapies become increasingly available. Conclusion: Breast cancer biomarker analysis with STRAT4 has the potential to reduce the required human and capital resources in sub-Saharan African laboratories, leading to improved treatment selection and better clinical outcomes.

Access to and Affordability of World Health Organization Essential Medicines for Cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa: Examples from Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Cancer mortality is high in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), partly due to inadequate treatment access. We explored access to and affordability of cancer treatment regimens for the top 10 cancers utilizing examples from Kenya, Uganda, and Rwanda. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Population, healthcare financing, minimum wage, and cancer incidence and mortality data were obtained from the WHO, World Bank, public sources, and GLOBOCAN. National Essential Medicines List (NEML) alignment with 2019 WHO EML was assessed as a proportion. Cancer regimen pricing was calculated using public and proprietary sources and methods from prior studies. Affordability through universal healthcare coverage (UHC) was assessed as 1-year cost <3× gross national income per capita; and to patients out-of-pocket (OOP), as 30-day treatment course cost <1 day of minimum wage work. RESULTS: A total of 93.4% of the WHO EML cancer medicines were listed on the 2019 Kenya NEML, and 70.5% and 41.1% on Uganda (2016) and Rwanda (2015) NEMLs, respectively. Generic chemotherapies were available and affordable to governments through UHC to treat non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, cervical, breast, prostate, colorectal, ovarian cancers, and select leukemias. Newer targeted agents were not affordable through government UHC purchasing, while some capecitabine-based regimens were not affordable in Uganda and Rwanda. All therapies were not affordable OOP. CONCLUSION: All cancer treatment regimens were not affordable OOP and some were not covered by governments. Newer targeted drugs were not affordable to all 3 governments. UHC of cancer drugs and improving targeted therapy affordability to LMIC governments in SSA are key to improving treatment access and health outcomes.

Health system costs of a breast cancer early diagnosis programme in a rural district of Rwanda: a retrospective, cross-sectional economic analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to quantify the health system cost of the first 2 years of a Breast Cancer Early Detection (BCED) programme in a rural district in Rwanda. We also aimed to estimate the cost of implementing the programme in other districts with different referral pathways and identify opportunities for enhanced cost efficiency. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis using time-driven activity-based costing, based on timed patient clinical encounters, retrospective patient data and unit costs of resources abstracted from administrative and finance records. SETTING: The BCED programme focused on timely evaluation of individuals with breast symptoms. The study evaluated the health system cost of the BCED programme at seven health centres (HCs) in Burera district and Butaro Cancer Centre of Excellence (BCCOE) at Butaro District Hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES: Health system costs per patient visit and cost per cancer diagnosed were quantified. Total start-up and recurring operational costs were also estimated, as well as health system costs of different scale-up adaptations in other districts. RESULTS: One-time start-up costswere US$36 917, recurring operational costswere US$67 711 and clinical costswere US$14 824 over 2 years. Clinical breast examinations (CBE) at HCs cost US$3.27/visit. At BCCOE, CBE-only visits cost US$13.47/visit, CBE/ultrasound US$14.79/visit and CBE/ultrasound/biopsy/pathology US$147.81/visit. Overall, clinical cost per breast cancer diagnosed was US$1482. Clinicalcost drivers were personnel at HCs (55%) and biopsy/pathology supplies at BCCOE (46%). In other districts, patients experience a longer breast evaluation pathway, adding about US$14.00/patient; this could be decreased if ultrasound services were decentralised. CONCLUSION: Clinical costs associated with BCED services at HCs were modest, similar to other general outpatient services. The BCED programme's start-up and operational costs were high but could be reduced by using local trainers and virtual mentorship. In other districts, decentralising ultrasound and/or biopsies to district hospitals could reduce costs.

Toward Improved Outcomes for Patients With Lung Cancer Globally: The Essential Role of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine.

