Disparities in clinical trial enrollment at a Canadian comprehensive cancer center: A 15-year retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Disparities in clinical trials (CTs) enrollment perpetuate inequities in treatment access and outcomes, but there is a paucity of Canadian data. The objective of this study was to examine disparities in cancer CT enrollment at a large Canadian comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: Retrospective study of CT enrollment among new patient consultations from 2006 to 2019, with follow-up to 2021 (N = 154,880), with the primary outcome of enrollment as a binary variable. Factors associated with CT enrollment were evaluated using multivariable Bayesian hierarchical logistic regression with random effects for most responsible physician (MRP) and geography, adjusted for patient characteristics (sex, age, language, geography, and primary care provider [PCP]), area-level marginalization (residential instability, material deprivation, dependency, and ethnic concentration), disease (cancer site and stage), and MRP (department, sex, language, and training). A sensitivity analysis of the cumulative incidence of enrollment was conducted to account for differences in disease type and follow-up length. RESULTS: CT enrollment was 11.2% overall, with a 15-year cumulative incidence of 18%. Lower odds of enrollment were observed in patients who were female (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.86), ≥65 years (AOR vs. <40, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.66), non-English speakers (0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77), living ≥250 km away (AOR vs. <15 km, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.80), and without a PCP. Disease characteristics accounted for the largest proportion of observed variation (20.8%), with significantly greater odds of enrollment in patients with genitourinary cancers and late-stage disease. CONCLUSION: Significant sociodemographic disparities were observed, suggesting the need for targeted strategies to increase diversity in access to cancer CTs in Canada.

Patients' satisfaction with cancer pain treatment at adult oncologic centers in Northern Ethiopia; a multi-center cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is an important indicator of the quality of healthcare. Pain is one of the most common symptoms among cancer patients that needs optimal treatment; rather, it compromises the quality of life of patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the levels and associated factors of satisfaction with cancer pain treatment among adult patients at cancer centers found in Northern Ethiopia in 2023. METHODS: After obtaining ethical approval, a multi-center cross-sectional study was conducted at four cancer care centers in northern Ethiopia. The data were collected using an interviewer-administered structured questionnaire that included the Lubeck Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (LMSQ). The severity of pain was assessed by a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10 with a pain score of 0 = no pain, 1-3 = mild pain, 4-6 = moderate pain, and 7-10 = severe pain Binary logistic regression analysis was employed, and the strength of association was described in an adjusted odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval. RESULT: A total of 397 cancer patients participated in this study, with a response rate of 98.3%. We found that 70.3% of patients were satisfied with their cancer pain treatment. Being married (AOR = 5.6, CI = 2.6-12, P < 0.001) and being single (never married) (AOR = 3.5, CI = 1.3-9.7, P = 0.017) as compared to divorced, receiving adequate pain management (AOR = 2.4, CI = 1.1-5.3, P = 0.03) as compared to those who didn't receive it, and having lower pain severity (AOR = 2.6, CI = 1.5-4.8, P < 0.001) as compared to those who had higher level of pain severity were found to be associated with satisfaction with cancer pain treatment. CONCLUSION: The majority of cancer patients were satisfied with cancer pain treatment. Being married, being single (never married), lower pain severity, and receiving adequate pain management were found to be associated with satisfaction with cancer pain treatment. It would be better to enhance the use of multimodal analgesia in combination with strong opioids to ensure adequate pain management and lower pain severity scores.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic among patients with lung and head and neck cancer assisted in a public cancer center in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: There is no updated national data regarding the real impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on delaying diagnosis and treatment among patients with lung, and head, and neck cancers in Brazil. This study aimed to analyze the COVID-19 pandemic impact on cancer diagnosis and clinical outcomes among lung, head, and neck cancer patients assisted in a tertiary cancer center in Southeastern Brazil, as well as to analyze these patients' pretreatment clinical features. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of patients with lung or head and neck cancer assisted in a tertiary cancer center in southeastern Brazil between January/2019 and December/2021. To assess statistical differences among groups [i.e., cohort 2019 versus (vs.) 2020 and 2019 vs. 2021] chi-square test was used with a 5% significance level and 90% power for sample size calculation. Differences among baseline clinical features and sociodemographic characteristics were evaluated either by T-test for two samples or Fisher's or Pearson's chi-square test (for quantitative or qualitative variables). All utilized tests had a 5% significance level. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-two patients were included, 332 with lung and 320 with head and neck cancer; it was observed a significant decrease in oncologic treatment recommendations and increase in palliative care recommendation for patients with lung cancer, despite similar stages at diagnosis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, more pain symptoms were reported at the first Oncology assessment for patients with head and neck cancer (p < 0.05). Compared to 2019, head and neck cancer patients diagnosed in 2021 presented a worse initial performance status (p = 0.008). There was a statistically significant increase in survival for patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer in 2021 when compared to 2019 (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights low survival rates for patients with lung and head and neck cancer in Brazil, even before the pandemic started, as consequence of advanced diseases at diagnosis at the public health system and clinical degrading features. Additionally, there was an increase incidence in both lung cancer and head and neck cancer despite no differences in clinical stage. This reflects how fragile is the public healthcare system even before facing an acute public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, the total impact on public health may follow for many years.

