The Association Between Oncology Outreach and Timely Treatment for Rural Patients with Breast Cancer: A Claims-Based Approach.

BACKGROUND: Oncology outreach is a common strategy for increasing rural access to cancer care, where traveling oncologists commute across healthcare settings to extend specialized care. Examining the extent to which physician outreach is associated with timely treatment for rural patients is critical for informing outreach strategies. METHODS: We identified a 100% fee-for-service sample of incident breast cancer patients from 2015 to 2020 Medicare claims and apportioned them into surgery and adjuvant therapy cohorts based on treatment history. We defined an outreach visit as the provision of care by a traveling oncologist at a clinic outside of their primary hospital service area. We used hierarchical logistic regression to examine the associations between patient receipt of preoperative care at an outreach visit (preoperative outreach) and > 60-day surgical delay, and patient receipt of postoperative care at an outreach visit (postoperative outreach) and > 60-day adjuvant delay. RESULTS: We identified 30,337 rural-residing patients who received breast cancer surgery, of whom 4071 (13.4%) experienced surgical delay. Among surgical patients, 14,501 received adjuvant therapy, of whom 2943 (20.3%) experienced adjuvant delay. In adjusted analysis, we found that patient receipt of preoperative outreach was associated with reduced odds of surgical delay (odds ratio [OR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.91); however, we found no association between patient receipt of postoperative outreach and adjuvant delay (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.85-1.25). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that preoperative outreach is protective against surgical delay. The traveling oncologists who enable such outreach may play an integral role in catalyzing the coordination and timeliness of patient-centered care.

Characterizing the Traveling Oncology Workforce and Its Influence on Patient Travel Burden: A Claims-Based Approach.

PURPOSE: Oncology outreach is a common strategy for extending cancer care to rural patients. However, a nationwide characterization of the traveling workforce that enables this outreach is lacking, and the extent to which outreach reduces travel burden for rural patients is unknown. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed a rural (nonurban) subset of a 100% fee-for-service sample of 355,139 Medicare beneficiaries with incident breast, colorectal, and lung cancers. Surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists were linked to patients using Part B claims, and traveling oncologists were identified by observing hospital service area (HSA) transition patterns. We defined oncology outreach as the provision of cancer care by a traveling oncologist outside of their primary HSA. We used hierarchical gamma regression models to examine the separate associations between patient receipt of oncology outreach and one-way patient travel times to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery. RESULTS: On average, 9,935 of 39,960 oncologists conducted annual outreach, where 57.8% traveled with low frequency (0-1 outreach visits/mo), 21.1% with medium frequency (1-3 outreach visits/mo), and 21.1% with high frequency (>3 outreach visits/mo). Oncologists provided surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy to 51,715, 27,120, and 5,874 rural beneficiaries, respectively, of whom 2.5%, 6.9%, and 3.6% received oncology outreach. Rural patients who received oncology outreach traveled 16% (95% CI, 11 to 21) and 11% (95% CI, 9 to 13) less minutes to chemotherapy and radiotherapy than those who did not receive oncology outreach, corresponding to expected one-way savings of 15.9 (95% CI, 15.5 to 16.4) and 11.9 (95% CI, 11.7 to 12.2) minutes, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study introduces a novel claims-based approach for tracking the nationwide traveling oncology workforce and supports oncology outreach as an effective means for improving rural access to cancer care.

Practice Consolidation Among US Medical Oncologists, 2015-2022.

PURPOSE: Health care consolidation has significantly affected cancer care delivery, with oncology practices undergoing substantial consolidation over the past two decades. This study investigates practice consolidation trends among medical oncologists (MOs), factors associated with consolidation, and changes in MO geographic distribution. METHODS: Medicare data from 2015 to 2022 were used to assess MO practice consolidation in hospital referral regions (HRRs), linked with regional health care market data and physician demographics. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) was used to measure consolidation, and the Gini coefficient was used to measure MO distribution across counties. Multivariable linear regression explored factors associated with MO practice consolidation. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2022, the number of MOs increased by 14.5% (11,727-13,433), whereas the number of MO practices decreased by 18.0% (2,774-2,276). The mean number of MOs per practice increased by 40% (4.26-5.95; P < .001). The percentage of MOs in small practices decreased, whereas larger practices saw an increase. MO consolidation, as indicated by the HHI, increased by 9% (median HHI, 0.3204-0.3480). HRRs with higher baseline hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to have MO practice consolidation. Despite MO practice consolidation, the county-level distribution of MOs did not change substantially. CONCLUSION: On the basis of Federal Trade Commission classifications, MO practices were highly concentrated in 2015 and consolidated even further by 2022. While distribution of MOs at the county level remained stable, further research is needed to assess the effects of rapid consolidation on cancer care cost, quality, and access. These data have important implications for policymakers and payers as they design programs that ensure high-quality, affordable cancer care.

