Time Kills: Impact of Socioeconomic Deprivation on Timely Access to Guideline-Concordant Treatment in Foregut Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Receipt of guideline-concordant treatment (GCT) is associated with improved prognosis in foregut cancers. Studies show that patients living in areas of high neighborhood deprivation have worse healthcare outcomes; however, its effect on GCT in foregut cancers has not been evaluated. We studied the impact of the area deprivation index (ADI) as a barrier to GCT. STUDY DESIGN: A single-institution retrospective review of 498 foregut cancer patients (gastric, pancreatic, and hepatobiliary adenocarcinoma) from 2018 to 2022 was performed. GCT was defined based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. ADI, a validated measure of neighborhood disadvantage was divided into terciles (low, medium, and high) with high ADI indicating the most disadvantage. RESULTS: Of 498 patients, 328 (66%) received GCT: 66%, 72%, and 59% in pancreatic, gastric, and hepatobiliary cancers, respectively. Median (interquartile range) time from symptoms to workup was 6 (3 to 13) weeks, from diagnosis to oncology appointment was 4 (1 to 10) weeks, and from oncology appointment to treatment was 4 (2 to 10) weeks. Forty-six percent were diagnosed in the emergency department. On multivariable analyses, age 75 years or older (odds ratio [OR] 0.39 [95% CI 0.18 to 0.87]), Black race (OR 0.52 [95% CI 0.31 to 0.86]), high ADI (OR 0.25 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.48]), 6 weeks or more from symptoms to workup (OR 0.44 [95% CI 0.27 to 0.73]), 4 weeks or more from diagnosis to oncology appointment (OR 0.76 [95% CI 0.46 to 0.93]), and 4 weeks or more from oncology appointment to treatment (OR 0.63 [95% CI 0.36 to 0.98]) were independently associated with nonreceipt of GCT. CONCLUSIONS: Residence in an area of high deprivation predicts nonreceipt of GCT. This is due to multiple individual- and system-level barriers. Identifying these barriers and developing effective interventions, including community outreach and collaboration, leveraging telehealth, and increasing oncologic expertise in underserved areas, may improve access to GCT.

Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Oncology, Version 2.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Oncology focuses on considerations for the comprehensive care of AYA patients with cancer. Compared with older adults with cancer, AYA patients have unique needs regarding treatment, fertility counseling, psychosocial and behavioral issues, and supportive care services. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Oncology addresses additional aspects of caring for AYA patients, including risk factors, screening, diagnosis, and survivorship.