Predictors of germline genetic testing referral and completion in ovarian cancer patients at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of referral and completion of germline genetic testing among newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients, with a focus on geographic social deprivation, oncologist-level practices, and time between diagnosis and completion of testing. METHODS: Clinical and sociodemographic data were abstracted from medical records of patients newly diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 2014 and 2019 in the University of North Carolina Health System. Factors associated with referral for genetic counseling, completion of germline testing, and time between diagnosis and test results were identified using multivariable regression. RESULTS: 307/459 (67%) patients were referred for genetic counseling and 285/459 (62%) completed testing. The predicted probability of test completion was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.88) for patients with a referral compared to 0.27 (95% CI: 0.18-0.35) for patients without a referral. The predicted probability of referral was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.69-0.82) for patients at the 25th percentile of ZIP code-level Social Deprivation Index (SDI) and 0.67 (0.60-0.74) for patients at the 75th percentile of SDI. Referral varied by oncologist, with predicted probabilities ranging from 0.47 (95% CI: 0.32-0.62) to 0.93 (95% CI: 0.85-1.00) across oncologists. The median time between diagnosis and test results was 137 days (IQR: 55-248 days). This interval decreased by a predicted 24.46 days per year (95% CI: 37.75-11.16). CONCLUSIONS: We report relatively high germline testing and a promising trend in time from diagnosis to results, with variation by oncologist and patient factors. Automated referral, remote genetic counseling and sample collection, reduced out-of-pocket costs, and educational interventions should be explored.

Changes in New Patient Consultations During the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Canadian Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 pandemic-related disruptions on cancer services is emerging. We evaluated the impact of the first 2 years of the pandemic on new patient consultations for all cancers at a comprehensive cancer center within a publicly funded health care system and assessed whether there was evidence of stage shift. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using the Princess Margaret Cancer Registry. New consultations with medical, radiation, or surgical oncology were categorized by year and quarter. Logistic regression was used to assess the effect of period before and during the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer stage at consultation, adjusting for age, sex, and diagnosis location (our hospital network vs elsewhere). RESULTS: In all, 53,759 new patient consultations occurred from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2022. After the pandemic was declared, there was a decrease in all types of consultations by 43.3% in the second quarter of 2020, and referral volumes did not recover during the first year. There was no evidence of stage shift for all cancer types during the later quarters of the pandemic for the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: New patient consultations decreased across cancer stages, referral type, and most disease sites at our tertiary cancer center. We did not observe evidence of stage shift in this population. Further research is needed to determine whether this reflects the resilience of our health care system in maintaining cancer services or a delay in the presentation of advanced cancer cases. These data are important for shaping future cancer care delivery and recovery strategies.

Advanced prescription of injectable anticancer drugs: Safety assessment in a European Comprehensive Cancer Centre using the risk matrix approach.