Association between a network-based physician linchpin score and cancer patient mortality: a SEER-Medicare analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer frequently require multidisciplinary teams for optimal cancer outcomes. Network analysis can capture relationships among cancer specialists, and we developed a novel physician linchpin score to characterize "linchpin" physicians whose peers have fewer ties to other physicians of the same oncologic specialty. Our study examined whether being treated by a linchpin physician was associated with worse survival. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data for patients diagnosed with stage I to III non-small cell lung cancer or colorectal cancer (CRC) in 2016-2017. We assembled patient-sharing networks and calculated linchpin scores for medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons. Physicians were considered linchpins if their linchpin score was within the top 15% for their specialty. We used Cox proportional hazards models to examine associations between being treated by a linchpin physician and survival, with a 2-year follow-up period. RESULTS: The study cohort included 10 081 patients with non-small cell lung cancer and 9036 patients with CRC. Patients with lung cancer treated by a linchpin radiation oncologist had a 17% (95% confidence interval = 1.04 to 1.32) greater hazard of mortality, and similar trends were observed for linchpin medical oncologists. Patients with CRC treated by a linchpin surgeon had a 22% (95% confidence interval = 1.03 to 1.43) greater hazard of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of Medicare beneficiaries with nonmetastatic lung cancer or CRC, those treated by linchpin physicians often experienced worse survival. Efforts to improve outcomes can use network analysis to identify areas with reduced access to multidisciplinary specialists.

Surveillance With Serial Imaging and CA 19-9 Tumor Marker Testing After Resection of Pancreatic Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVES: Most patients receiving curative-intent surgery for pancreatic cancer will experience cancer recurrence. However, evidence that postoperative surveillance testing improves survival or quality of life is lacking. We evaluated the use and characteristics of surveillance with serial imaging and CA 19-9 tumor marker testing at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who entered surveillance after curative-intent resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We abstracted information from the electronic medical record about oncology office visits, surveillance testing (cross-sectional imaging and CA 19-9 tumor marker testing), and pancreatic cancer recurrence, with follow-up through 2 years after pancreatectomy. We conducted analyses to describe the use of surveillance testing and to characterize the sensitivity and specificity of CA 19-9 tumor marker testing for the identification of cancer recurrence. RESULTS: We identified 90 patients entering surveillance after pancreatectomy. CA 19-9 was the most frequently used surveillance test, followed by CT imaging. Forty-seven patients (52.2%) experienced recurrence within two years of pancreatectomy. Recurrence risk was 58.8% versus 31.8% in patients with elevated versus normal CA 19-9 at diagnosis ( P =0.03). Elevated CA 19-9 at any point during surveillance was significantly associated with 2-year recurrence risk ( P <0.001). Elevated CA 19-9 had a sensitivity of 83% (95% CI 0.72-0.95) and specificity of 87% (0.76-0.98) for identification of recurrence within 2 years of pancreatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: CA 19-9 demonstrates clinical validity for identifying recurrence of pancreatic cancer during surveillance. Surveillance approaches with reduced reliance on imaging should be prospectively evaluated.

The Association of Rural Residence With Surgery and Adjuvant Radiation in Medicare Beneficiaries With Rectal Cancer.