Racial Differences in Aging-Related Deficits Among Older Adults With Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite the known influences of both race- and aging-related factors in colorectal cancer outcomes and mortality, limited literature is available on the intersection between race and aging-related impairments. OBJECTIVE: To explore racial differences in frailty and geriatric deficit subdomains among patients with colorectal cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective study using data from the Cancer and Aging Resilience Evaluation registry. SETTINGS: A comprehensive cancer center in the Deep South. PATIENTS: Older adults (aged ≥60 years) with colorectal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measure of frailty and geriatric assessment subdomains of physical function, functional status, cognitive complaints, psychological function, and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Black patients lived in areas with a higher social vulnerability index compared to White patients (0.69 vs 0.49; p < 0.01) and had limited social support more often (54.5% vs 34.9%; p = 0.01). After adjustment for age, cancer stage, comorbidities, and social vulnerability index, Black patients were found to have a higher rate of frailty than White patients (adjusted OR 3.77; 95% CI, 1.76-8.18; p = 0.01). In addition, Black patients had more physical limitations (walking 1 block: adjusted OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.02-3.69; p = 0.04), functional limitations (activities of daily living: adjusted OR 3.21; 95% CI, 1.42-7.24; p = 0.01), and deficits in health-related quality of life (poor global self-reported health: adjusted OR 2.45; 95% CI, 1.23-5.13; p = 0.01). Similar findings were shown after stratification by stage I to III vs IV. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study at a single institution. CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients with colorectal cancer, Black patients were more likely to be frail than White patients, with deficits observed specifically in physical function, functional status, and health-related quality of life. Geriatric assessment may provide an important tool in addressing racial inequities in colorectal cancer. DIFERENCIAS RACIALES EN LOS DFICITS RELACIONADOS CON EL ENVEJECIMIENTO ENTRE ADULTOS MAYORES CON CNCER COLORRECTAL: ANTECEDENTES: A pesar de las influencias conocidas de los factores relacionados con la raza y el envejecimiento en los resultados y la mortalidad del cáncer colorectal, hay muy poca literatura sobre la intersección entre los impedimentos relacionados con la raza y el envejecimiento.OBJETIVO: El objetivo era explorar las diferencias raciales en los subdominios de fragilidad y déficit geriátrico entre los pacientes con cáncer colorectal.DISEÑO: Estudio retrospectivo utilizando datos del registro Cancer and Aging Resilience Evaluation.AJUSTES: Un centro oncológico integral en el Sur Profundo.PACIENTES: Adultos mayores (≥60 años) con cáncer colorrectal de raza Negra o Blanca.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Medida compuesta de fragilidad y subdominios de evaluación geriátrica de función física, estado funcional, quejas cognitivas, función psicológica y calidad de vida relacionada con la salud.RESULTADOS: De los 304 pacientes incluidos, el 21,7% (n = 66) eran negros y la edad media era de 69 años. Los pacientes negros vivían en áreas con un índice de vulnerabilidad social (SVI) más alto en comparación con los pacientes blancos (SVI 0,69 vs 0,49; p < 0,01) y con mayor frecuencia tenían apoyo social limitado (54,5% vs 34,9%; p = 0,01). Después de ajustar por edad, estadio del cáncer, comorbilidades y SVI, los pacientes de raza negra tenían una mayor tasa de fragilidad en comparación con los pacientes de raza blanca (ORa 3,77, IC del 95%: 1,76-8,18; p = 0,01). Además, los pacientes negros tenían más limitaciones físicas (caminar 1 cuadra: ORa 1,93, IC 95% 1,02-3,69; p = 0,04), limitaciones funcionales (actividades de la vida diaria: ORa 3,21, IC 95% 1,42-7,24; p = 0,01 ) y déficits en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud (mala salud global autoinformada: ORa 2,45, IC 95% 1,23-5,13; p = 0,01). Las quejas cognitivas y las funciones psicológicas no difirieron según la raza (p > 0,05). Se mostraron hallazgos similares después de la estratificación por estadio I-III frente a IV.LIMITACIONES: Estudio retrospectivo en una sola institución.CONCLUSIONES: Entre los pacientes mayores con cáncer colorrectal, los pacientes negros tenían más probabilidades que los pacientes blancos de ser frágiles, observándose déficits específicamente en la función física, el estado funcional y la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud. La evaluación geriátrica puede proporcionar una herramienta importante para abordar las desigualdades raciales en el cáncer colorrectal.

Factors associated with loss to follow-up after radiation therapy for head and neck cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients are at high risk for late occurring radiation-related morbidity and recurrence, necessitating close long-term medical surveillance. This study identified factors associated with becoming lost to follow-up (LTFU) at a comprehensive cancer center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were drawn from survivors who received radiation for HNC at a single institution between 2001 and 2018. LTFU was defined as living patients without a clinical encounter within 2 years of the data query. RESULTS: In total, 537 patients met the inclusion criteria and 57 (10.6%) were identified as LTFU. Individual comparisons identified time since completing radiation, non-White race and being unmarried as associated with LTFU. Multiple regression identified time since treatment and being unmarried as factors associated with LTFU. A decision tree correctly sorted 89.4% using time, distance, and marital status. CONCLUSION: Time since radiation, distance to clinic, and being unmarried were factors associated with becoming LTFU.