AIMS: The purpose of this work was to assess failures in the advanced prescription of parenteral anticancer agents in an adult day oncology care unit with more than 100 patients per day. METHODS: An a priori descriptive analysis was carried out by using the risk matrix approach. After defining the scope in a multidisciplinary meeting, we determined at each step the failure modes (FMs), their effects (E) and their associated causes (C). A severity score (S) was assigned to all effects and a probability of occurrence (O) to all causes. These S and O indicators, were used to obtain a criticality index (CI) matrix. We assessed the risk control (RC) of each failure in order to define a residual criticality index (rCI) matrix. RESULTS: During risk analysis, 14 FMs were detected, and 61 scenarios were identified considering all possible effects and causes. Nine situations (15%) were highlighted with the maximum CI, 18 (30%) with a medium CI, and 34 (55%) with a negligible CI. Nevertheless, among all these critical situations, only three (5%) had an rCI to process (i.e., missed dose adjustment, multiple prescriptions and abnormal biology data); the others required monitoring only. Clinicians' and pharmacists' knowledge of these critical situations enables them to manage the associated risks. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced prescription of injectable anticancer drugs appears to be a safe practice for patients when combined with risk management. The major risks identified concerned missed dose adjustment, prescription duplication and lack of consideration for abnormal biology data.

Analysis of travel burden and travel support among patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center in the Southeastern United States.

INTRODUCTION: Travel burden leads to worse cancer outcomes. Understanding travel burden and the level and types of travel support provided at large cancer centers is critical for developing systematic programs to alleviate travel burden. This study analyzed patients who received travel assistance, including their travel burden, types and amount of travel support received, and factors that influenced these outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed 1063 patients who received travel support from 1/1/2021 to 5/1/2023 at Winship Cancer Institute, in which ~18,000 patients received cancer care annually. Travel burden was measured using distance and time to Winship sites from patients' residential address. Travel support was evaluated using the monetary value of total travel support and type of support received. Patients' sociodemographic and clinical factors were extracted from electronic medical records. Area-level socioeconomic disadvantage was coded by the Area Deprivation Index using patient ZIP codes. RESULTS: On average, patients traveled 57.2 miles and 67.3 min for care and received $74.1 in total for travel support. Most patients (88.3%) received travel-related funds (e.g., gas cards), 5% received direct rides (e.g., Uber), 3.8% received vouchers for taxi or public transportation, and 3% received combined travel support. Male and White had longer travel distance and higher travel time than female and other races, respectively. Patients residing in more disadvantaged neighborhoods had an increased travel distance and travel time. Other races and Hispanics received more travel support ($) than Black and White patients or non-Hispanics. Patients with higher travel distance and travel time were more like to receive travel-related financial support. CONCLUSION: Among patients who received travel support, those from socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods had greater travel burden. Patients with greater travel burden were more likely to receive travel funds versus other types of support. Further understanding of the impact of travel burden and travel support on cancer outcomes is needed.

The impact of robotic rectal cancer surgery at a Canadian regional cancer centre: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although robotic surgery has several advantages over other minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques for rectal cancer surgery, the uptake in Canada has been limited owing to a perceived increase in cost and lack of training. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of access to robotic surgery in a Canadian setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving consecutive adults undergoing surgical resection for rectal cancer between 2017 and 2020. The primary exposure was access to robotic surgery. Outcomes included MIS utilization, short-term outcomes, total cost of care, and quality of surgical resection. We completed univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: We included 171 individuals in this cohort study (85 in the prerobotic period and 86 in the robotic period). The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics. A higher proportion of individuals underwent successful MIS in the robotic phase (86% v. 46%, p < 0.001). Other benefits included a shorter mean length of hospital stay (5.1 d v. 9.2 d, p < 0.001). The quality of surgical resection was similar between groups. The total cost of care was $16 746 in the robotic period and $18 808 in the prerobotic period (mean difference -$1262, 95% confidence interval -$4308 to $1783; p = 0.4). CONCLUSION: Access to robotic rectal cancer surgery increased successful completion of MIS and shortened hospital stay, with a similar total cost of care. Robotic rectal cancer surgery can enhance patient outcomes in the Canadian setting.

