Colorectal Cancer Safety Net: Is It Catching Patients Appropriately?

BACKGROUND: Disparities in access to colorectal cancer care are multifactorial and are affected by socioeconomic elements. Uninsured and Medicaid patients present with advanced stage disease and have worse outcomes compared with similar privately insured patients. Safety net hospitals are a major care provider to this vulnerable population. Few studies have evaluated outcomes for safety net hospitals compared with private institutions in colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare demographics, screening rates, presentation stage, and survival rates between a safety net hospital and a tertiary care center. DESIGN: Comparative review of patients at 2 institutions in the same metropolitan area were conducted. SETTINGS: The study included colorectal cancer care delivered either at 1 safety net hospital or 1 private tertiary care center in the same city from 2010 to 2016. PATIENTS: A total of 350 patients with colorectal cancer from each hospital were evaluated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall survival across hospital systems was measured. RESULTS: The safety net hospital had significantly more uninsured and Medicaid patients (46% vs 13%; p < 0.001) and a significantly lower median household income than the tertiary care center ($39,299 vs $49,741; p < 0.0001). At initial presentation, a similar percentage of patients at each hospital presented with stage IV disease (26% vs 20%; p = 0.06). For those undergoing resection, final pathologic stage distribution was similar across groups (p = 0.10). After a comparable median follow-up period (26.6 mo for safety net hospital vs 29.2 mo for tertiary care center), log-rank test for overall survival favored the safety net hospital (p = 0.05); disease-free survival was similar between hospitals (p = 0.40). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective review, reporting from medical charts. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the value of safety net hospitals for providing quality colorectal cancer care, with survival and recurrence outcomes equivalent or improved compared with a local tertiary care center. Because safety net hospitals can provide equivalent outcomes despite socioeconomic inequalities and financial constraints, emphasis should be focused on ensuring that adequate funding for these institutions continues. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A454.

Multi-institutional assessment of sphincter preservation for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Sphincter-preserving surgery (SPS) has been proposed as a quality measure for rectal cancer surgery. However, previous studies on SPS rates lack critical clinical characteristics, rendering it unclear if variation in SPS rates is due to unmeasured case-mix differences or surgeons' selection criteria. In this context, we investigate the variation in SPS rates at various practice settings. METHODS: Ten hospitals in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative collected rectal cancer-specific data, including tumor location and reasons for non-SPS, of patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery from 2007 to 2012. Hospitals were divided into terciles of SPS rates (frequent, average, and infrequent). Patients were categorized as 'definitely SPS eligible' a priori if they did not have any of the following: sphincter involvement, tumor <6 cm from the anal verge, fecal incontinence, stoma preference, or metastatic disease. Fixed-effects logistic regression was used to evaluate for factors associated with SPS. RESULTS: In total, 329 patients underwent rectal cancer surgery at 10 hospitals (5/10 higher volume, and 6/10 major teaching). Overall, 72 % had SPS (range by hospital 47-91 %). Patient and tumor characteristics were similar between hospital terciles. On multivariable analysis, only hospital ID, younger age, and tumor location were associated with SPS, but not sex, race, body mass index, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, preoperative radiation, or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class. Analysis of the 181 (55 %) 'definitely-eligible' patients revealed an SPS rate of 90 % (65-100 %). CONCLUSIONS: SPS rates vary by hospital, even after accounting for clinical characteristics using detailed chart review. These data suggest missed opportunities for SPS, and refute the general hypothesis that hospital variation in previous studies is due to unmeasured case-mix differences.