Expenditures in Young Adults with Hodgkin Lymphoma: NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers versus Other Sites.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes among Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients diagnosed between 22 and 39 years are worse than among those diagnosed <21 years, and have not seen the same improvement over time. Treatment at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) mitigates outcome disparities, but may be associated with higher expenditures. METHODS: We examined cancer-related expenditures among 22- to 39-year-old HL patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2016 using deidentified administrative claims data (OptumLabs Data Warehouse; CCC: n = 1,154; non-CCC: n = 643). Adjusting for sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, and months enrolled, multivariable general linear models modeled average monthly health-plan paid (HPP) expenditures, and incidence rate ratios compared CCC/non-CCC monthly visit rates. RESULTS: In the year following diagnosis, CCC patients had higher HPP expenditures ($12,869 vs. $10,688, P = 0.001), driven by higher monthly rates of CCC nontreatment outpatient hospital visits (P = 0.001) and per-visit expenditures for outpatient hospital chemotherapy ($632 vs. $259); higher CCC inpatient expenditures ($1,813 vs. $1,091, P = 0.001) were driven by 3.1 times higher rates of chemotherapy admissions (P = 0.001). Out-of-pocket expenditures were comparable (P = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Young adults with HL at CCCs saw higher health-plan expenditures, but comparable out-of-pocket expenditures. Drivers of CCC expenditures included outpatient hospital utilization (monthly rates of non-therapy visits and per-visit expenditures for chemotherapy). IMPACT: Higher HPP expenditures at CCCs in the year following HL diagnosis likely reflect differences in facility structure and comprehensive care. For young adults, it is plausible to consider incentivizing CCC care to achieve superior outcomes while developing approaches to achieve long-term savings.

Immunogenicity and safety of the human papillomavirus vaccine in young survivors of cancer in the USA: a single-arm, open-label, phase 2, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Young survivors of cancer are at increased risk for cancers that are related to human papillomavirus (HPV), primarily caused by oncogenic HPV types 16 and 18. We aimed to examine the immunogenicity and safety of the three-dose series of HPV vaccine in young survivors of cancer. METHODS: We conducted an investigator-initiated, phase 2, single-arm, open-label, non-inferiority trial at five National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centres in the USA. Eligible participants were survivors of cancer who were HPV vaccine-naive, were aged 9-26 years, in remission, and had completed cancer therapy between 1 and 5 years previously. Participants received three intramuscular doses of either quadrivalent HPV vaccine (HPV4; enrolments on or before March 1, 2016) or nonavalent HPV vaccine (HPV9; enrolments after March 1, 2016) over 6 months (on day 1, at month 2, and at month 6). We also obtained data from published clinical trials assessing safety and immunogenicity of HPV4 and HPV9 in 9-26-year-olds from the general population, as a comparator group. The primary endpoint was antibody response against HPV types 16 and 18 at month 7 in the per-protocol population. A response was deemed non-inferior if the lower bound of the multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was greater than 0·5 for the ratio of anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 geometric mean titres (GMTs) in survivors of cancer versus the general population. Responses were examined separately in male and female participants by age group (ie, 9-15 years and 16-26 years). Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one vaccine dose and for whom safety data were available. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01492582. This trial is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Feb 18, 2013, and June 22, 2018, we enrolled 453 survivors of cancer, of whom 436 received one or more vaccine doses: 203 (47%) participants had survived leukaemia, 185 (42%) were female, and 280 (64%) were non-Hispanic white. Mean age at first dose was 15·6 years (SD 4·6). 378 (83%) of 453 participants had evaluable immunogenicity data; main reasons for exclusion from per-protocol analysis were to loss to follow-up, patient reasons, and medical reasons. Data were also obtained from 26 486 general population controls. The ratio of mean GMT for anti-HPV types 16 and 18 in survivors of cancer versus the general population was more than 1 for all subgroups (ie, aged 9-15 years, aged 16-26 years, male, and female groups) in both vaccine cohorts (ranging from 1·64 [95% CI 1·12-2·18] for anti-HPV type 16 in female participants aged 9-15 years who received HPV9, to 4·77 [2·48-7·18] for anti-HPV type 18 in male participants aged 16-26 years who received HPV4). Non-inferiority criteria were met within each age and sex subgroup, except against HPV type 18 in female participants aged 16-26 years receiving HPV9 (4·30 [0·00-9·05]). Adverse events were reported by 237 (54%) of 435 participants; injection site pain was most common (174 [40%] participants). One serious adverse event (ie, erythema nodosum) was possibly related to vaccine (HPV9; 16-26 year female cohort). INTERPRETATION: Immunogenicity and safety of HPV vaccine three-dose series in survivors of cancer is similar to that in the general population, providing evidence for use in this clinically vulnerable population. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, and American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities.