[Quality-assured treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks in Upper Franconia, Germany: An analysis based on data of the Bavarian Cancer Registry]. / Qualitätsgesicherte Behandlung in zertifizierten Versorgungsnetzwerken von Patientinnen mit Mammakarzinom in der Region Oberfranken: Eine Analyse auf Basis von Bayerischen Krebsregisterdaten.

OBJECTIVES: Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the most common cancer-related cause of death among women in Germany. The treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks is recommended to ensure high-quality care. The aim of the study was to determine the percentage of breast cancer patients receiving cancer treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks in Upper Franconia, Germany. METHODS: This study considered the location of treatment and the certification status of providers with regard to initial diagnosis, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation during breast cancer care. Based on this, we compared patient characteristics receiving cancer care in certified and non-certified cancer centres and their networks. The evaluation was based on a dataset of the Bavarian Cancer Registry (4/2017-3/2022). RESULTS: The analysis included 5,545 primary tumors from a total of 5,355 patients (age: 64.5±14.2 years; 99.2% female). The percentage of patients receiving care in certified breast cancer centre networks was 78.8% for initial diagnosis, 82.6% for surgery, 79.5% for chemotherapy, and 99.6% for radiation, respectively. The weighted mean across all treatment sequences was 84.3%. Patients receiving care in certified care networks were significantly younger for three therapy sequences (p+<+0.001). In addition, an above-average proportion of patients with advanced tumor stages were treated in non-certified care networks, especially for diagnosis and surgery (p+<+0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the different treatment sequences, we found differences in the proportion of patients who received quality-assured treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks in Upper Franconia. When comparing similar analysis, the results show an average care percentage of patients receiving care in certified care networks. Furthermore, it should be ensured that patients receive comprehensive information about receiving care in certified cancer centre networks.

Surgical volume threshold to improve 3-year survival in designated cancer care hospitals in 2004-2012 in Japan.

In Japan, cancer care hospitals designated by the national government have a surgical volume requirement of 400 annually, which is not necessarily defined based on patient outcomes. This study aimed to estimate surgical volume thresholds that ensure optimal 3-year survival for three periods. In total, 186 965 patients who had undergone surgery for solid cancers in 66 designated cancer care hospitals in Osaka between 2004 and 2012 were examined using data from a population-based cancer registry. These hospitals were categorized by the annual surgical volume of each 50 surgeries (eg, 0-49, 50-99, and so on). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression, we estimated the adjusted 3-year survival probability per surgical volume category for 2004-2006, 2007-2009, and 2010-2012. Using the joinpoint regression model that computes inflection points in a linear relationship, we estimated the points at which the trend of the association between surgical volume and survival probability changes, defining them as surgical volume thresholds. The adjusted 3-year survival ranges were 71.7%-90.0%, 68.2%-90.0%, and 79.2%-90.3% in 2004-2006, 2007-2009, and 2010-2012, respectively. The surgical volume thresholds were identified at 100-149 in 2004-2006 and 2007-2009 and 200-249 in 2010-2012. The extents of change in the adjusted 3-year survival probability per increase of 50 surgical volumes were +4.00%, +6.88%, and +1.79% points until the threshold and +0.41%, +0.30%, and +0.11% points after the threshold in 2004-2006, 2007-2009, and 2010-2012, respectively. The existing surgical volume requirements met our estimated thresholds. Surgical volume thresholds based on the association with patient survival may be used as a reference to validate the surgical volume requirement.

