Cancer diagnosis and treatment in working-age adults: Implications for employment, health insurance coverage, and financial hardship in the United States.

The rising costs of cancer care and subsequent medical financial hardship for cancer survivors and families are well documented in the United States. Less attention has been paid to employment disruptions and loss of household income after a cancer diagnosis and during treatment, potentially resulting in lasting financial hardship, particularly for working-age adults not yet age-eligible for Medicare coverage and their families. In this article, the authors use a composite patient case to illustrate the adverse consequences of cancer diagnosis and treatment for employment, health insurance coverage, household income, and other aspects of financial hardship. They summarize existing research and provide nationally representative estimates of multiple aspects of financial hardship and health insurance coverage, benefit design, and employee benefits, such as paid sick leave, among working-age adults with a history of cancer and compare them with estimates among working-age adults without a history of cancer from the most recently available years of the National Health Interview Survey (2019-2021). Then, the authors identify opportunities for addressing employment and health insurance coverage challenges at multiple levels, including federal, state, and local policies; employers; cancer care delivery organizations; and nonprofit organizations. These efforts, when informed by research to identify best practices, can potentially help mitigate the financial hardship associated with cancer.

Time to add screening for financial hardship as a quality measure?

Cancer treatment is associated with financial hardship for many patients and families. Screening for financial hardship and referrals to appropriate resources for mitigation are not currently part of most clinical practices. In fact, discussions regarding the cost of treatment occur infrequently in clinical practice. As the cost of cancer treatment continues to rise, the need to mitigate adverse consequences of financial hardship grows more urgent. The introduction of quality measurement and reporting has been successful in establishing standards of care, reducing disparities in receipt of care, and improving other aspects of cancer care outcomes within and across providers. The authors propose the development and adoption of financial hardship screening and management as an additional quality metric for oncology practices. They suggest relevant stakeholders, conveners, and approaches for developing, testing, and implementing a screening and management tool and advocate for endorsement by organizations such as the National Quality Forum and professional societies for oncology care clinicians. The confluence of increasingly high-cost care and widening disparities in ability to pay because of underinsurance and lack of health insurance coverage makes a strong argument to take steps to mitigate the financial consequences of cancer.

Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends that individuals with a cervix initiate cervical cancer screening at age 25 years and undergo primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years through age 65 years (preferred); if primary HPV testing is not available, then individuals aged 25 to 65 years should be screened with cotesting (HPV testing in combination with cytology) every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years (acceptable) (strong recommendation). The ACS recommends that individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening (qualified recommendation). These new screening recommendations differ in 4 important respects compared with the 2012 recommendations: 1) The preferred screening strategy is primary HPV testing every 5 years, with cotesting and cytology alone acceptable where access to US Food and Drug Administration-approved primary HPV testing is not yet available; 2) the recommended age to start screening is 25 years rather than 21 years; 3) primary HPV testing, as well as cotesting or cytology alone when primary testing is not available, is recommended starting at age 25 years rather than age 30 years; and 4) the guideline is transitional, ie, options for screening with cotesting or cytology alone are provided but should be phased out once full access to primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening is available without barriers. Evidence related to other relevant issues was reviewed, and no changes were made to recommendations for screening intervals, age or criteria for screening cessation, screening based on vaccination status, or screening after hysterectomy. Follow-up for individuals who screen positive for HPV and/or cytology should be in accordance with the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Longitudinal varying coefficient single-index model with censored covariates.

It is of interest to health policy research to estimate the population-averaged longitudinal medical cost trajectory from initial cancer diagnosis to death, and understand how the trajectory curve is affected by patient characteristics. This research question leads to a number of statistical challenges because the longitudinal cost data are often non-normally distributed with skewness, zero-inflation, and heteroscedasticity. The trajectory is nonlinear, and its length and shape depend on survival, which are subject to censoring. Modeling the association between multiple patient characteristics and nonlinear cost trajectory curves of varying lengths should take into consideration parsimony, flexibility, and interpretation. We propose a novel longitudinal varying coefficient single-index model. Multiple patient characteristics are summarized in a single-index, representing a patient's overall propensity for healthcare use. The effects of this index on various segments of the cost trajectory depend on both time and survival, which is flexibly modeled by a bivariate varying coefficient function. The model is estimated by generalized estimating equations with an extended marginal mean structure to accommodate censored survival time as a covariate. We established the pointwise confidence interval of the varying coefficient and a test for the covariate effect. The numerical performance was extensively studied in simulations. We applied the proposed methodology to medical cost data of prostate cancer patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-Linked Database.