Sexual behaviors and human papillomavirus vaccine non-initiation among young adult cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Young adult cancer survivors are at risk for subsequent human papillomavirus (HPV)-related malignancies. High-risk sexual behavior increases risk for HPV acquisition; HPV vaccination protects against infection. We aimed to determine the prevalence of sexual behaviors, factors related to high-risk sexual behaviors, and the relationship between sexual behaviors and HPV vaccine non-initiation among survivors. METHODS: Survivors at comprehensive cancer centers, aged 18-26 years and 1-5 years post-treatment, reported sexual behaviors and HPV vaccine initiation (i.e., ≥ 1 dose). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for factors associated with high-risk sexual behaviors (age at first intercourse < 16 years, ≥ 3 lifetime sexual partners, or condom use ≤ 50% of the time) and to explore the relationship between sexual behaviors and vaccine non-initiation. RESULTS: Of the 312 participants (48.1% female, median age at cancer diagnosis 17.2 years and at survey 20.9 years), sexual intercourse was reported by 63.1%. Of those reporting intercourse, 74.6% reported high-risk sexual behavior. Factors related to high-risk sexual behavior included currently dating/partnered (OR = 4.39, 95%CI 2.5-7.7, P < 0.001) and perceived susceptibility to HPV (OR = 1.76, 95%CI 1.3-2.5, P < 0.001). Most survivors (75.3%) reported HPV vaccine non-initiation; sexual behaviors were not associated with vaccine non-initiation (P = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Many survivors participate in high-risk sexual behaviors, yet HPV vaccine initiation rates are low. Factors related to high-risk sexual behaviors can inform interventions to reduce risk for HPV acquisition among survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Cancer survivors participate in sexual behaviors that increase risk for HPV acquisition and would benefit from vaccination.

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.

Adherence to cardiomyopathy screening guidelines among adolescent and young adult cancer survivors exposed to chest radiation and/or anthracyclines.

PURPOSE: Cancer survivors are at risk for late effects from therapeutic exposures, including cardiovascular complications. To improve outcomes among adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) released guidelines for screening services (based on the Children's Oncology Group Long-Term Follow-Up [LTFU] guidelines) for survivors of AYA cancer. To better understand survivorship care gaps, we conducted a baseline evaluation of cardiomyopathy screening among survivors of AYA cancers. METHODS: Members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California diagnosed with cancer between ages 15 and 39 from 2000 to 2010 with at least 5-year survival after diagnosis who were exposed to chest radiation and/or anthracyclines were included. We calculated the Prevention Index ([PI], proportion of person-time covered by receipt of preventive services relative to the total person-time eligible) to evaluate adherence to recommended cardiomyopathy screenings based on the LTFU through 2016. Predictors for screening were evaluated in multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 479 survivors recommended for cardiomyopathy screening, 28 received at least one screening, and the mean PI was 2.38% (SD = 13.05%, median = 0.00%). Compared to stage I, survivors of stage II (odds ratio [OR] = 5.56 [1.05-29.46]) and stage III/IV cancer (OR = 6.08 [1.10-33.54]) were more likely to receive cardiomyopathy screening. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiomyopathy screening among survivors was low around the time when NCCN AYA oncology guidelines were released. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our study highlights significant room for improvement for adherence to cardiomyopathy screening recommendations among survivors of AYA cancer. Attention is needed to ensure that recommended cardiomyopathy screenings are met for better management of cardiomyopathy late effects.