National health system characteristics, breast cancer stage at diagnosis, and breast cancer mortality: a population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: In some countries, breast cancer age-standardised mortality rates have decreased by 2-4% per year since the 1990s, but others have yet to achieve this outcome. In this study, we aimed to characterise the associations between national health system characteristics and breast cancer age-standardised mortality rate, and the degree of breast cancer downstaging correlating with national age-standardised mortality rate reductions. METHODS: In this population-based study, national age-standardised mortality rate estimates for women aged 69 years or younger obtained from GLOBOCAN 2020 were correlated with a broad panel of standardised national health system data as reported in the WHO Cancer Country Profiles 2020. These health system characteristics include health expenditure, the Universal Health Coverage Service Coverage Index (UHC Index), dedicated funding for early detection programmes, breast cancer early detection guidelines, referral systems, cancer plans, number of dedicated public and private cancer centres per 10 000 patients with cancer, and pathology services. We tested for differences between continuous variables using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test, and for categorical variables using the Pearson χ2 test. Simple and multiple linear regression analyses were fitted to identify associations between health system characteristics and age-standardised breast cancer mortality rates. Data on TNM stage at diagnosis were obtained from national or subnational cancer registries, supplemented by a literature review of PubMed from 2010 to 2020. Mortality trends from 1950 to 2016 were assessed using the WHO Cancer Mortality Database. The threshold for significance was set at a p value of 0·05 or less. FINDINGS: 148 countries had complete health system data. The following variables were significantly higher in high-income countries than in low-income countries in unadjusted analyses: health expenditure (p=0·0002), UHC Index (p<0·0001), dedicated funding for early detection programmes (p=0·0020), breast cancer early detection guidelines (p<0·0001), breast cancer referral systems (p=0·0030), national cancer plans (p=0·014), cervical cancer early detection programmes (p=0·0010), number of dedicated public (p<0·0001) and private (p=0·027) cancer centres per 10 000 patients with cancer, and pathology services (p<0·0001). In adjusted multivariable regression analyses in 141 countries, two health system characteristics were significantly associated with lower age-standardised mortality rates: higher UHC Index levels (ß=-0·12, 95% CI -0·16 to -0·08) and increasing numbers of public cancer centres (ß=-0·23, -0·36 to -0·10). These findings indicate that each unit increase in the UHC Index was associated with a 0·12-unit decline in age-standardised mortality rates, and each additional public cancer centre per 10 000 patients with cancer was associated with a 0·23-unit decline in age-standardised mortality rate. Among 35 countries with available breast cancer TNM staging data, all 20 that achieved sustained mean reductions in age-standardised mortality rate of 2% or more per year for at least 3 consecutive years since 1990 had at least 60% of patients with invasive breast cancer presenting as stage I or II disease. Some countries achieved this reduction without most women having access to population-based mammographic screening. INTERPRETATION: Countries with low breast cancer mortality rates are characterised by increased levels of coverage of essential health services and higher numbers of public cancer centres. Among countries achieving sustained mortality reductions, the majority of breast cancers are diagnosed at an early stage, reinforcing the value of clinical early diagnosis programmes for improving breast cancer outcomes. FUNDING: None.

Trends in survival of leukemia among children, adolescents, and young adults: A population-based study in Osaka, Japan.

This study focused on children as well as adolescents and young adults (AYAs) and aimed to examine trends in survival of leukemia over time using population-based cancer registry data from Osaka, Japan. The study subjects comprised 2254 children (0-14 years) and 2,905 AYAs (15-39 years) who were diagnosed with leukemia during 1975-2011. Leukemia was divided into four types: acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and other leukemias. We analyzed 5-year overall survival probability (5y-OS), using the Kaplan-Meier method and expressed time trends using the joinpoint regression model. For recently diagnosed (2006-2011) patients, a Cox proportional hazards model was applied to determine predictors of 5y-OS, using age group, gender, and treatment hospital as covariates. Over the 37-year period, 5y-OS greatly improved among both children and AYAs, for each leukemia type. Among AYAs, 5y-OS of ALL improved, especially after 2000 (65% in 2006-2011), when the pediatric regimen was introduced but was still lower than that among children (87% in 2006-2011, P < .001). Survival improvement was most remarkable in CML, and its 5y-OS was over 90% among both children and AYAs after the introduction of molecularly targeted therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Among patients with recently diagnosed AML, the risk of death was significantly higher for patients treated at nondesignated hospitals than those treated at designated cancer care hospitals. The changes in survival improvement coincided with the introduction of treatment regimens or molecularly targeted therapies. Patient centralization might be one option which would improve survival.

