Pilot study of a Spanish language measure of financial toxicity in underserved Hispanic cancer patients with low English proficiency.

Background: Financial toxicity (FT) reflects multi-dimensional personal economic hardships borne by cancer patients. It is unknown whether measures of FT-to date derived largely from English-speakers-adequately capture economic experiences and financial hardships of medically underserved low English proficiency US Hispanic cancer patients. We piloted a Spanish language FT instrument in this population. Methods: We piloted a Spanish version of the Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer (ENRICh) FT measure using qualitative cognitive interviews and surveys in un-/under-insured or medically underserved, low English proficiency, Spanish-speaking Hispanics (UN-Spanish, n = 23) receiving ambulatory oncology care at a public healthcare safety net hospital in the Houston metropolitan area. Exploratory analyses compared ENRICh FT scores amongst the UN-Spanish group to: (1) un-/under-insured English-speaking Hispanics (UN-English, n = 23) from the same public facility and (2) insured English-speaking Hispanics (INS-English, n = 31) from an academic comprehensive cancer center. Multivariable logistic models compared the outcome of severe FT (score > 6). Results: UN-Spanish Hispanic participants reported high acceptability of the instrument (only 0% responded that the instrument was "very difficult to answer" and 4% that it was "very difficult to understand the questions"; 8% responded that it was "very difficult to remember resources used" and 8% that it was "very difficult to remember the burdens experienced"; and 4% responded that it was "very uncomfortable to respond"). Internal consistency of the FT measure was high (Cronbach's α = 0.906). In qualitative responses, UN-Spanish Hispanics frequently identified a total lack of credit, savings, or income and food insecurity as aspects contributing to FT. UN-Spanish and UN-English Hispanic patients were younger, had lower education and income, resided in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods and had more advanced cancer vs. INS-English Hispanics. There was a higher likelihood of severe FT in UN-Spanish (OR = 2.73, 95% CI 0.77-9.70; p = 0.12) and UN-English (OR = 4.13, 95% CI 1.13-15.12; p = 0.03) vs. INS-English Hispanics. A higher likelihood of severely depleted FT coping resources occurred in UN-Spanish (OR = 4.00, 95% CI 1.07-14.92; p = 0.04) and UN-English (OR = 5.73, 95% CI 1.49-22.1; p = 0.01) vs. INS-English. The likelihood of FT did not differ between UN-Spanish and UN-English in both models (p = 0.59 and p = 0.62 respectively). Conclusion: In medically underserved, uninsured Hispanic patients with cancer, comprehensive Spanish-language FT assessment in low English proficiency participants was feasible, acceptable, and internally consistent. Future studies employing tailored FT assessment and intervention should encompass the key privations and hardships in this population.

Patient, physician, and policy factors underlying variation in use of telemedicine for radiation oncology cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Oncology telemedicine was implemented rapidly after COVID-19. We examined multilevel correlates and outcomes of telemedicine use for patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for cancer. METHODS: Upon implementation of a telemedicine platform at a comprehensive cancer center, we analyzed 468 consecutive patient RT courses from March 16, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Patients were categorized as using telemedicine during ≥1 weekly oncologist visits versus in-person oncologist management only. Temporal trends were evaluated with Cochran-Armitage tests; chi-squared test and multilevel multivariable logistic models identified correlates of use and outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 33% used telemedicine versus 67% in-person only oncologist management. Temporal trends (ptrend  < 0.001) correlated with policy changes: uptake was rapid after local social-distancing restrictions, reaching peak use (35% of visits) within 4 weeks of implementation. Use declined to 15% after national "Opening Up America Again" guidelines. In the multilevel model, patients more likely to use telemedicine were White non-Hispanic versus Black or Hispanic (odds ratio [OR] = 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-4.72; p = 0.04) or receiving ≥6 fractions of RT versus 1-5 fractions (OR = 4.49, 95% CI 2.29-8.80; p < 0.001). Model intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated 43% utilization variation was physician-level driven. Treatment toxicities and 30-day emergency visits or unplanned hospitalizations did not differ for patients using versus not using telemedicine (p > 0.05, all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Though toxicities were similar with telemedicine oncology management, there remained lower uptake among non-White patients. Continuing strategies for oncology telemedicine implementation should address multilevel patient, physician, and policy factors to optimize telemedicine's potential to surmount-and not exacerbate-barriers to quality cancer care.

Racial disparities in guideline-concordant cancer care and mortality in the United States.