Cause-specific mortality in survivors of adolescent and young adult cancer.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have adequately addressed long-term survival (>20 years from diagnosis) among survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancers. METHODS: In this retrospective, population-based cohort study in a US integrated health care system, the authors examined cause-specific mortality in 2-year survivors of AYA cancers (patients aged 15-39 years who were diagnosed between 1990 and 2012; N = 10,574) matched (by age, sex, and calendar year) to individuals without cancer (N = 136,683) to determine whether mortality rates changed over time. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for mortality were estimated using multivariable Poisson regression. A multivariable Cox model was used to examine predictors of cause-specific mortality among AYA cancer survivors. RESULTS: Through December 31, 2014, 1352 deaths were observed among AYA cancer survivors, yielding an overall survival rate of 78.5% at 25 years after diagnosis. Overall, AYA cancer survivors were at 10.4-fold increased risk for death (95% CI, 9.7-fold to 11.2-fold increased risk for death) compared with the matched noncancer cohort, and this risk remained elevated at >20 years after diagnosis (IRR, 2.9; 95% CI, 2.0-4.3). The absolute excess risk for death from any cause was 12.7 per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 11.9-13.4 per 1000 person-years). Starting at 15 years after diagnosis, the incidence of second cancer-related mortality exceeded the rate of recurrence-related mortality, and similar trends were observed for deaths from other health-related conditions. The 8-year cumulative incidence of mortality declined over time (before 2000, 12.6%; 2000-2006, 10.1%; after 2006, 7.3%; P < .001), largely because of declines in recurrence-related mortality. Age, sex, race/ethnicity, cancer stage at diagnosis, and cancer treatment predicted cause-specific mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The current data highlight the need for specialized, long-term follow-up care for AYA cancer survivors.

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Mortality Associated With Second Malignant Neoplasms Among Survivors of Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer.

Importance: Detailed data describing the epidemiology of second malignant neoplasms (SMN) are needed for survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer to inform the development of age-appropriate survivorship care guidelines. Objective: To describe the incidence, risk factors, and mortality for SMN in survivors of AYA cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective matched cohort study included 10 574 two-year survivors diagnosed with cancer between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2012, at age 15 to 39 years in an integrated health care delivery system in Southern California. A comparison cohort without a history of cancer was individually matched 13:1 to survivors of AYA cancer by age, sex, and calendar year. Data analysis was completed in July 2018. Exposures: Secondary malignant neoplasm risk factors of interest included age, stage, and calendar year at first cancer diagnosis; sex; race/ethnicity; radiation therapy; and chemotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Diagnoses of SMN were ascertained using cancer registries from the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program through December 31, 2014. Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association between cancer survivor status and developing SMN and risk factors for SMN, while risk of all-cause mortality by SMN status was examined in Cox regression. Results: A total of 10 574 survivors of AYA cancer (6853 [64.8%] female; median [range] age, 33 [15-39] years; 622 with SMN) and 136 683 participants in the comparison cohort (88 513 [64.8%] female; median [range] age, 33 [15-39] years; 3437 with first cancer) were included. In survivors of AYA cancer, 20-year cumulative incidence of SMN was 12.5%. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) of developing SMN in survivors of AYA cancer was 2.6 (95% CI, 2.4-2.9) compared with the comparison cohort. Survivors of breast cancer, melanoma, and testicular cancer had substantially elevated risk for SMN of the same organ (IRR, 5.6 [95% CI, 4.6-6.8], 11.2 [95% CI, 7.3-17.2], and 16.2 [95% CI, 6.8-38.4], respectively). Among survivors of AYA cancer, older age (IRR for age 30-39 years, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.21-2.65]), female sex (IRR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.09-1.57]), white race/ethnicity (IRR for Asian race, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.43-0.87]), advanced stage at first cancer diagnosis (IRR for stage II, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.11-1.65]), and use of radiotherapy (IRR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.26-1.79]) were associated with increased risk of SMN. Survivors of AYA cancer who developed SMN had an all-cause mortality rate 7.2 (95% CI, 6.1-8.5) times greater than survivors without SMN. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that SMN risk is elevated in survivors of AYA cancer and varies across survivor subgroups. Survival following SMN may be significantly compromised. These data may form the basis for identifying individuals at high risk, as well as informing screening for SMN.