Work Productivity Among Younger Breast Cancer Survivors: The Impact of Behavioral Interventions for Depression.

OBJECTIVES: The Pathways to Wellness randomized controlled trial found that 2 behavioral interventions, mindfulness awareness practices and survivorship education, reduced depressive symptoms in younger breast cancer survivors (BCSs) compared with wait-list control. This secondary analysis examines whether the interventions led to reduced loss of work productivity among younger BCSs and whether such reductions were mediated by reductions in depressive symptoms. METHODS: The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scale was used to measure work productivity loss at 4 assessment time points. Correlates of productivity loss at enrollment were examined using multivariable linear regression. Differences in change over time in productivity loss between each intervention group and control were assessed using linear mixed models. Reduced depressive symptoms were tested as a mediator of reduced productivity loss. RESULTS: Of 247 trial participants, 199 were employed and included in the analyses. At enrollment, higher productivity loss was associated with chemotherapy receipt (P = .003), younger age (P = .021), more severe cognitive problems (P = .002), higher musculoskeletal pain severity (P = .002), more depressive symptoms (P = .016), and higher fatigue severity (P = .033). The mindfulness intervention led to significantly less productivity loss compared with control at all 3 postintervention assessment points (all P < .05), with about 54% of the effect mediated by reduction in depressive symptoms. Survivorship education was not associated with reduced loss of productivity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that addressing depressive symptoms through behavioral interventions, such as mindfulness, may mitigate impacts on work productivity in younger BCSs.

In-Clinic vs. Online Recruitment of Women with a History of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Cervical Cancer to a Smoking Cessation Trial: A Post-hoc Comparison of Participant Characteristics, Study Retention, and Cessation Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Recruiting special populations to smoking cessation trials is challenging and approaches beyond in-clinic recruitment may be beneficial. This secondary analysis of data from a smoking cessation RCT for individuals with a history of cervical cancer or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) explored differences associated with in-clinic vs. online recruitment. METHODS: Participants were recruited from clinics within a university-based NCI-designated cancer center (n=87) and online nationally via Facebook (n=115). Baseline measures included sociodemographics, smoking history, and cancer or CIN history. Study retention and smoking abstinence were assessed 12 months post-baseline. Group differences in baseline characteristics were evaluated. Retention and abstinence were evaluated while controlling for group differences and predictors. RESULTS: Participants recruited online (vs. in-clinic) had higher educational attainment (p=.01) and health literacy (p=.003). They were more likely to have CIN vs. cancer, to be further from the time of diagnosis, and to have completed active treatment (p values<.001). While controlling for these group differences and independent predictors, retention was higher among participants recruited online (log-likelihood χ2(1)=11.41, p<.001). There were no recruitment differences in self-reported (p=.90) or biochemically confirmed smoking abstinence (p=.18). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to individuals recruited in-person, individuals recruited online were more educated, had higher health literacy, and presented with a different clinical profile (i.e., more likely to have CIN vs. cancer and to have completed active treatment). There were few differences in participant characteristics between recruitment approaches, and no differences on any smoking-related variables. Online recruitment has the potential to improve enrollment of cancer survivors to smoking cessation trials. IMPLICATIONS: People with a history of CIN or cervical cancer recruited to a smoking cessation RCT online (vs. in-clinic) were more likely to have a diagnosis of CIN vs. cancer and were more educated and health literate. Participants recruited online were more likely to be retained in the study and there were no differences in smoking abstinence rates at 12-months. Incorporating online recruitment increased the reach of tobacco treatment efforts to a larger and more diverse sample. This could reduce the burden of tobacco-related disease, improve CIN and cancer treatment outcomes, and reduce secondary malignancies and morbidity among this underserved group.

Oncologist Participation and Performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System.

The merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) is a value-based payment model created by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to promote high-value care through performance-based adjustments of Medicare reimbursements. In this cross-sectional study, we examined the participation and performance of oncologists in the 2019 MIPS. Oncologist participation was low (86%) compared to all-specialty participation (97%). After adjusting for practice characteristics, higher MIPS scores were observed among oncologists with alternative payment models (APMs) as their filing source (mean score, 91 for APMs vs. 77.6 for individuals; difference, 13.41 [95% CI, 12.21, 14.6]), indicating the importance of greater organizational resources for participants. Lower scores were associated with greater patient complexity (mean score, 83.4 for highest quintile vs. 84.9 for lowest quintile, difference, -1.43 [95% CI, -2.48, -0.37]), suggesting the need for better risk-adjustment by CMS. Our findings may guide future efforts to improve oncologist engagement in MIPS.

Cost-Effectiveness of Medication Therapy Management Program Across Racial and Ethnic Groups Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: Equity and effectiveness of the medication therapy management (MTM) program in Medicare has been a policy focus since its inception. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Medicare MTM program in improving medication utilization quality across racial and ethnic groups. METHODS: This study analyzed 2017 Medicare data linked to the Area Health Recourses File. A propensity score was used to match MTM enrollees and nonenrollees, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between the 2 groups was calculated. Effectiveness was measured as the proportion of appropriate medication utilization based on medication utilization measures developed by Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Net monetary benefits were compared across racial and ethnic groups at various societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. The 95% confidence intervals were obtained by nonparametric bootstrapping. RESULTS: MTM dominated non-MTM among the total sample (N = 699 992), as MTM enrollees had lower healthcare costs ($31 135.89 vs $32 696.69) and higher proportions of appropriate medication utilization (87.47% vs 85.31%) than nonenrollees. MTM enrollees had both lower medication costs ($10 681.21 vs $11 003.08) and medical costs ($20 454.68 vs $21 693.61) compared with nonenrollees. The cost-effectiveness of MTM was higher among Black patients than White patients across the WTP thresholds. For instance, at a WTP of $3006 per percentage point increase in effectiveness, the net monetary benefit for Black patients was greater than White patients by $2334.57 (95% confidence interval $1606.53-$3028.85). CONCLUSIONS: MTM is cost-effective in improving medication utilization quality among Medicare beneficiaries and can potentially reduce disparities between Black and White patients. Expansion of the current MTM program could maximize these benefits.

Smoking cessation services and shared decision-making practices among lung cancer screening facilities: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how screening facilities are meeting the requirements for the reimbursement of lung cancer screening from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), including 1) the collection and submission of data to the CMS-approved registry (American College of Radiology [ACR] Lung Cancer Screening Registry), 2) the verification of a counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) visit having occurred as part of the written order for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography, and 3) the offering of smoking cessation interventions. METHODS: The authors identified facilities in a southwestern state that were listed by either the ACR Lung Cancer Screening Registry or the GO2 Foundation Centers of Excellence. To select facilities, they used 2 purposive sampling approaches: maximum variation sampling and snowball sampling. They surveyed facilities from February to November 2019. RESULTS: There were 87 facilities contacted, and a total of 63 facilities representing 32 counties across Texas completed the survey. Nearly all facilities used Lung-RADS to classify nodules (92%; n = 58) and submitted data to a CMS-approved registry (92%; n = 57). Most facilities verified that the counseling and SDM visit had occurred (86%; n = 54). Although slightly more than half of the facilities reported always providing self-help cessation materials (68%; n = 42), similar or higher proportions of facilities reported that they never referred smokers to onsite cessation services (68%; n = 42) or quitlines (77%; n = 47), provided cessation counseling (81%; n = 50), or recommended medications (85%; n = 52). CONCLUSIONS: In general, screening facilities are meeting CMS requirements for screening, but they are struggling to offer smoking cessation interventions other than providing self-help materials.