PURPOSE: Key to achieving better population-based outcomes for patients with lung cancer is the improvement of medical imaging and nuclear medicine infrastructure globally. This paper aims to outline why and spark relevant health systems strengthening. METHODS: The paper synthesizes the global lung cancer landscape, imaging referral guidelines (including resource-stratified ones), the reliance of TNM staging upon imaging, relevant multinational health technology assessments, and precisely how treatment selection and in turn patient outcomes hinge upon imaging findings. The final discussion presents data on current global gaps in both diagnostics (including imaging) and therapies and how, informed by such data, improved population-based outcomes are tangible through strategic planning. RESULTS: Imaging findings are central to appropriate lung cancer patient management and can variably lead to life-prolonging interventions and/or to life-enhancing palliative measures. Early-stage lung cancer can be treated with curative intent but, unfortunately, most patients with lung cancer still present at advanced stages and many patients lack access to both diagnostics and therapies. Furthermore, half of lung cancer cases occur in low- and middle-income countries. The role of medical imaging and nuclear medicine in lung cancer management, as outlined herein, may help inform strategic planning. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer worldwide. The essential role that medical imaging and nuclear medicine play in early diagnosis and disease staging cannot be overstated, pivotal in selecting the many patients for whom measurably improved outcomes are attainable. Prevention synergized with patient-centered, compassionate, high-quality lung cancer management provision mandate that strategic population-based planning, including universal health coverage strategies, should extend well beyond the scope of disease prevention to include both curative and noncurative treatment options for the millions afflicted with lung cancer.

Cervical cancer treatment in Rwanda: Resource-driven adaptations, quality indicators, and patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Most cervical cancer cases and deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, yet clinical research from these contexts is significantly underrepresented. We aimed to describe the treatment quality, resource-driven adaptations, and outcomes of cervical cancer patients in Rwanda. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all patients with newly diagnosed cervical cancer enrolled between April 2016 and June 2018. Data were abstracted from medical records and analyzed using descriptive statistics, Kaplan Meier methods, and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: A total of 379 patients were included; median age 54 years, 21% HIV-infected. A majority (55%) had stage III or IV disease. Thirty-four early-stage patients underwent radical hysterectomy. Of 254 patients added to a waiting list for chemoradiation, 114 ultimately received chemoradiation. Of these, 30 (26%) received upfront chemoradiation after median 126 days from diagnosis, and 83 (73%) received carboplatin/paclitaxel while waiting, with a median 56 days from diagnosis to chemotherapy and 207 days to chemoradiation. There was no survival difference between the upfront chemoradiation and prior chemotherapy subgroups. Most chemotherapy recipients (77%) reported improvement in symptoms. Three-year event-free survival was 90% with radical hysterectomy (95% CI 72-97%), 66% with chemoradiation (95% CI 55-75%), and 12% with chemotherapy only (95% CI 6-20%). CONCLUSIONS: Multi-modality treatment of cervical cancer is effective in low resource settings through coordinated care and pragmatic approaches. Our data support a role for temporizing chemotherapy if delays to chemoradiation are anticipated. Sustainable access to gynecologic oncology surgery and expanded access to radiotherapy are urgently needed.

Behavioral economic implementation strategies to improve serious illness communication between clinicians and high-risk patients with cancer: protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: Serious illness conversations (SICs) are an evidence-based approach to eliciting patients' values, goals, and care preferences that improve patient outcomes. However, most patients with cancer die without a documented SIC. Clinician-directed implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics ("nudges") that identify high-risk patients have shown promise in increasing SIC documentation among clinicians. It is unknown whether patient-directed nudges that normalize and prime patients towards SIC completion-either alone or in combination with clinician nudges that additionally compare performance relative to peers-may improve on this approach. Our objective is to test the effect of clinician- and patient-directed nudges as implementation strategies for increasing SIC completion among patients with cancer. METHODS: We will conduct a 2 × 2 factorial, cluster randomized pragmatic trial to test the effect of nudges to clinicians, patients, or both, compared to usual care, on SIC completion. Participants will include 166 medical and gynecologic oncology clinicians practicing at ten sites within a large academic health system and their approximately 5500 patients at high risk of predicted 6-month mortality based on a validated machine-learning prognostic algorithm. Data will be obtained via the electronic medical record, clinician survey, and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and patients. The primary outcome will be time to SIC documentation among high-risk patients. Secondary outcomes will include time to SIC documentation among all patients (assessing spillover effects), palliative care referral among high-risk patients, and aggressive end-of-life care utilization (composite of chemotherapy within 14 days before death, hospitalization within 30 days before death, or admission to hospice within 3 days before death) among high-risk decedents. We will assess moderators of the effect of implementation strategies and conduct semi-structured interviews with a subset of clinicians and patients to assess contextual factors that shape the effectiveness of nudges with an eye towards health equity. DISCUSSION: This will be the first pragmatic trial to evaluate clinician- and patient-directed nudges to promote SIC completion for patients with cancer. We expect the study to yield insights into the effectiveness of clinician and patient nudges as implementation strategies to improve SIC rates, and to uncover multilevel contextual factors that drive response to these strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04867850 . Registered on April 30, 2021. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute P50CA244690.