Purpose: Radiation therapy and surgery are fundamental site-directed therapies for nonmetastatic rectal cancer. To understand the relationship between rurality and access to specialized care, we characterized the association of rural patient residence with receipt of surgery and radiation therapy among Medicare beneficiaries with rectal cancer. Methods and Materials: We identified fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older diagnosed with nonmetastatic rectal cancer from 2016 to 2018. Beneficiary place of residence was assigned to one of 3 geographic categories (metropolitan, micropolitan, or small town/rural) based on census tract and corresponding rural urban commuting area codes. Multivariable regression models were used to determine associations between levels of rurality and receipt of both radiation and proctectomy within 180 days of diagnosis. In addition, we explored associations between patient rurality and characteristics of surgery and radiation such as minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Results: Among 13,454 Medicare beneficiaries with nonmetastatic rectal cancer, 3926 (29.2%) underwent proctectomy within 180 days of being diagnosed with rectal cancer, and 1792 (13.3%) received both radiation and proctectomy. Small town/rural residence was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving both radiation and proctectomy within 180 days of diagnosis (adjusted subhazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30). Furthermore, small town/rural radiation patients were significantly less likely to receive IMRT (adjusted odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.80) or MIS (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97) than metropolitan patients. Conclusions: Although small town/rural Medicare beneficiaries were overall more likely to receive both radiation and proctectomy for their rectal cancer, they were less likely to receive preoperative IMRT or MIS as part of their treatment regimen. Together, these findings clarify that among Medicare beneficiaries, there appeared to be a similar utilization of radiation resources and time to radiation treatment regardless of rural/urban status.

Association of rurality, socioeconomic status, and race with pancreatic cancer surgical treatment and survival.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatectomy is a necessary component of curative intent therapy for pancreatic cancer, and patients living in nonmetropolitan areas may face barriers to accessing timely surgical care. We evaluated the intersecting associations of rurality, socioeconomic status (SES), and race on treatment and outcomes of Medicare beneficiaries with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, using fee-for-service Medicare claims of beneficiaries with incident pancreatic cancer (2016-2018). We categorized beneficiary place of residence as metropolitan, micropolitan, or rural. Measures of SES were Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility and the Area Deprivation Index. Primary study outcomes were receipt of pancreatectomy and 1-year mortality. Exposure-outcome associations were assessed with competing risks and logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 45 915 beneficiaries with pancreatic cancer, including 78.4%, 10.9%, and 10.7% residing in metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural areas, respectively. In analyses adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, and metastasis, residents of micropolitan and rural areas were less likely to undergo pancreatectomy (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.88 for rural, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81 to 0.95) and had higher 1-year mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 1.25 for rural, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.33) compared with metropolitan residents. Adjustment for measures of SES attenuated the association of nonmetropolitan residence with mortality, and there was no statistically significant association of rurality with pancreatectomy after adjustment. Black beneficiaries had lower likelihood of pancreatectomy than White, non-Hispanic beneficiaries (subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.72 to 0.89, adjusted for SES). One-year mortality in metropolitan areas was higher for Black beneficiaries (adjusted odds ratio = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.26). CONCLUSIONS: Rurality, socioeconomic deprivation, and race have complex interrelationships and are associated with disparities in pancreatic cancer treatment and outcomes.

Structure and integration of specialty palliative care in three NCI-designated cancer centers: a mixed methods case study.

INTRODUCTION: Early access to specialty palliative care is associated with better quality of life, less intensive end-of-life treatment and improved outcomes for patients with advanced cancer. However, significant variation exists in implementation and integration of palliative care. This study compares the organizational, sociocultural, and clinical factors that support or hinder palliative care integration across three U.S. cancer centers using an in-depth mixed methods case study design and proposes a middle range theory to further characterize specialty palliative care integration. METHODS: Mixed methods data collection included document review, semi-structured interviews, direct clinical observation, and context data related to site characteristics and patient demographics. A mixed inductive and deductive approach and triangulation was used to analyze and compare sites' palliative care delivery models, organizational structures, social norms, and clinician beliefs and practices. RESULTS: Sites included an urban center in the Midwest and two in the Southeast. Data included 62 clinician and 27 leader interviews, observations of 410 inpatient and outpatient encounters and seven non-encounter-based meetings, and multiple documents. Two sites had high levels of "favorable" organizational influences for specialty palliative care integration, including screening, policies, and other structures facilitating integration of specialty palliative care into advanced cancer care. The third site lacked formal organizational policies and structures for specialty palliative care, had a small specialty palliative care team, espoused an organizational identity linked to treatment innovation, and demonstrated strong social norms for oncologist primacy in decision making. This combination led to low levels of specialty palliative care integration and greater reliance on individual clinicians to initiate palliative care. CONCLUSION: Integration of specialty palliative care services in advanced cancer care was associated with a complex interaction of organization-level factors, social norms, and individual clinician orientation. The resulting middle range theory suggests that formal structures and policies for specialty palliative care combined with supportive social norms are associated with greater palliative care integration in advanced cancer care, and less influence of individual clinician preferences or tendencies to continue treatment. These results suggest multi-faceted efforts at different levels, including social norms, may be needed to improve specialty palliative care integration for advanced cancer patients.