Impact of Guideline-Discordant Treatment on Cost and Health Care Utilization in Older Adults with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline-based treatment is a marker of high-quality care. The impact of guideline discordance on cost and health care utilization is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of Medicare claims data from 2012 to 2015 included women age ≥65 with stage I-III breast cancer receiving care within the University of Alabama at Birmingham Cancer Community Network. Concordance with NCCN guidelines was assessed for treatment regimens. Costs to Medicare and health care utilization were identified from start of cancer treatment until death or available follow-up. Adjusted monthly cost and utilization rates were estimated using linear mixed effect and generalized linear models. RESULTS: Of 1,177 patients, 16% received guideline-discordant treatment, which was associated with nonwhite race, estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor negative, human epidermal growth receptor 2 (HER2) positive, and later-stage cancer. Discordant therapy was primarily related to reduced-intensity treatments (single-agent chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapy without chemotherapy, bevacizumab without chemotherapy, platinum combinations without anthracyclines). In adjusted models, average monthly costs for guideline-discordant patients were $936 higher compared with concordant (95% confidence limits $611, $1,260). For guideline-discordant patients, adjusted rates of emergency department visits and hospitalizations per thousand observations were 25% higher (49.9 vs. 39.9) and 19% higher (24.0 vs. 20.1) per month than concordant patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: One in six patients with early-stage breast cancer received guideline-discordant care, predominantly related to undertreatment, which was associated with higher costs and rates of health care utilization. Additional randomized trials are needed to test lower-toxicity regimens and guide clinicians in treatment for older breast cancer patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Previous studies lack details about types of deviations from chemotherapy guidelines that occur in older early-stage breast cancer patients. Understanding the patterns of guideline discordance and its impact on patient outcomes will be particularly important for these patients. This study found 16% received guideline-discordant care, predominantly related to reduced intensity treatment and associated with higher costs and rates of health care utilization. Increasing older adult participation in clinical trials should be a priority in order to fill the knowledge gap about how to treat older, less fit patients with breast cancer.

Concordance with NCCN treatment guidelines: Relations with health care utilization, cost, and mortality in breast cancer patients with secondary metastasis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) treatment guideline concordance on costs, health care utilization, and mortality for patients with breast cancer and secondary metastases is unknown. METHODS: From 2007 to 2013, women with early-stage breast cancer who received treatment for secondary metastases (n = 5651) were evaluated for first recorded systemic therapy concordance with NCCN guidelines within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program-Medicare linked database. Generalized linear and mixed effects models evaluated factors associated with nonconcordance and the relation between concordance status and health care utilization and costs. Mortality risk was estimated with Cox regression. RESULTS: Eighteen percent of the patients received nonconcordant therapy, with the most common being single-agent, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted therapy (36%), therapy mismatched with the estrogen receptor/HER2 status (11%), unapproved bevacizumab regimens (10%), and adjuvant regimens in a metastatic setting (6%). A younger age, a hormone receptor-negative status, and a HER2-positive status were associated with nonconcordance (P < .05). Nonconcordance was associated with 22% and 21% increased rates of emergency department visits and hospitalizations, respectively, and $1765 higher average monthly Medicare costs. Differences in adjusted mortality risk were noted by the category of nonconcordance; single-agent, HER2-targeted therapy was associated with decreased mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence limit [CL], 0.57-0.76), and increased mortality risk was observed with unapproved bevacizumab use (HR, 1.40; 95% CL, 1.13-1.74). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients (82%) received treatment consistent with NCCN guidelines. Nonconcordant treatment was associated with higher health care utilization and costs, with mortality differences observed by the type of guideline deviation. Consideration of both patient and financial outcomes will be important as health systems increase the emphasis on guideline-based care.

End-of-Life Intensity for Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: A Californian Population-Based Study That Shows Disparities.

PURPOSE: Cancer is the leading cause of nonaccidental death among adolescents and young adults (AYAs). High-intensity end-of-life care is expensive and may not be consistent with patient goals. However, the intensity of end-of-life care for AYA decedents with cancer-especially the effect of care received at specialty versus nonspecialty centers-remains understudied. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, population-based analysis with the California administrative discharge database that is linked to death certificates. The cohort included Californians age 15 to 39 years who died between 2000 and 2011 with cancer. Intense end-of-life interventions included readmission, admission to an intensive care unit, intubation in the last month of life, and in-hospital death. Specialty centers were defined as Children's Oncology Group centers and National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers. RESULTS: Of the 12,938 AYA cancer decedents, 59% received at least one intense end-of-life care intervention, and 30% received two or more. Patients treated at nonspecialty centers were more likely than those at specialty-care centers to receive two or more intense interventions (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.62). Sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with two or more intense interventions included minority race/ethnicity (Black [OR, 1.35, 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.56]; Hispanic [OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.36]; non-Hispanic white: reference), younger age (15 to 21 years [OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.56; 22 to 29 years [OR,1.26; 95% CI,1.14 to 1.39]; ≥ 30 years: reference), and hematologic malignancies (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.41 to 1.66; solid tumors: reference). CONCLUSION: Thirty percent of AYA cancer decedents received two or more high-intensity end-of-life interventions. In addition to sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, hospitalization in a nonspecialty center was associated with high-intensity end-of-life care. Additional research is needed to determine if these disparities are consistent with patient preference.

