Survival Advantage With Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Locoregionally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Veterans Health Administration Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) after chemoradiation (CRT) and surgery for locoregionally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is a standard of care in the United States. This study examined the role, optimal regimen, and duration of AC using data from the largest integrated health system in the United States. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry, patients with stage II-III rectal cancer diagnosed in 2001 through 2011 who received neoadjuvant CRT and surgery with or without AC were identified. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank tests, and propensity score (PS) adjustment analysis were used to assess survival. RESULTS: A total of 866 patients were identified; 417 received AC and 449 did not (observation [OBS] group). Median follow-up was 109 months. Median disease-specific survival (DSS) was not reached. Six-year DSS was 73.7%; 79.5% for the AC group versus 68.0% for the OBS group. PS-matched analysis for DSS favored AC (P=.0002). Median overall survival (OS) was 90.8 months. Six-year OS was 56.7%; 64.3% for AC versus 49.6% for OBS. In PS-matched analysis, median OS was 117.4 months for AC and 74.3 months for OBS (P<.0001). A DSS advantage was seen when comparing ≥4 months with <4 months of AC (P=.023). No difference in DSS or OS was seen with single-agent versus multiagent AC. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of patients with LARC treated with neoadjuvant CRT and surgery, OS and DSS were improved among those treated with AC versus OBS. DSS benefits were seen with ≥4 months of AC. No additional benefit was observed with multiagent therapy. In the absence of phase III data, these findings support the use of AC for LARC.

Predictors of Timely Access of Oncology Services and Advanced-Stage Cancer in an HIV-Endemic Setting.

BACKGROUND: Three-quarters of cancer deaths occur in resource-limited countries, and delayed presentation contributes to poor outcome. In Botswana, where more than half of cancers arise in HIV-infected individuals, we sought to explore predictors of timely oncology care and evaluate the hypothesis that engagement in longitudinal HIV care improves access. METHODS: Consenting patients presenting for oncology care from October 2010 to September 2014 were interviewed and their records were reviewed. Cox and logistic models were used to examine the effect of HIV and other predictors on time to oncology care and presentation with advanced cancer (stage III or IV). RESULTS: Of the 1,146 patients analyzed, 584 (51%) had HIV and 615 (54%) had advanced cancer. The initial clinic visit occurred a mean of 144 days (median 29, interquartile range 0-185) after symptom onset, but subsequent mean time to oncology care was 406 days (median 160, interquartile range 59-653). HIV status was not significantly associated with time to oncology care (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-1.06). However, patients who reported using traditional medicine/healers engaged in oncology care significantly faster (aHR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09-1.40) and those with advanced cancer entered care earlier (aHR 1.48, 95% CI 1.30-1.70). Factors significantly associated with advanced cancer included income <$50 per month (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.35, 95% CI 1.05-1.75), male sex (aOR 1.45, 95% CI 1.12-1.87), and pain as the presenting symptom (aOR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03-1.88). CONCLUSION: Longitudinal HIV care did not reduce the substantial delay to cancer treatment. Research focused on reducing health system delay through coordination and navigation is needed. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The majority (54%) of patients in this large cohort from Botswana presented with advanced-stage cancer despite universal access to free health care. Median time from first symptom to specialized oncology care was 13 months. For HIV-infected patients (51% of total), regular longitudinal contact with the health system, through quarterly doctor visits for HIV management, was not successful in providing faster linkages into oncology care. However, patients who used traditional medicine/healers engaged in cancer care faster, indicating potential for leveraging traditional healers as partners in early cancer detection. New strategies are urgently needed to facilitate diagnosis and timely treatment of cancer in low- and middle-income countries.

Cancer Treatment in Patients With HIV Infection and Non-AIDS-Defining Cancers: A Survey of US Oncologists.

PURPOSE: HIV-infected individuals with non-AIDS-defining cancers are less likely to receive cancer treatment compared with uninfected individuals. We sought to identify provider-level factors influencing the delivery of oncology care to HIV-infected patients. METHODS: A survey was mailed to 500 randomly selected US medical and radiation oncologists. The primary outcome was delivery of standard treatment, assessed by responses to three specialty-specific management questions. We used the χ(2) test to evaluate associations between delivery of standard treatment, provider demographics, and perceptions of HIV-infected individuals. Multivariable logistic regression identified associations using factor analysis to combine several correlated survey questions. RESULTS: Our response rate was 60%; 69% of respondents felt that available cancer management guidelines were insufficient for the care of HIV-infected patients with cancer; 45% never or rarely discussed their cancer management plan with an HIV specialist; 20% and 15% of providers were not comfortable discussing cancer treatment adverse effects and prognosis with their HIV-infected patients with cancer, respectively; 79% indicated that they would provide standard cancer treatment to HIV-infected patients. In multivariable analysis, physicians comfortable discussing adverse effects and prognosis were more likely to provide standard cancer treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.07). Physicians with concerns about toxicity and efficacy of treatment were significantly less likely to provide standard cancer treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.85). CONCLUSION: Provider-level factors are associated with delivery of nonstandard cancer treatment to HIV-infected patients. Policy change, provider education, and multidisciplinary collaboration are needed to improve access to cancer treatment.