Incident Cases Captured in the National Cancer Database Compared with Those in U.S. Population Based Central Cancer Registries in 2012-2014.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) is a hospital-based cancer registry that includes diagnostic, staging, treatment, and outcomes data for newly diagnosed cancer patients in the United States. The NCDB data include 31 million records for patients diagnosed between 1985-2015. A Participant User File based on a subset of these data has been available to researchers at facilities accredited by the Commission on Cancer since 2010. This study aimed to compare the number of incident cancer cases in the NCDB with a national population cancer registry. METHODS: Incident cancer cases in the NCDB in 2012-2014 were compared with the number of cancer cases in the United States Cancer Statistics data for the 2012-2014 diagnosis years. Comparisons were made by primary site and other factors. RESULTS: In 2012-2014, the NCDB captured 72% of the cancer cases in the United States, which was slightly higher than the 67% and 69% reported respectively in two prior assessments. Among the top 10 major cancer sites, the highest coverage (80%) was found for breast cancer, and the lowest was found for melanoma of the skin (52%) and prostate (58%). Colon, bladder, and kidney and renal pelvis cancers had relatively high coverage of 71%, 70% and 78%, respectively, whereas lung and bronchus had slightly lower coverage (65%). CONCLUSIONS: The NCDB coverage of U.S. cancer cases has remained relatively high (72%), but differences remain by cancer site and other factors that should be taken into account by users of the NCDB data.

Positive Practice Changes After the COVID-19 Pandemic: From the Advanced Practice Provider Perspective.

At the opening session of JADPRO Live Virtual 2021, panelists shared creative responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and considered strategies to effectively respond to crises that may impact cancer patients and practices in the future.

Feasibility of mobile cancer screening and prevention.

Many areas have high cancer mortality rates and medically underserved populations. This study describes the feasibility (acceptability and costs) of an urban multiphasic (multiple cancers) screening van. Feasibility was evaluated by literature review and informant interviews. Costs were estimated by resource use from urban mobile screening units; decision analysis estimated the costs per cancer detected for breast, cervix, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening. Acceptability of a multiphasic van varied by the informant's perspective. Feasibility and costs were most sensitive to four parameters: age, prior screening history, risk factors, and volume of simultaneous examinations. Subsidized mobile screening facilities may have the potential to reduce cancer morbidity and mortality if they target hard-to-reach underscreened groups, maintain high volume, coordinate with primary care providers, and build on an infrastructure that provides diagnostic and treatment services regardless of ability to pay. It is unclear whether the investment required will translate into a reasonable cost per year of life saved.

Factors in quality care--the case of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests--problems in the steps and interfaces of care.

To achieve the benefit of cancer screening, appropriate follow-up of abnormal screening test results must occur. Such follow-up requires traversing the transition between screening detection and diagnosis, including several steps and interfaces in care. This article reviews factors and interventions associated with follow-up of abnormal tests for cervical, breast and colorectal cancers. We synthesized 12 reviews of descriptive and intervention studies published between 1980 and 2008. There was wide variability in definition of follow-up, setting, study population, and reported prevalence rates. Correlates of follow-up included patient characteristics (eg, knowledge and age), social support, provider characteristics, practice (eg, having reminders systems), community and professional norms (eg, quality measures), and policy (eg, federal programs). Effective interventions included patient education and support; delivery systems design changes, such as navigation; and information system changes, most notably patient tracking and physician reminders. Few studies focused explicitly on interfaces and steps of care, such as communication between primary care and specialists, or simultaneously targeted the multilevel factors that affect care. Future practice and research priorities should include development of clear operational definitions of the steps and interfaces related to patients, providers, and organizations; reflect evolving guidelines and new technologies; determine priorities for intervention testing; and improve measures and apply appropriate study designs.