Adolescents and Young Adults with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia and Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Impact of Care at Specialized Cancer Centers on Survival Outcome.

Background: Adolescents and young adults (AYA; 15-39 years) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) experience inferior survival when compared with children. Impact of care at NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) or Children's Oncology Group sites (COG) on survival disparities remains unstudied.Methods: Using the Los Angeles cancer registry, we identified 1,870 ALL or AML patients between 1 and 39 years at diagnosis. Cox regression analyses assessed risk of mortality; younger age + CCC/COG served as the referent group. Logistic regression was used to determine odds of care at CCC/COG, adjusting for variables above.Results: ALL outcome: AYAs at non-CCC/COG experienced inferior survival (15-21 years: HR = 1.9, P = 0.005; 22-29 years: HR = 2.6, P < 0.001; 30-39 years: HR = 3.0, P < 0.001). Outcome at CCC/COG was comparable between children and young AYAs (15-21 years: HR = 1.3, P = 0.3; 22-29 years: HR = 1.2, P = 0.2) but was inferior for 30- to 39-year-olds (HR = 3.4, P < 0.001). AML outcome: AYAs at non-CCC/COG experienced inferior outcome (15-21 years: HR = 1.8, P = 0.02; 22-39 years: HR = 1.4, P = 0.06). Outcome at CCC/COG was comparable between children and 15- to 21-year-olds (HR = 1.3, P = 0.4) but was inferior for 22- to 39-year-olds (HR = 1.7, P = 0.05). Access: 15- to 21-year-olds were less likely to use CCC/COG than children (P < 0.001). In 22- to 39-year-olds, public/uninsured (ALL: P = 0.004; AML<0.001), African American/Hispanics (ALL: P = 0.03), and 30- to 39-year-olds (ALL: P = 0.03) were less likely to use CCC/COG.Conclusions: Poor survival in AYAs with ALL and AML is mitigated by care at CCC/COG. Barriers to CCC/COG care include public/uninsured, and African American/Hispanic race/ethnicity.Impact: Care at CCC/COG explains, in part, inferior outcomes in AYAs with ALL and AML. Key sociodemographic factors serve as barriers to care at specialized centers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(3); 312-20. ©2017 AACR.

Impact of care at comprehensive cancer centers on outcome: Results from a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Rigorous processes ensure quality of research and clinical care at National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers (NCICCCs). Unmeasurable elements of structure and process of cancer care delivery warrant evaluation. To the authors' knowledge, the impact of NCICCC care on survival and access to NCICCCs for vulnerable subpopulations remain unstudied. METHODS: The current study's population-based cohort of 69,579 patients had newly diagnosed adult-onset (aged 22-65 years) cancers reported to the Los Angeles County cancer registry between 1998 and 2008. Geographic information systems were used for geospatial analysis. RESULTS: With regard to overall survival across multiple diagnoses, patients not receiving their first planned treatment at NCICCCs experienced poorer outcomes compared with those treated at NCICCCs; differences persisted on multivariable analyses after adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors (hepatobiliary: hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.4-1.7 [P<.001]; lung: HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6 [P<.001]; pancreatic: HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.7 [P<.001]; gastric: HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7 [P = .01]; breast: HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5 [P<.001]; and colorectal: HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.4 [P = .05]). With regard to barriers to care, multivariable analyses revealed that a lower likelihood of treatment at NCICCCs was associated with race/ethnicity (African-American: OR range across diagnoses: 0.4-0.7 [P<.03]; Hispanic: OR range, 0.5-0.7 [P<.04]); lack of private insurance (public: OR range, 0.6-0.8 [P<.004]; uninsured: OR range, 0.1-0.5 [P<.04]); less than high socioeconomic status (high-middle: OR range, 0.4-0.7 [P<.02]; middle: OR range, 0.3-0.5 [P<.001]; and low: OR range, 0.2-0.6 [P<.01]), and residing >9 miles from the nearest NCICCC (OR range, 0.5-0.7 [P<.02]). CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals aged 22 to 65 years residing in Los Angeles County with newly diagnosed adult-onset cancer, those who were treated at NCICCCs experienced superior survival compared with those treated at non-NCICCC facilities. Barriers to care at NCICCCs included race/ethnicity, insurance, socioeconomic status, and distance to an NCICCC.