Initial treatment of patients with thyroid cancer: Outcomes and factors associated with care at academic versus nonacademic cancer centers.

BACKGROUND: Factors associated with receiving initial care for thyroid cancer (TC) at academic centers (ACs) versus nonacademic centers (NACs) and their impact on patient outcomes have not been reported. METHODS: The National Cancer Database with TC cases from 2004 to 2013 was evaluated for association of type of center for initial care with socioeconomic factors and disease and treatment characteristics, as well as overall survival (OS; all-cause mortality). RESULTS: The patients with TC (n = 200,824) included were predominantly women (74%), non-Hispanic Whites (85%), and from metro areas (84%). Sixty percent received initial care at a NAC. There were no significant differences between treatment groups by age or gender. Among those treated at an AC, a higher proportion belonged to racial/ethnic minorities (16.5%) versus at a NAC (11.6%). Hormone therapy was used more in an AC versus a NAC (60% vs 47%). Patients with all TC pathologies combined had a lower likelihood of death when they received initial care at an AC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.948; P = .0006). Among individual pathologic subtypes, a lower likelihood of death was noted when initial care was received at an AC for follicular (HR, 0.828, P = .0010) and Hurthle cell cancers (HR, 792; P = .0008), as well as stage II papillary thyroid cancer (HR, 0.828; P = .0026), but not for other histopathologic subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Initial care at an AC was associated with lower likelihood of death for patients with TC, especially for those with follicular or Hurthle cell subtypes. Optimal resource use with consideration of patients' socioeconomic and demographic factors is imperative to ensure the most appropriate management of patients with TC in various treatment settings.

Expenditures among young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia by site of care.

BACKGROUND: Individuals diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) between the ages of 22 and 39 years experience worse outcomes than those diagnosed when they are 21 years old or younger. Treatment at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) mitigates these disparities but may be associated with higher expenditures. METHODS: Using deidentified administrative claims data (OptumLabs Data Warehouse), the cancer-related expenditures were examined among patients with ALL diagnosed between 2001 and 2014. Multivariable generalized linear model with log-link modeled average monthly health-plan-paid (HPP) expenditures and amount owed by the patient (out-of-pocket [OOP]). Cost ratios were used to calculate excess expenditures (CCC vs non-CCC). Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) compared CCC and non-CCC monthly visit rates. Models adjusted for sociodemographics, comorbidities, adverse events, and months enrolled. RESULTS: Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were comparable between CCC (n = 160) and non-CCC (n = 139) patients. Higher monthly outpatient expenditures in CCC patients ($15,792 vs $6404; P < .001) were driven by outpatient hospital HPP expenditures. Monthly visit rates and per visit expenditures for nonchemotherapy visits (IRR = 1.6; P = .001; CCC = $8247, non-CCC = $1191) drove higher outpatient hospital expenditures among CCCs. Monthly OOP expenditures were higher at CCCs for outpatient care (P = .02). Inpatient HPP expenditures were significantly higher at CCCs ($25,918 vs $13,881; ꞵ = 0.9; P < .001) before accounting for adverse events but were no longer significant after adjusting for adverse events (ꞵ = 0.4; P = .1). Hospitalizations and length of stay were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Young adults with ALL at CCCs have higher expenditures, likely reflecting differences in facility structure, billing practices, and comprehensive patient care. It would be reasonable to consider CCCs comparable to the oncology care model and incentivize the framework to achieve superior outcomes and long-term cost savings. LAY SUMMARY: Health care expenditures in young adults (aged 22-39 years) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are higher among patients at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) than those at non-CCCs. The CCC/non-CCC differences are significant among outpatient expenditures, which are driven by higher rates of outpatient hospital visits and outpatient hospital expenditures per visit at CCCs. Higher expenditures and visit rates of outpatient hospital visits among CCCs may also reflect how facility structure and billing patterns influence spending or comprehensive care. Young adults at CCCs face higher inpatient HPP expenditures; these are driven by serious adverse events.