Comparison of an automated smartphone-based smoking cessation intervention versus standard quitline-delivered treatment among underserved smokers: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in the United States. Individuals with low socioeconomic status have disproportionately high smoking rates and greater difficulty quitting smoking. Efficiently connecting underserved smokers to effective tobacco cessation programs is crucial for disease prevention and the elimination of health disparities. Smartphone-based interventions have the potential to enhance the reach and efficacy of smoking cessation treatments targeting underserved smokers, but there is little efficacy data for these interventions. In this study, we will partner with a large, local hunger-relief organization to evaluate the efficacy and economic impact of a theoretically-based, fully-automated, and interactive smartphone-based smoking cessation intervention. METHODS: This study will consist of a 2-group randomized controlled trial. Participants (N = 500) will be recruited from a network of food distribution centers in West Central Florida and randomized to receive either Standard Treatment (ST, n = 250) or Automated Treatment (AT, n = 250). ST participants will be connected to the Florida Quitline for telephone-based treatment and will receive a 10-week supply of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; transdermal patches and lozenges). AT participants will receive 10 weeks of NRT and a fully-automated smartphone-based intervention consisting of interactive messaging, images, and audiovisual clips. The AT intervention period will span 26 weeks, with 12 weeks of proactive content and 26 weeks of on-demand access. ST and AT participants will complete weekly 4-item assessments for 26 weeks and 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up assessments. Our primary aim is to evaluate the efficacy of AT in facilitating smoking abstinence. As secondary aims, we will explore potential mediators and conduct economic evaluations to assess the cost and/or cost-effectiveness of ST vs. AT. DISCUSSION: The overall goal of this project is to determine if AT is better at facilitating long-term smoking abstinence than ST, the more resource-intensive approach. If efficacy is established, the AT approach will be relatively easy to disseminate and for community-based organizations to scale and implement, thus helping to reduce tobacco-related health disparities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registry NCT05004662 . Registered August 13, 2021.

Incorporating Baseline Breast Density When Screening Women at Average Risk for Breast Cancer : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast density classification is largely determined by mammography, making the timing of the first screening mammogram clinically important. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening strategies that are stratified by breast density. DESIGN: Microsimulation model to generate the natural history of breast cancer for women with and those without dense breasts and assessment of the cost-effectiveness of strategies tailored to breast density and nontailored strategies. DATA SOURCES: Model parameters from the literature; statistical modeling; and analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data. TARGET POPULATION: Women aged 40 years or older. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: No screening; biennial or triennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years; annual mammography from age 50 to 75 years for women with dense breasts at age 50 years and biennial or triennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years for those without dense breasts at age 50 years; and annual mammography at age 40 to 75 years for women with dense breasts at age 40 years and biennial or triennial mammography at age 50 to 75 years for those without dense breasts at age 40 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Baseline screening at age 40 years followed by annual screening at age 40 to 75 years for women with dense breasts and biennial screening at age 50 to 75 years for women without dense breasts was effective and cost-effective, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36 200 per QALY versus the biennial strategy at age 50 to 75 years. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: At a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability that the density-stratified strategy at age 40 years was optimal was 56% compared with 6 other strategies. LIMITATION: Findings may not be generalizable outside the United States. CONCLUSION: The study findings advocate for breast density-stratified screening with baseline mammography at age 40 years. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

A framework for cancer health economics research.

LAY SUMMARY: Cancer has substantial economic impacts for patients, their families and/or caregivers, employers, and the health care system. However, there is only limited understanding of how economic issues can affect access to cancer care services and the receipt of high-quality cancer care. Health economics research in cancer is particularly timely due to the large and increasing number of patients with cancer and cancer survivors, but there are many factors that may create barriers to performing cancer health economics research. This commentary has identified important topics and questions in cancer health economics research and will assist in the development of this critical field.

Patient-Reported Out-of-Pocket Costs and Financial Toxicity During Early-Phase Oncology Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are an important therapeutic option for patients with cancer. Although financial burden in cancer treatment is well documented, the financial burden associated with clinical trials is not well understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a survey regarding economic burden and financial toxicity in patients with cancer enrolled in phase I clinical trials for >1 month. Financial toxicity score was assessed using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity survey. Patients also reported monthly out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirteen patients completed the survey (72% non-Hispanic White; 45% with annual income ≤$60,000; 50% lived >300 miles from the clinic; 37% required air travel). Forty-eight percent of patients had monthly OOP costs of at least $1,000. Fifty-five percent and 64% of patients reported unanticipated medical and nonmedical expenses, respectively. Worse financial toxicity was associated with yearly household income <$60,000 (odds ratio [OR]: 2.7; p = .008), having unanticipated medical costs (OR: 3.2; p = .024), and living >100 miles away from the clinical trial hospital (OR: 2.3; p = .043). Non-White or Hispanic patients (OR: 2.5; p = .011) and patients who were unemployed or not working outside the home (OR: 2.5; p = .016) were more likely to report high unanticipated medical costs. CONCLUSION: Among patients with cancer participating in clinical trials, economic burden is high, and most of patients' OOP costs were nonmedical costs. Financial toxicity is disproportionally higher in patients with lower income and those who travel farther, and unexpected medical costs were more common among non-White or Hispanic patients. OOP costs can be substantial and are often unexpected for patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The financial burden of cancer treatment is well documented, but there are limited data regarding the financial burden associated with cancer clinical trials. This study surveyed 213 patients enrolled in early-phase clinical trials. Monthly out-of-pocket costs were at least $1000 for nearly half of patients. Worse financial toxicity was associated with income <$60,000 and living farther away from the hospital. Racial/ethnic minorities had higher rates of unanticipated medical costs. These data help to quantify the high financial burden for patients and may reveal a cause of disparities in clinical trial enrollment for underrepresented populations.