Impact of treatment site in adolescents and young adults with central nervous system tumors.

BACKGROUND: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs; aged 15-39 years) have inferior survival in comparison with younger (aged 0-14 years) cancer patients. Impact of care at specialized centers such as National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (NCICCC) for AYAs of all ages or the Children's Oncology Group (COG) for AYAs aged 15 to 21 years with central nervous system (CNS) tumors remains unstudied. METHODS: We constructed a cohort of 560 children and 784 AYAs with CNS tumors reported to the Los Angeles cancer registry from 1998 to 2008. Cox and logistic regression models were used, with two-sided P values from Wald χ(2) tests. RESULTS: In Cox regression analysis restricted to World Health Organization (WHO) grade II tumors, patients of all ages saw worse outcome if not treated at NCICCC/COG sites (non-NCICCC/COG vs NCICCC/COG: hazard ratio [HR] =1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09 to 2.72). Furthermore, the worse outcome for AYAs compared with children (HR = 1.90; 95% CI = 1.21 to 2.98; P = .005) was abrogated (HR = 1.35; 95% CI = 0.79 to 2.29; P = .27) by care at NCICCC/COGs. Those less likely to receive care at NCICCC/COG sites included young AYAs (aged 15-21 years vs children: odds ratio [OR] = 0.23; 95% CI = 0.11 to 0.48; P < .001) and older AYAs (aged 22-39 years) with low socioeconomic status (OR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.89; P = .02), public/no insurance (OR = 0.30; 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.71; P < .01), and distance to care greater than 5 miles (OR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.57; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Population-based data reveal that care at NCICCC/COG sites mitigates inferior outcome in AYAs with WHO grade II CNS tumors compared with children. Compared with children, AYAs are less likely to receive care at NCICCC/COGs. Insurance, socioeconomic status, and distance serve as barriers to care at NCICCCs for older AYAs.

Discharge and unscheduled readmissions of adult patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: implications for developing nursing interventions.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To describe discharge and unscheduled readmission patterns of adult patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). To identify implications for nursing practice from survey results and the literature that may improve patient outcomes during and following initial hospital discharge. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review and literature review. SETTING: National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. SAMPLE: 100 adult patients undergoing HSCT in the first six months of 2000. METHODS: Investigator-created retrospective chart-review tool collected data in three areas: demographic, clinical, and readmissions in the first six months after discharge. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Demographic variables: gender, marital status, age, and diagnosis; clinical variables: remission status at transplant, type of transplant, presence of comorbid or concurrent conditions, number of infections, number of catheter-related infections, number of bacteremic episodes, and psychosocial support; readmission variables: reason for admission, discharge or death data, number of days of each admission, and length of time between discharge to the next admission. FINDINGS: Fifty-one percent had at least one unscheduled readmission, and 80% developed an infection after HSCT. Further analysis comparing autologous to allogeneic transplant recipients indicated that the allogeneic group had a higher number of readmissions, unscheduled readmissions, and infections. Patients who reported an infection within a month prior to HSCT had a 50% mortality rate after transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that allogeneic transplant recipients are a more vulnerable population in regard to infections and readmissions. Developing and testing nursing interventions surrounding the discharge period are needed next steps in improving care. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Knowledge of trends in this vulnerable population will guide nursing to plan targeted interventions.