Perceptions of patients with early stage breast cancer toward research biopsies.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to describe the perspective of patients with early breast cancer toward research biopsies. The authors hypothesized that more patients at academic sites than at community-based sites would be willing to consider these procedures. METHODS: In total, 198 patients with early stage breast cancer were recruited from 3 academic centers (n = 102) and from 1 community oncology practice (n = 96). The primary objective was to compare the proportion of patients willing to consider donating excess tissue biospecimens from surgery, from a clinically indicated breast biopsy, or from a research purposes-only biopsy (RPOB) between practice types. RESULTS: Most patients (93% at academic sites, 94% at the community oncology site) said they would consider donating excess tissue from surgery for research. One-half of patients from academic or community sites would consider donating tissue from a clinically indicated breast biopsy. On univariate analysis, significantly fewer patients from academic sites would consider an RPOB (22% at academic sites, 42% at the community site; P = .003); however, this difference was no longer significant on multivariate analysis (P = .96). Longer transportation times and unfavorable prior experiences were associated with less willingness to consider an RPOB on multivariate analysis. Significantly fewer patients from academic sites (14%) than from the community site (35%) would consider a research biopsy in a clinical trial (P = .04). Contributing to scientific knowledge, return of results, and a personal request by their physician were the strongest factors influencing patients' willingness to undergo research biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: The current results rejected the hypothesis that more patients with early breast cancer at academic sites would be willing to donate tissue biospecimens for research compared with those at community oncology sites. These findings identify modifiable factors to consider in biobanking studies and clinical trials.

The Impact of Socioeconomic Deprivation on Clinical Outcomes for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma at a High-volume Cancer Center: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a granular measure of SED on pancreatic surgical and cancer-related outcomes at a high-volume cancer center that employs a standardized clinic pathway. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Prior research has shown that low socioeconomic status leads to less treatment and worse outcomes for PDAC. However, these studies employed inconsistent definitions and categorizations of socioeconomic status, aggregated individual socioeconomic data using large geographic areas, and lacked detailed clinicopathologic variables. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1552 PDAC patients between 2008 and 2015. Patients were stratified using the area deprivation index, a validated dataset that ranks census block groups based on SED. Multivariable models were used in the curative surgery cohort to predict the impact of SED on (1) grade 3/4 Clavien-Dindo complications, (2) initiation of adjuvant therapy, (3) completion of adjuvant therapy, and (4) overall survival. RESULTS: Patients from high SED neighborhoods constituted 29.9% of the cohort. Median overall survival was 28 months. The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade 3/4 complications was 14.2% and completion of adjuvant therapy was 65.6%. There was no evidence that SED impacted surgical evaluation, receipt of curative-intent surgery, postoperative complications, receipt of adjuvant therapy or overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Although nearly one-quarter of curative-intent surgery patients were from high SED neighborhoods, this factor was not associated with measures of treatment quality or survival. These observations suggest that treatment at a high-volume cancer center employing a standardized clinical pathway may in part address socioeconomic disparities in pancreatic cancer.

Finding incident cancer cases through outpatient oncology clinic claims data and integration into a state cancer registry.

Cancer data from population-based cancer registries under-report cancer cases, especially for cancers primarily diagnosed and treated in outpatient clinical settings, away from hospital-based cancer registrars. Previously, we developed alternative methods of cancer case capture including a claims-based method, which identified a large proportion of cancer cases missed by traditional population-based cancer registries. In this study, we adapted a claims-based method for statewide implementation of cancer surveillance in Florida. Between 2010 and 2017 the claims-based method identified 143,083 cancer abstracts, of which 42% were new and 58% were previously registered. The claims-based method led to the creation of 53,419 new cancer cases in the state cancer registry, which made up 9.3% of all cancer cases registered between 2010 and 2017. The types of cancers identified by the claims-based method were typical of the kinds primarily diagnosed and treated in outpatient oncology clinic settings, such as hematological malignancies, prostate cancer, melanoma, breast cancer, and bladder cancer. These cases were added to the Florida cancer registry and may produce an artefactual increase in cancer incidence, which is believed to be closer to the actual burden of cancer in the state.

Disparate Practice Patterns and Survival Outcomes: The Impact of Centralization of Cancer Care for Adrenocortical Carcinoma in the United States.