Practice-Level Variation in Molecular Testing and Use of Targeted Therapy for Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: All patients with newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) should receive molecular testing to identify those who can benefit from targeted therapies. However, many patients do not receive recommended testing and targeted therapies. Objective: To compare rates of molecular testing and targeted therapy use by practice type and across practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used 100% Medicare fee-for-service data from 2015 through 2019 to identify beneficiaries with new metastatic NSCLC or CRC diagnoses receiving systemic therapy and to assign patients to oncology practices. Hierarchical linear models were used to characterize variation by practice type and across practices. Data analysis was conducted from June 2019 to October 2022. Exposures: Oncology practice providing care. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were rates of molecular testing and targeted therapy use for patients with NSCLC and CRC. Secondary outcomes were rates of multigene testing for NSCLC and CRC. Results: There were 106 228 Medicare beneficiaries with incident NSCLC (31 521 [29.7%] aged 65-69 years; 50 348 [47.4%] female patients; 2269 [2.1%] Asian, 8282 [7.8%] Black, and 91 215 [85.9%] White patients) and 39 512 beneficiaries with incident CRC (14 045 [35.5%] aged 65-69 years; 17 518 [44.3%] female patients; 896 [2.3%] Asian, 3521 [8.9%] Black, and 32 753 [82.9%] White patients) between 2015 and 2019. Among these beneficiaries, 18 435 (12.9%) were treated at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated centers, 8187 (5.6%) were treated at other academic centers, and 94 329 (64.7%) were treated at independent oncology practices. Molecular testing rates increased from 74% to 85% for NSCLC and 45% to 65% for CRC. First-line targeted therapy use decreased from 12% to 8% among patients with NSCLC and was constant at 5% for patients with CRC. For NSCLC, molecular testing rates were similar across practice types while rates of multigene panel use (13.2%) and targeted therapy use (16.6%) were highest at NCI-designated cancer centers. For CRC, molecular testing rates were 3.8 (95% CI: 1.2-6.5), 3.3 (95% CI, 0.4-6.1), and 12.2 (95% CI, 9.1-15.3) percentage points lower at hospital-owned practices, large independent practices, and small independent practices, respectively. Rates of targeted therapy use for CRC were similar across practice types. After adjusting for patient characteristics, there was moderate variation in molecular testing and targeted therapy use across oncology practices. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries, molecular testing rates for NSCLC and CRC increased in recent years but remained lower than recommended levels. Rates of targeted therapy use decreased for NSCLC and remained stable for CRC. Variation across practices suggests that where a patient was treated may have affected access to recommended testing and efficacious treatments.

Harnessing the Collective Expertise of Patients, Care Partners, Clinical Teams, and Researchers Through a Coproduction Learning Health System: A Case Study of the Dartmouth Health Promise Partnership.

The coproduction learning health system (CLHS) model extends the definition of a learning health system to explicitly bring together patients and care partners, health care teams, administrators, and scientists to share the work of optimizing health outcomes, improving care value, and generating new knowledge. The CLHS model highlights a partnership for coproduction that is supported by data that can be used to support individual patient care, quality improvement, and research. We provide a case study that describes the application of this model to transform care within an oncology program at an academic medical center.