Rationale and protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to improve tobacco treatment rates for cancer patients who smoke.

BACKGROUND: Routine evidence-based tobacco use treatment minimizes cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, reduces treatment-related toxicity, and improves quality of life among patients receiving cancer care. Few cancer centers employ mechanisms to systematically refer patients to evidence-based tobacco cessation services. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics can increase tobacco use treatment engagement within oncology care. METHODS: A four-arm cluster-randomized pragmatic trial will be conducted across nine clinical sites within the Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control Implementation Lab to compare the effect of behavioral economic implementation strategies delivered through embedded messages (or "nudges") promoting patient engagement with the Tobacco Use Treatment Service (TUTS). Nudges are electronic medical record (EMR)-based messages delivered to patients, clinicians, or both, designed to counteract known patient and clinician biases that reduce treatment engagement. We used rapid cycle approaches (RCA) informed by relevant stakeholder experiences to refine and optimize our implementation strategies and methods prior to trial initiation. Data will be obtained via the EMR, clinician survey, and semi-structured interviews with a subset of clinicians and patients. The primary measure of implementation is penetration, defined as the TUTS referral rate. Secondary outcome measures of implementation include patient treatment engagement (defined as the number of patients who receive FDA-approved medication or behavioral counseling), quit attempts, and abstinence rates. The semi-structured interviews, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, will assess contextual factors and patient and clinician experiences with the nudges. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first in the oncology setting to compare the effectiveness of nudges to clinicians and patients, both head-to-head and in combination, as implementation strategies to improve TUTS referral and engagement. We expect the study to (1) yield insights into the effectiveness of nudges as an implementation strategy to improve uptake of evidence-based tobacco use treatment within cancer care, and (2) advance our understanding of the multilevel contextual factors that drive response to these strategies. These results will lay the foundation for how patients with cancer who smoke are best engaged in tobacco use treatment and may lead to future research focused on scaling this approach across diverse centers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04737031 . Registered 3 February 2021.

Medical imaging and nuclear medicine: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

The diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer requires access to imaging to ensure accurate management decisions and optimal outcomes. Our global assessment of imaging and nuclear medicine resources identified substantial shortages in equipment and workforce, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). A microsimulation model of 11 cancers showed that the scale-up of imaging would avert 3·2% (2·46 million) of all 76·0 million deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide between 2020 and 2030, saving 54·92 million life-years. A comprehensive scale-up of imaging, treatment, and care quality would avert 9·55 million (12·5%) of all cancer deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide, saving 232·30 million life-years. Scale-up of imaging would cost US$6·84 billion in 2020-30 but yield lifetime productivity gains of $1·23 trillion worldwide, a net return of $179·19 per $1 invested. Combining the scale-up of imaging, treatment, and quality of care would provide a net benefit of $2·66 trillion and a net return of $12·43 per $1 invested. With the use of a conservative approach regarding human capital, the scale-up of imaging alone would provide a net benefit of $209·46 billion and net return of $31·61 per $1 invested. With comprehensive scale-up, the worldwide net benefit using the human capital approach is $340·42 billion and the return per dollar invested is $2·46. These improved health and economic outcomes hold true across all geographical regions. We propose actions and investments that would enhance access to imaging equipment, workforce capacity, digital technology, radiopharmaceuticals, and research and training programmes in LMICs, to produce massive health and economic benefits and reduce the burden of cancer globally.

COVID-19 guidance for triage of operations for thoracic malignancies: A consensus statement from Thoracic Surgery Outcomes Research Network.

The extraordinary demands of managing the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the world's ability to care for patients with thoracic malignancies. As a hospital's COVID-19 population increases and hospital resources are depleted, the ability to provide surgical care is progressively restricted, forcing surgeons to prioritize among their cancer populations. Representatives from multiple cancer, surgical, and research organizations have come together to provide a guide for triaging patients with thoracic malignancies as the impact of COVID-19 evolves as each hospital.