Statistical modeling of longitudinal medical cost trajectory: renal cell cancer care cost analyses.

Estimating the current cost of cancer care is important to health policy makers. An indispensable step in cost projection is to estimate cost trajectories from an incident cohort of cancer patients using longitudinal medical cost data, accounting for terminal events such as death, and right censoring due to loss of follow-up. Since the cost of cancer care and survival are correlated, a scientifically meaningful quantity for inference in this context is the mean cost trajectory conditional on survival. We propose a two-stage semiparametric approach to estimate the longitudinal cost trajectories from a joint model of longitudinal medical costs and survival. The longitudinal cost trajectories corresponding to various survival times form a bivariate surface in a triangular area. The cost trajectories are estimated using the tensor products of discretized measurement time and survival, as well as effective ridge penalties for data in 2D arrays. The proposed approach balances the practical considerations of model flexibility, statistical efficiency, and computational tractability. We used the proposed method to estimate the cost trajectories of renal cell cancer patients using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database.

A look at the gynecologic oncologist workforce - Are we meeting patient demand?

OBJECTIVE: to examine the geographic distribution of gynecologic oncologists (GO) and assess if the GO workforce is meeting the demand for oncology services for patients with gynecologic cancers. METHODS: We identified GO by National Provider Identifiers (NPI) and calculated county-level density of GO. County-level gynecologic cancer rates were derived from the U.S. Cancer Statistics to represent demand for GO services. A spatial data plot compared GO workforce to gynecologic cancer service demand. U.S. census county-level demographic information was collected and compared. RESULTS: In 2019, 1527 GO had a registered NPI. Of 3142 counties in the US, 2864 (91.2%) counties had no GO in their local county and 1943 (61.8%) counties had no GO in local or adjacent (neighboring) counties. As the gynecologic cancer rate increases (described in quintiles) in counties, there are fewer counties without a GO or adjacent GO. However, county-level GO density (number of GO per 100,000 women) did not significantly increase as the county-level incidence of gynecologic cancer increased (r = -0.12, p = 0.06)… Women living in counties with the highest gynecologic cancer rates and without access to a GO were more likely to reside in a rural area where residents had a lower median income and were predominately of White race.. CONCLUSION: There are a significant number of counties in the U.S. without a GO. As county-level gynecologic cancer incidence increased, the proportion of counties without a GO decreased; GO density did not increase with increasing cancer rates. Rural counties with high gynecologic incidence rates are underserved by GO. This information can inform initiatives to improve outreach and collaboration to better meet the needs of patients in different geographic areas.

Variation in Use of High-Cost Technologies for Palliative Radiation Therapy by Radiation Oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the sources of variation in the use of high-cost technologies is important for developing effective strategies to control costs of care. Palliative radiation therapy (RT) is a discretionary treatment and its use may vary based on patient and clinician factors. METHODS: Using data from the SEER-Medicare linked database, we identified patients diagnosed with metastatic lung, prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers in 2010 through 2015 who received RT, and the radiation oncologists who treated them. The costs of radiation services for each patient over a 90-day episode were calculated, and radiation oncologists were assigned to cost quintiles. The use of advanced technologies (eg, intensity-modulated radiation, stereotactic RT) and the number of RT treatments (eg, any site, bone only) were identified. Multivariable random-effects models were constructed to estimate the proportion of variation in the use of advanced technologies and extended fractionation (>10 fractions) that could be explained by patient fixed effects versus physician random effects. RESULTS: We identified 37,361 patients with metastatic lung cancer, 3,684 with metastatic breast cancer, 5,323 with metastatic prostate cancer, and 8,726 with metastatic colorectal cancer, with 34%, 27%, 22%, and 9% receiving RT within the first year, respectively. The use of advanced technologies and extended fractionation was associated with higher costs of care. Compared with the patient case-mix, physician variation accounted for a larger proportion of the variation in the use of advanced technologies for palliative RT and the use of extended fractionation. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in radiation oncologists' practice and choices, rather than differences in patient case-mix, accounted for a greater proportion of the variation in the use of advanced technologies and high-cost radiation services.