Telehealth Use Following COVID-19 Within Patient-Sharing Physician Networks at a Rural Comprehensive Cancer Center: Cross-sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer centers rapidly adopted telehealth to deliver care remotely. Telehealth will likely remain a model of care for years to come and may not only affect the way oncologists deliver care to their own patients but also the physicians with whom they share patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine oncologist characteristics associated with telehealth use and compare patient-sharing networks before and after the COVID-19 pandemic in a rural catchment area with a particular focus on the ties between physicians at the comprehensive cancer center and regional facilities. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we obtained deidentified electronic health record data for individuals diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer at Dartmouth Health in New Hampshire from 2018-2020. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to identify physician factors associated with telehealth encounters post COVID-19. Patient-sharing networks for each cancer type before and post COVID-19 were characterized with global network measures. Exponential-family random graph models were performed to estimate homophily terms for the likelihood of ties existing between physicians colocated at the hub comprehensive cancer center. RESULTS: Of the 12,559 encounters between patients and oncologists post COVID-19, 1228 (9.8%) were via telehealth. Patient encounters with breast oncologists who practiced at the hub hospital were over twice as likely to occur via telehealth compared to encounters with oncologists who practiced in regional facilities (odds ratio 2.2, 95% CI 1.17-4.15; P=.01). Patient encounters with oncologists who practiced in multiple locations were less likely to occur via telehealth, and this association was statistically significant for lung cancer care (odds ratio 0.26, 95% CI 0.09-0.76; P=.01). We observed an increase in ties between oncologists at the hub hospital and oncologists at regional facilities in the lung cancer network post COVID-19 compared to before COVID-19 (93/318, 29.3%, vs 79/370, 21.6%, respectively), which was also reflected in the lower homophily coefficients post COVID-19 compared to before COVID-19 for physicians being colocated at the hub hospital (estimate: 1.92, 95% CI 1.46-2.51, vs 2.45, 95% CI 1.98-3.02). There were no significant differences observed in breast cancer or colorectal cancer networks. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth use and associated changes to patient-sharing patterns associated with telehealth varied by cancer type, suggesting disparate approaches for integrating telehealth across clinical groups within this health system. The limited changes to the patient-sharing patterns between oncologists at the hub hospital and regional facilities suggest that telehealth was less likely to create new referral patterns between these types of facilities and rather replace care that would otherwise have been delivered in person. However, this study was limited to the 2 years immediately following the initial outbreak of COVID-19, and longer-term follow-up may uncover delayed effects that were not observed in this study period.

Association of rurality with utilization of palliative care and hospice among Medicare beneficiaries who died from pancreatic cancer: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer has a 5-year survival of just 10%. Services such as palliative care and hospice are thus crucial in this population, yet their geographic accessibility and utilization remains unknown. AIM: We studied the association between rurality of patient residence and the use of palliative care and hospice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study of continuously enrolled fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 diagnosed with incident pancreatic cancer between 04/01/2016-08/31/2018 and who died by 12/31/2018. RESULTS: In this decedent cohort of 31,460 patients, 77% lived in metropolitan areas, 11% in micropolitan areas, 7% in small towns, and 5% in rural areas. Patient demographics were largely similar across rurality; however, the proportion of White, non-Hispanic patients and social deprivation was highest in rural areas and lowest in metropolitan areas. Overall, 33% of patients used any palliative care and 77% received hospice services. After risk adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in the use of palliative care for patients residing in metropolitan versus micropolitan, small town, or rural areas. Patients in small town (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.69-0.86) and rural areas (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66-0.85) had lower adjusted odds of receiving hospice care compared to patients in metropolitan areas. CONCLUSIONS: The use of palliative care services captured in Medicare was low, representing either underutilization or failure to accurately measure the extent of services used. While the overall level of hospice enrollment was high, patients in rural communities had relatively lower use of hospice services compared to those in metropolitan areas.

Comparison of Oncologist and Model Estimates of Risk for Hospitalization During Systemic Therapy for Advanced Cancer.

PURPOSE: A validated risk model with inputs of pretreatment sodium and albumin can identify patients at risk for hospitalization during cancer treatment. We evaluated how the model compares with risk estimates from treating oncologists. METHODS: We evaluated the 30-day risk of hospitalization or death in patients starting palliative-intent systemic therapy for solid tumor malignancy. For each patient, we prospectively recorded categorical estimates of 30-day hospitalization risk (bottom third, middle third, top third) generated by a treating oncologist and by the two-variable model; a third hybrid risk estimate represented a composite of the oncologist and model risk assessments. We analyzed the agreement of oncologist and model-based risk estimates and compared discrimination, sensitivity, and specificity of each risk assessment method. RESULTS: We collected oncologist, model, and hybrid estimates of hospitalization risk for 120 patients. The 30-day rate of hospitalization or death was 20%. There was minimal agreement between oncologist and model risk estimates (weighted kappa = 0.27). The c-statistic (a measure of discrimination) was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.81) for the clinician assessment, 0.77 for the model assessment (CI, 0.67 to 0.86; P = .24 compared with the oncologist assessment), and 0.79 for the hybrid assessment (CI, 0.69 to 0.90; P = .007 compared with the oncologist assessment). Sensitivity and specificity of the high-risk categorization did not differ significantly between the oncologist and model assessments; the hybrid assessment was significantly more sensitive (P = .02) and less specific (P = .03) than the oncologist assessment. CONCLUSION: A model with inputs of pretreatment sodium and albumin improves oncologists' predictions of hospitalization risk during cancer treatment.