Management of Lung Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a devastating impact around the world. With high rates of transmission and no curative therapies or vaccine yet available, the current cornerstone of management focuses on prevention by social distancing. This includes decreased health care contact for patients. Patients with lung cancer are a particularly vulnerable population, where the risk of mortality from cancer must now be balanced by the potential risk of a life-threatening infection. In these unprecedented times, a collaborative and multidisciplinary approach is required to streamline but not compromise care. We have developed guidelines at our academic cancer center to standardize management of patients with lung cancer across our health care system and provide guidance to the larger oncology community. We recommend that general principles of lung cancer treatment continue to be followed in most cases where delays could result in rapid cancer progression. We recognize that our recommendations may change over time based on clinical resources and the evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic. In principle, however, treatment paradigms must continue to be individualized, with careful consideration of risks and benefits of continuing or altering lung cancer-directed therapy.

Personalized Cancer Follow-Up Care Pathways: A Delphi Consensus of Research Priorities.

Development of personalized, stratified follow-up care pathways where care intensity and setting vary with needs could improve cancer survivor outcomes and efficiency of health-care delivery. Advancing such an approach in the United States requires identification and prioritization of the most pressing research and data needed to create and implement personalized care pathway models. Cancer survivorship research and care experts (n = 39) participated in an in-person workshop on this topic in 2018. Using a modified Delphi technique-a structured, validated system for identifying consensus-an expert panel identified critical research questions related to operationalizing personalized, stratified follow-up care pathways for individuals diagnosed with cancer. Consensus for the top priority research questions was achieved iteratively through 3 rounds: item generation, item consolidation, and selection of the final list of priority research questions. From the 28 research questions that were generated, 11 research priority questions were identified. The questions were categorized into 4 priority themes: determining outcome measures for new care pathways, developing and evaluating new care pathways, incentivizing new care pathway delivery, and providing technology and infrastructure to support self-management. Existing data sources to begin answering questions were also identified. Although existing data sources, including cancer registry, electronic medical record, and health insurance claims data, can be enhanced to begin addressing some questions, additional research resources are needed to address these priority questions.

Association of Medicaid Expansion Under the Affordable Care Act With Insurance Status, Cancer Stage, and Timely Treatment Among Patients With Breast, Colon, and Lung Cancer.

Importance: The effect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion on cancer care delivery and outcomes is unknown. Patients with cancer are a high-risk group for whom treatment delays are particularly detrimental. Objective: To examine the association between Medicaid expansion and changes in insurance status, stage at diagnosis, and timely treatment among patients with incident breast, colon, and non-small cell lung cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quasi-experimental, difference-in-differences (DID) cross-sectional study included nonelderly adults (aged 40-64 years) with a new diagnosis of invasive breast, colon, or non-small cell lung cancer from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2016, in the National Cancer Database, a hospital-based registry capturing more than 70% of incident cancer diagnoses in the United States. Data were analyzed from March 8 to August 15, 2019. Exposures: Residence in a state that expanded Medicaid on January 1, 2014. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were insurance status, cancer stage, and timely treatment within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis. Results: A total of 925 543 patients (78.6% women; mean [SD] age, 55.0 [6.5] years; 14.2% black; and 5.7% Hispanic) had a new diagnosis of invasive breast (58.9%), colon (14.6%), or non-small cell lung (26.5%) cancer; 48.3% resided in Medicaid expansion states and 51.7% resided in nonexpansion states. Compared with nonexpansion states, the percentage of uninsured patients decreased more in expansion states (adjusted DID, -0.7 [95% CI, -1.2 to -0.3] percentage points), and the percentage of early-stage cancer diagnoses rose more in expansion states (adjusted DID, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.2] percentage points). Among the 848 329 patients who underwent cancer-directed therapy within 365 days of diagnosis, the percentage treated within 30 days declined from 52.7% before to 48.0% after expansion in expansion states (difference, -4.7 [95% CI, -5.1 to -4.5] percentage points). In nonexpansion states, this percentage declined from 56.9% to 51.5% (difference, -5.4 [95% CI, -5.6 to -5.1] percentage points), yielding no statistically significant DID in timely treatment associated with Medicaid expansion (adjusted DID, 0.6 [95% CI, -0.2 to 1.4] percentage points). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that, among patients with incident breast, colon, and lung cancer, Medicaid expansion was associated with a decreased rate of uninsured patients and increased rate of early-stage cancer diagnosis; no evidence of improvement or decrement in the rate of timely treatment was found. Further research is warranted to understand Medicaid expansion's effect on the treatment patterns and health outcomes of patients with cancer.