Choice of local therapy for young women with early-stage breast cancer who have young-aged children.

BACKGROUND: Decision making regarding the initial treatment of women with breast cancer is complicated. In the current study, the authors examined the relationship between treatment choices and their children's ages among young women with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: Using the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database, the authors identified women aged 20 to 50 years who underwent lumpectomy or mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer between 2008 and 2014. Predictors of compliance with radiotherapy after undergoing lumpectomy and of undergoing mastectomy were determined using multinomial logistic regression. The authors conducted sensitivity analyses to explore the impact of the number of young-aged children and a reduction in the sample size in 2014 due to the attrition of health plans contributing to MarketScan. RESULTS: A total of 21,052 women were included in the current analysis. Among women with at least 1 child aged <7 years, the adjusted rate of lumpectomy was 59.9%; approximately 22% of these women did not receive radiotherapy. Compared with women undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy, women with at least 1 child aged <7 years or aged 7 to 12 years were 25% and 16%, respectively, more likely to undergo lumpectomy alone compared with women with no children aged <18 years (P = .002 and P = .012, respectively) and 64% and 37%, respectively, more likely to undergo mastectomy (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among privately insured women with breast cancer, having young children was found to be strongly associated with the omission of postlumpectomy radiotherapy or undergoing mastectomy. Having >1 young-aged child further amplified these associations. The findings of the current study suggested that caring for young children may present unique challenges to young women with breast cancer.

The impact of co-surgeons on complication rates and healthcare cost in patients undergoing microsurgical breast reconstruction: analysis of 8680 patients.

PURPOSE: The use of two operating microsurgeons has been shown to improve the efficiency and reduce the operative duration of microsurgical breast reconstruction (MSBR). However, the impact of this practice on healthcare cost has not been previously assessed. The goal of this study is to query a national claims database to assess complication rates and overall cost in patients undergoing MSBR using co-surgeon (CS) vs. single-surgeon (SS) approach. METHODS: The study cohort, extracted from the MarketScan database, included all female patients who underwent MSBR between 2010 and 2017. Our primary outcome measure was the difference in total healthcare cost between the two operative groups while differences in complication rates were secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: We identified a total of 8680 patients, out of whom 7531 (87%) underwent MSBR with a SS and 1149 (13%) had a CS. Over the study period, the annual incidence rate of MSBR cases using CS increased from 7.2% in 2010 to 23.3% in 2017 (p < 0.001). Following propensity score matching, complications, emergency room visits, readmissions, and reoperations were all similar between the CS and SS groups. The median total healthcare cost was higher for the CS group [US $76,227 (IQR $67,879) vs. $61,340 (IQR $54,318); p < 0.0001], CONCLUSIONS: Use of the CS approach in MSBR has become increasingly prevalent over time. Analyses of a national claims database suggested that the use of CS is a safe option for patients undergoing MSBR. Further research is needed to optimize CS utilization from a costs and outcomes perspective.

American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines.

Findings from the National Cancer Institute's National Lung Screening Trial established that lung cancer mortality in specific high-risk groups can be reduced by annual screening with low-dose computed tomography. These findings indicate that the adoption of lung cancer screening could save many lives. Based on the results of the National Lung Screening Trial, the American Cancer Society is issuing an initial guideline for lung cancer screening. This guideline recommends that clinicians with access to high-volume, high-quality lung cancer screening and treatment centers should initiate a discussion about screening with apparently healthy patients aged 55 years to 74 years who have at least a 30-pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. A process of informed and shared decision-making with a clinician related to the potential benefits, limitations, and harms associated with screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography should occur before any decision is made to initiate lung cancer screening. Smoking cessation counseling remains a high priority for clinical attention in discussions with current smokers, who should be informed of their continuing risk of lung cancer. Screening should not be viewed as an alternative to smoking cessation.