Problematic Integration: Racial Discordance in End-of-Life Decision Making.

We describe racially discordant oncology encounters involving EOL decision-making. Fifty-eight provider interviews were content analyzed using the tenets of problematic integration theory. We found EOL discussions between non-Black providers and their Black patients were often complex and anxiety-inducing. That anxiety consisted of (1) ontological uncertainty in which providers characterized the nature of Black patients as distrustful, especially in the context of clinical trials; (2) ontological and epistemological uncertainty in which provider intercultural incompetency and perceived lack of patient health literacy were normalized and intertwined with provider assumptions about patients' religion and support systems; (3) epistemological uncertainty as ambivalence in which providers' feelings conflicted when deciding whether to speak with family members they perceived as lacking health literacy; (4) divergence in which the provider advised palliative care while the family desired surgery or cancer-directed medical treatment; and (5) impossibility when an ontological uncertainty stance of Black distrust was seen as natural by providers and therefore impossible to change. Some communication strategies used were indirect stereotyping, negotiating, asking a series of value questions, blame-guilt framing, and avoidance. We concluded that provider perceptions of Black distrust, religion, and social support influenced their ability to communicate effectively with patients.

Use of a Novel Network-Based Linchpin Score to Characterize Accessibility to the Oncology Physician Workforce in the United States.

Importance: Physician headcounts provide useful information about the cancer care delivery workforce; however, efforts to track the oncology workforce would benefit from new measures that capture how essential a physician is for meeting the multidisciplinary cancer care needs of the region. Physicians are considered linchpins when fewer of their peers are connected to other physicians of the same specialty as the focal physician. Because they are locally unique for their specialty, these physicians' networks may be particularly vulnerable to their removal from the network (eg, through relocation or retirement). Objective: To examine a novel network-based physician linchpin score within nationwide cancer patient-sharing networks and explore variation in network vulnerability across hospital referral regions (HRRs). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed fee-for-service Medicare claims and included Medicare beneficiaries with an incident diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or lung cancer from 2016 to 2018 and their treating physicians. Data were analyzed from March 2022 to October 2022. Exposures: Physician characteristics assessed were specialty, rurality, and Census region. HRR variables assessed include sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics and use of cancer services. Main Outcomes and Measures: Oncologist linchpin score, which examined the extent to which a physician's peers were connected to other physicians of the same specialty as the focal physician. Network vulnerability, which distinguished HRRs with more linchpin oncologists than expected based on oncologist density. χ2 and Fisher exact tests were used to examine relationships between oncologist characteristics and linchpin score. Spearman rank correlation coefficient (ρ) was used to measure the strength and direction of relationships between HRR network vulnerability, oncologist density, population sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics, and cancer service use. Results: The study cohort comprised 308 714 patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. The study cohort of 308 714 patients included 161 206 (52.2%) patients with breast cancer, 76 604 (24.8%) patients with colorectal cancer, and 70 904 (23.0%) patients with lung cancer. In our sample, 272 425 patients (88%) were White, and 238 603 patients (77%) lived in metropolitan areas. The cancer patient-sharing network included 7221 medical oncologists and 3573 radiation oncologists. HRRs with more vulnerable networks for medical oncology had a higher percentage of beneficiaries eligible for Medicaid (ρ, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.29). HRRs with more vulnerable networks for radiation oncology had a higher percentage of beneficiaries living in poverty (ρ, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.27), and a higher percentage of beneficiaries eligible for Medicaid (ρ, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.31), and lower rates of cohort patients receiving radiation therapy (ρ, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.06; P = .003). The was no association between network vulnerability for medical oncology and percent of cohort patients receiving chemotherapy (ρ, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.08). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that patient-sharing network vulnerability was associated with poverty and lower rates of radiation therapy. Health policy strategies for addressing network vulnerability may improve access to interdisciplinary care and reduce treatment disparities.