PURPOSE: Adrenocortical carcinoma is a rare but aggressive malignancy. While centralization of care to referral centers improves outcomes across common urological malignancies, there exists a paucity of data for low-incidence cancers. We sought to evaluate differences in practice patterns and overall survival in patients with adrenocortical carcinoma across types of treating facilities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all patients diagnosed with adrenocortical carcinoma from 2004-2016 in the National Cancer Database. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate overall survival and multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to investigate independent predictors of overall survival. The chi-square test was used to analyze differences in practice patterns. RESULTS: We identified 2,886 patients with adrenocortical carcinoma. Median overall survival was 21.8 months (95% CI 19.8-23.8). Academic centers had improved overall survival versus community centers on unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis (p <0.05) and had higher rates of adrenalectomy or radical en bloc resection (p <0.001), performed more open surgery (p <0.001), administered more systemic therapy (p <0.001) and had lower rates of positive surgical margins (p=0.03). On multivariable analysis, controlling for treatment modality, academic centers were associated with significantly decreased risk of death (HR 0.779, 95% CI 0.631-0.963, p=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of adrenocortical carcinoma at an academic center is associated with improved overall survival compared to community programs. There are significant differences in practice patterns, including more aggressive surgical treatment at academic facilities, but the survival benefit persists on multivariable analysis controlling for treatment modality. Further studies are needed to identify the most important predictors of survival in this at-risk population.

Gynecologic oncology treatment modifications or delays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a publicly funded versus privately funded North American tertiary cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecologic oncology surgical treatment modifications and delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between a publicly funded Canadian versus a privately funded American cancer center. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all planned gynecologic oncology surgeries at University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, USA, between March 22,020 and July 302,020. Surgical treatment delays and modifications at both centers were compared to standard recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 450 surgical gynecologic oncology patients were included; 215 at UHN and 235 at BWH. There was a significant difference in median time from decision-to-treat to treatment (23 vs 15 days, p < 0.01) between UHN and BWH and a significant difference in treatment delays (32.56% vs 18.29%; p < 0.01) and modifications (8.37% vs 0.85%; p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, treatment site and surgical priority status, treatment at UHN was an independent predictor of treatment modification (OR = 9.43,95% CI 1.81-49.05, p < 0.01). Treatment delays were higher at UHN (OR = 1.96,95% CI 1.14-3.36 p = 0.03) and for uterine disease (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11-5.33, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, gynecologic oncology patients treated at a publicly funded Canadian center were 9.43 times more likely to have a surgical treatment modification and 1.96 times more likely to have a surgical delay compared to an equal volume privately funded center in the United States.

Impact of the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic on a tertiary referral centre for kidney cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on a centralized specialist kidney cancer care pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patient and pathway characteristics including prioritization strategies at the Specialist Centre for Kidney Cancer located at the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (RFH) before and during the surge of COVID-19. RESULTS: On 18 March 2020 all elective surgery was halted at RFH to redeploy resources and staff for the COVID-19 surge. Prioritizing of patients according to European Association of Urology guidance was introduced. Clinics and the specialist multidisciplinary team (SMDT) meetings were maintained with physical distancing, kidney surgery was moved to a COVID-protected site, and infection prevention measurements were enforced. During the 7 weeks of lockdown (23 March to 10 May 2020), 234 cases were discussed at the SMDT meetings, 53% compared to the 446 cases discussed in the 7 weeks pre-lockdown. The reduction in referrals was more pronounced for small and asymptomatic renal masses. Of 62 low-priority cancer patients, 27 (43.5%) were deferred. Only one (4%) COVID-19 infection occurred postoperatively, and the patient made a full recovery. No increase in clinical or pathological upstaging could be detected in patients who underwent deferred surgery compared to pre-COVID practice. CONCLUSION: The first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted diagnosis, referral and treatment of kidney cancer at a tertiary referral centre. With a policy of prioritization and COVID-protected pathways, capacity for time-sensitive oncological interventions was maintained and no immediate clinical harm was observed.