PURPOSE: We identified the frequency of racial disparities in guideline-concordant cancer care for select common disease sites in the United States and the impact of guideline concordance on mortality disparities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare data, we evaluated patients age >65 years of black or non-Hispanic white race who were diagnosed with stage III breast (n = 3607), stage I (n = 14,605) or III (n = 15,609) non-small cell lung, or stage III prostate (n = 3548) cancer between 2006 and 2011. Chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy (RT) treatments were identified using claims data. Pearson χ2 was used to test the associations between race and guideline concordance on the basis of National Comprehensive Cancer Network curative treatment guidelines. Mortality risks were modeled using Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: Black patients were less likely to receive guideline-concordant curative treatment than non-Hispanic white patients for stage III breast cancer postmastectomy RT (53% black, 61% white; P = .0014), stage I non-small cell lung cancer stereotactic radiation or surgery (61% black, 75% white; P < .0001), stage III non-small cell lung cancer chemotherapy in addition to RT or surgery (36% black, 41% white; P = .0001), and stage III prostate cancer RT or prostatectomy (82% black, 95% white; P < .0001). Disparities in guideline concordance impacted racial mortality disparities. Specifically, hazard ratios that demonstrated elevated all-cause mortality risks in black patients were lowered (and more closely approached hazard ratio of 1.00) after adjusting for guideline concordance. A similar impact for cause-specific mortality was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Racial disparities in the receipt of curative cancer therapy impacted racial mortality disparities across multiple cancer sites. Benchmarking adherence to guideline-concordant care could represent an opportunity to stimulate improvements in disparities in cancer treatment and survival.

Procedural outcomes of fluoroless catheter ablation outside the traditional catheterization lab.

AIMS: Non-fluoroscopic catheter ablation is becoming routine. In experienced centres, fluoroscopy is rarely required. The use of a traditional catheterization lab (cath lab) may no longer be necessary. We began performing catheter ablations at a paediatric centre outside the traditional cardiac cath lab in 2013. The purpose of this study was to compare procedural features of paediatric catheter ablation performed outside the cath lab to those performed within a cath lab. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively looked at patients presenting to the paediatric centre with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) undergoing catheter ablation outside the cath lab in a standard operating room (OR group). We compared retrospectively to a control group matched for age, type, and location of arrhythmia who had ablations in a traditional cath lab (CL group). Catheter visualization was exclusively by electro-anatomic mapping. Fifty-nine patients with SVT underwent catheter ablation in the OR from October 2013 to December 2015. Thirty-three patients had accessory pathways, 29 were manifest, and 13 of those were left sided. Twenty-six had atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia. Transseptal puncture with transoesophageal echocardiography guidance was used for 10 left-sided pathways, whereas the other 3 had patent foramen ovales. Procedure time did not differ significantly between groups (OR group mean 131 min, range 57-408; CL group mean 152 min, range 68-376; P = 0.12). Acute success was similar in both groups [OR group: 58/59 (98.3%) and CL group: 57/59 (96.6%)]. There were no major complications in either group. There was no fluoroscopy used in either group. CONCLUSION: Although performing paediatric catheter ablations outside the traditional cath lab is early in our experience, we produced similar outcomes and results without encountering procedural difficulties of performing ablations in a non-conventional setting. Larger multi-centred trials will be essential to determine the feasibility of this practice.

Radiation treatment in older patients: a framework for clinical decision making.

In older patients, radiation treatment plays a vital role in curative and palliative cancer therapy. Radiation treatment recommendations should be informed by a comprehensive, personalized risk-benefit assessment that evaluates treatment efficacy and toxicity. We review several clinical factors that distinctly affect efficacy and toxicity of radiation treatment in older patients. First, locoregional tumor behavior may be more indolent in older patients for some disease sites but more aggressive for other sites. Assessment of expected locoregional relapse risk informs the magnitude and timeframe of expected radiation treatment benefits. Second, assessment of the competing cancer versus noncancer mortality and morbidity risks contextualizes cancer treatment priorities holistically within patients' entire spectrum and time course of health needs. Third, assessment of functional reserve helps predict patients' acute treatment tolerance, differentiating those patients who are unlikely to benefit from treatment or who are at high risk for treatment complications. Potential radiation treatment options include immediate curative treatment, delayed curative treatment, and no treatment, with additional consideration given to altered radiation target, dose, or sequencing with chemotherapy and/or surgery. Finally, when cure is not feasible, palliative radiation therapy remains valuable for managing symptoms and achieving meaningful quality-of-life improvements. Our proposed decision-making framework integrates these factors to help radiation oncologists formulate strategic treatment recommendations within a multidisciplinary context. Future research is still needed to identify how advanced technologies can be judiciously applied in curative and palliative settings to enhance risk-benefit profiles of radiation treatment in older patients and more accurately quantify treatment efficacy in this group.