Association of Rurality, Race and Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status With the Surgical Management of Colon Cancer and Postoperative Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance: Rural patients with colon cancer experience worse outcomes than urban patients, but the extent to which disparities are explained by social determinants is not known. Objectives: To evaluate the association of rurality with surgical treatment and outcomes of colon cancer and to investigate the intersection of rurality with race and ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Design, Settings, and Participants: This cohort study included fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older diagnosed with incident, nonmetastatic colon cancer between April 1, 2016, and September 30, 2018, with follow-up until December 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from August 3, 2020, to April 30, 2021. Exposures: Rurality of patient's residence, categorized as metropolitan, micropolitan, or small town or rural, using Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of surgery, emergent surgery, or minimally invasive surgery (MIS); 90-day surgical complications; and 90-day mortality. Results: Among 57 710 Medicare beneficiaries with incident, nonmetastatic colon cancer, 46.6% were men, 53.4% were women, and the mean (SD) age was 76.6 (7.2) years. In terms of race and ethnicity, 3.7% were Hispanic, 6.4% were non-Hispanic Black (hereinafter Black), 86.1% were non-Hispanic White (hereinafter White), and 3.8% were American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, or unknown race or ethnicity. Patients residing in nonmetropolitan areas were more likely to undergo surgical resection than those residing in metropolitan areas (69.2% vs 63.9%; P < .001). Black race was independently associated with lower hazard of surgical resection (hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88-0.95]). Race and ethnicity and measures of socioeconomic status did not modify the association of rurality with surgery. Beneficiaries from small town and rural areas had higher odds of undergoing emergent surgery (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.32 [95% CI, 1.20-1.44]) but lower odds of undergoing MIS (adjusted OR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.70-0.80]), with similar findings for patients residing in micropolitan areas. Members of racial and ethnic minority groups who resided in small town and rural settings experienced higher odds of postoperative surgical complications (P = .001 for interaction) and mortality (P = .001 for interaction). Notably, White patients who resided in small town and rural areas experienced lower odds of postoperative mortality than their White metropolitan counterparts (adjusted OR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.71-0.92]), but Black patients who resided in small town and rural areas had significantly higher odds of postoperative mortality (adjusted OR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.16-2.97]) than their Black metropolitan counterparts. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that Medicare beneficiaries from small town and rural areas were more likely to undergo surgery for nonmetastatic colon cancer than metropolitan beneficiaries but also more likely to undergo emergent surgery and less likely to have MIS. The experiences of rural patients varied by race; rurality was associated with higher postoperative mortality for Black patients but not for other racial and ethnic groups.

Cost-effectiveness of DPYD Genotyping Prior to Fluoropyrimidine-based Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy substantially reduces recurrence and mortality after resection of stage 3 colon cancer. While standard doses of 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine are safe for most patients, the risk of severe toxicity is increased for the approximately 6% of patients with dihydropyimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency caused by pathogenic DPYD gene variants. Pre-treatment screening for pathogenic DPYD gene variants reduces severe toxicity but has not been widely adopted in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of DPYD genotyping prior to fluoropyrimidine-based adjuvant chemotherapy for stage 3 colon cancer, covering the c.1129-5923C>G (HapB3), c.1679T>G (*13), c.1905+1G>A (*2A), and c.2846A>T gene variants. We used a Markov model with a 5-year horizon, taking a United States healthcare perspective. Simulated patients with pathogenic DPYD gene variants received reduced-dose fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for DPYD genotyping. RESULTS: Compared with no screening for DPD deficiency, DPYD genotyping increased per-patient costs by $78 and improved survival by 0.0038 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), leading to an ICER of $20,506/QALY. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, The ICER exceeded $50,000 per QALY when the cost of the DPYD genotyping assay was greater than $286. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY DPYD genotyping was preferred to no screening in 96.2% of iterations. CONCLUSION: Among patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for stage 3 colon cancer, screening for DPD deficiency with DPYD genotyping is a cost-effective strategy for preventing infrequent but severe and sometimes fatal toxicities of fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy.