The National Cancer Database Conforms to the Standardized Framework for Registry and Data Quality.

BACKGROUND: Standardization of procedures for data abstraction by cancer registries is fundamental for cancer surveillance, clinical and policy decision-making, hospital benchmarking, and research efforts. The objective of the current study was to evaluate adherence to the four components (completeness, comparability, timeliness, and validity) defined by Bray and Parkin that determine registries' ability to carry out these activities to the hospital-based National Cancer Database (NCDB). METHODS: Tbis study used data from U.S. Cancer Statistics, the official federal cancer statistics and joint effort between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which includes data from National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) to evaluate NCDB completeness between 2016 and 2020. The study evaluated comparability of case identification and coding procedures. It used Commission on Cancer (CoC) standards from 2022 to assess timeliness and validity. RESULTS: Completeness was demonstrated with a total of 6,828,507 cases identified within the NCDB, representing 73.7% of all cancer cases nationwide. Comparability was followed using standardized and international guidelines on coding and classification procedures. For timeliness, hospital compliance with timely data submission was 92.7%. Validity criteria for re-abstracting, recording, and reliability procedures across hospitals demonstrated 94.2% compliance. Additionally, data validity was shown by a 99.1% compliance with histologic verification standards, a 93.6% assessment of pathologic synoptic reporting, and a 99.1% internal consistency of staff credentials. CONCLUSION: The NCDB is characterized by a high level of case completeness and comparability with uniform standards for data collection, and by hospitals with high compliance, timely data submission, and high rates of compliance with validity standards for registry and data quality evaluation.

Variation in Lymph Node Assessment for Colon Cancer at the Tumor, Surgeon, and Hospital Level.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that tumor- and hospital-level factors, compared with surgeon characteristics, are associated with the majority of variation in the 12 or more lymph nodes (LNs) examined quality standard for resected colon cancer. STUDY DESIGN: A dataset containing an anonymized surgeon identifier was obtained from the National Cancer Database for stage I to III colon cancers from 2010 to 2017. Multilevel logistic regression models were built to assign a proportion of variance in achievement of the 12 LNs standard among the following: (1) tumor factors (demographic and pathologic characteristics), (2) surgeon factors (volume, approach, and margin status), and (3) facility factors (volume and facility type). RESULTS: There were 283,192 unique patient records with 15,358 unique surgeons across 1,258 facilities in our cohort. Achievement of the 12 LNs standard was high (90.3%). Achievement of the 12 LNs standard by surgeon volume was 88.1% and 90.7% in the lowest and highest quartiles, and 86.8% and 91.6% at the facility level for high and low annual volume quartiles, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the following tumor factors were associated with meeting the 12 LNs standard: age, sex, primary tumor site, tumor grade, T stage, and comorbidities (all p < 0.001). Tumor factors were responsible for 71% of the variation in 12 LNs yield, whereas surgeon and facility characteristics contributed 17% and 12%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-nine percent of the variation in the 12 LNs standard is linked to modifiable factors. The majority of variation in this quality metric is associated with non-modifiable tumor-level factors.

The Pacific Northwest Harmful Algal Blooms Bulletin.

A bulletin communicating risk of toxic Pseudo-nitzschia blooms to shellfish harvest along the open coast of the Pacific Northwest region of the United States (the northeast Pacific Ocean spanning Washington and Oregon) is discussed. This Pacific Northwest Harmful Algal Blooms (PNW HAB) Bulletin is designed for shellfish managers with a focus on the razor clam fishery, but may also be informative to managers of the Dungeness crab fishery since domoic acid accumulation in crabs tends to lag accumulation in razor clams by a couple of weeks. The Bulletin complements beach phytoplankton monitoring programs by alerting coastal shellfish managers about adverse environmental conditions that could be conducive to a toxic Pseudo-nitzschia bloom. Beach monitoring programs are effective at determining when toxins have arrived at shellfish beaches, but a risk forecast based on near real-time biophysical information can provide managers with additional forewarning about potential future toxin outbreaks. Here, the approaches taken in constructing the risk forecasts, along with the reasoning and research behind them are presented. Updates to a historical PNW HAB Bulletin are described, as are the current workflow and the individual components of the updated Bulletin. Some successes and failures realized throughout the process are also pointed out for the benefit of the broader community. A self-assessment suggests that when the necessary data sources are available, the PNW HAB Bulletin provides an accurate forecast of risk associated with toxic Pseudo-nitzschia blooms. The Bulletin has proven beneficial to coastal shellfish managers by better informing decisions on sample collection, and harvest limits, openings, extensions, and closures.

Disruption of National Cancer Database Data Models in the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Each year, the National Cancer Database (NCDB) collects and analyzes data used in reports to support research, quality measures, and Commission on Cancer program accreditation. Because data models used to generate these reports have been historically stable, year-to-year variances have been attributed to changes within the cancer program rather than data modeling. Cancer submissions in 2020 were anticipated to be significantly different from prior years because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study involved a validation analysis of the variances in observed to expected 2020 NCDB cancer data in comparison with 2019 and 2018. Observations: The NCDB captured a total of 1 223 221 overall cancer cases in 2020, a decrease of 14.4% (Δ = -206 099) compared with 2019. The early months of the COVID-19 pandemic (March-May 2020) coincided with a nadir of cancer cases in April 2020 that did not recover to overall prepandemic levels through the remainder of 2020. In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion of early-stage disease decreased sharply overall, while the proportion of late-stage disease increased. However, differences in observed to expected stage distribution in 2020 varied by primary disease site. Statistically significant differences in the overall observed to expected proportions of race and ethnicity, sex, insurance type, geographic location, education, and income were identified, but consistent patterns were not evident. Conclusions and Relevance: Historically stable NCDB data models used for research, administrative, and quality improvement purposes were disrupted during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. NCDB data users will need to carefully interpret disease- and program-specific findings for years to come to account for pandemic year aberrations when running models that include 2020.

Pelagic calcifiers face increased mortality and habitat loss with warming and ocean acidification.

Global change is impacting the oceans in an unprecedented way, and multiple lines of evidence suggest that species distributions are changing in space and time. There is increasing evidence that multiple environmental stressors act together to constrain species habitat more than expected from warming alone. Here, we conducted a comprehensive study of how temperature and aragonite saturation state act together to limit Limacina helicina, globally distributed pteropods that are ecologically important pelagic calcifiers and an indicator species for ocean change. We co-validated three different approaches to evaluate the impact of ocean warming and acidification (OWA) on the survival and distribution of this species in the California Current Ecosystem. First, we used colocated physical, chemical, and biological data from three large-scale west coast cruises and regional time series; second, we conducted multifactorial experimental incubations to evaluate how OWA impacts pteropod survival; and third, we validated the relationships we found against global distributions of pteropods and carbonate chemistry. OWA experimental work revealed mortality increases under OWA, while regional habitat suitability indices and global distributions of L. helicina suggest that a multi-stressor framework is essential for understanding pteropod distributions. In California Current Ecosystem habitats, where pteropods are living close to their thermal maximum already, additional warming and acidification through unabated fossil fuel emissions (RCP 8.5) are expected to dramatically reduce habitat suitability.

Oncology team perspectives on distress screening: a multisite study of a well-established use of patient-reported outcomes for clinical assessment.

PURPOSE: Cancer care team attitudes towards distress screening are key to its success and sustainability. Previous qualitative research has interviewed staff mostly around the startup phase. We evaluate oncology teams' perspectives on psychosocial distress screening, including perceived strengths and challenges, in settings where it has been operational for years. METHODS: We conducted, transcribed, and analyzed semi-structured interviews with 71 cancer care team members (e.g., MDs, RNs, MSWs) at 18 Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer programs including those serving underrepresented populations. RESULTS: Strengths of distress screening identified by participants included identifying patient needs and testing provider assumptions. Staff indicated it improved patient-provider communication and other aspects of care. Challenges to distress screening included patient barriers (e.g., respondent burden) and lack of electronic system interoperability. Participants expressed the strengths of distress screening (n = 291) more than challenges (n = 86). Suggested improvements included use of technology to collect data, report results, and make referrals; complete screenings prior to appointments; longitudinal assessment; additional staff training; and improve resources to address patient needs. CONCLUSION: Cancer care team members' perspectives on well-established distress screening programs largely replicate findings of previous studies focusing on the startup phase, but there are important differences: team members expressed more strengths than challenges, suggesting a positive attitude. While our sample described many challenges described previously, they did not indicate challenges with scoring and interpreting the distress screening questionnaire. The differences in attitudes expressed in response to mature versus startup implementations provide important insights to inform efforts to sustain and optimize distress screening.

National Cancer Database: The Past, Present, and Future of the Cancer Registry and Its Efforts to Improve the Quality of Cancer Care.

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) continues to evolve to improve the care of the cancer patient. Over the last 30 years, the NCDB has compiled nearly 40 million patient records submitted by over 1500 hospitals across the country. Addressing new challenges, the NCDB is transitioning to ensure data flow is more timely and data collection more efficient. The Rapid Cancer Reporting System will be a significant step toward bringing data abstraction into real time and providing a quality data platform to support the information needs of high-quality clinical practice.

Perceptions of Patients With Breast and Colon Cancer of the Management of Cancer-Related Pain, Fatigue, and Emotional Distress in Community Oncology.

PURPOSE: Pain, fatigue, and distress are common among patients with cancer but are often underassessed and undertreated. We examine the prevalence of pain, fatigue, and emotional distress among patients with cancer, as well as patient perceptions of the symptom care they received. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventeen Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer centers across the United States sampled patients with local/regional breast (82%) or colon (18%) cancer. We received 2,487 completed surveys (61% response rate). RESULTS: Of patients, 76%, 78%, and 59% reported talking to a clinician about pain, fatigue, and distress, respectively, and 70%, 61%, and 54% reported receiving advice. Sixty-one percent of patients experienced pain, 74% fatigue, and 46% distress. Among those patients experiencing each symptom, 58% reported getting the help they wanted for pain, 40% for fatigue, and 45% for distress. Multilevel logistic regression models revealed that patients experiencing symptoms were significantly more likely to have talked about and received advice on coping with these symptoms. In addition, patients who were receiving or recently completed curative treatment reported more symptoms and better symptom care than did those who were further in time from curative treatment. CONCLUSION: In our sample, 30% to 50% of patients with cancer in community cancer centers did not report discussing, getting advice, or receiving desired help for pain, fatigue, or emotional distress. This finding suggests that there is room for improvement in the management of these three common cancer-related symptoms. Higher proportions of talk and advice among those experiencing symptoms imply that many discussions may be patient initiated. Lower rates of talk and advice among those who are further in time from treatment suggest the need for more assessment among longer-term survivors, many of whom continue to experience these symptoms. These findings seem to be especially important given the high prevalence of these symptoms in our sample.

An unprecedented coastwide toxic algal bloom linked to anomalous ocean conditions.

A coastwide bloom of the toxigenic diatom Pseudo-nitzschia in spring 2015 resulted in the largest recorded outbreak of the neurotoxin, domoic acid, along the North American west coast. Elevated toxins were measured in numerous stranded marine mammals and resulted in geographically extensive and prolonged closures of razor clam, rock crab, and Dungeness crab fisheries. We demonstrate that this outbreak was initiated by anomalously warm ocean conditions. Pseudo-nitzschia australis thrived north of its typical range in the warm, nutrient-poor water that spanned the northeast Pacific in early 2015. The seasonal transition to upwelling provided the nutrients necessary for a large-scale bloom; a series of spring storms delivered the bloom to the coast. Laboratory and field experiments confirming maximum growth rates with elevated temperatures and enhanced toxin production with nutrient enrichment, together with a retrospective analysis of toxic events, demonstrate the potential for similarly devastating ecological and economic disruptions in the future.

The development and acceptability of symptom management quality improvement reports based on patient-reported data: an overview of methods used in PROSSES.

PURPOSE: Patient experiences with symptom care need to be assessed and documented to ensure successful management of cancer-related symptoms. This paper details one method for creating symptom management quality improvement (SMQI) reports, including case-mix adjustment of patient-reported measures. Qualitative data regarding the acceptability of these reports at participating cancer centers (CCs) are also provided. METHODS: Data were collected from 2226 patients treated at 16 CCs via mailed/Web questionnaires. Twelve items assessing patient perceptions of symptom management-pain, fatigue, emotional distress-served as key quality indicators. Medico-demographic variables suitable for case-mix adjustment were selected using an index score combining predictive power and heterogeneity across CCs. SMQI reports were designed with staff feedback and produced for each CC, providing crude and adjusted CC-specific rates, along with study-wide rates for comparison purposes. RESULTS: Cancer type and participant educational level were selected for case-mix adjustment based upon high index scores. The Kendall rank correlation coefficient showed that case-mix adjustments changed the ranking of CCs on the key quality indicators (% Δ rank range: 5-22 %). The key quality indicators varied across CCs (all p < 0.02). SMQI reports were well received by CC staff, who described plans to share them with key personnel (e.g., cancer committee, navigator). CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides one method for creating hospital-level SMQI reports, including case-mix adjustment. Variation between CCs on key quality indicators, even after adjustment, suggested room for improvement. SMQI reports based on patient-reported data can inform and motivate efforts to improve care through professional/patient education and applying standards of care.

The rationale for patient-reported outcomes surveillance in cancer and a reproducible method for achieving it.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measure quality of life, symptoms, patient functioning, and patient perceptions of care; they are essential for gaining a full understanding of cancer care and the impact of cancer on people's lives. Repeatedly captured facility-level and/or population-level PROs (PRO surveillance) could play an important role in quality monitoring and improvement, benchmarking, advocacy, policy making, and research. This article describes the rationale for PRO surveillance and the methods of the Patient Reported Outcomes Symptoms and Side Effects Study (PROSSES), which is the first PRO study to use the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer's Rapid Quality Reporting System to identify patients and manage study data flow. The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Commission on Cancer, and RTI International collaborated on PROSSES. PROSSES was conducted at 17 cancer programs that participated in the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program among patients diagnosed with locoregional breast or colon cancer. The methods piloted in PROSSES were successful as demonstrated by high eligibility (93%) and response (61%) rates. Differences in clinical and demographic characteristics between respondents and nonrespondents were mostly negligible, with the exception that non-white individuals were somewhat less likely to respond. These methods were consistent across cancer centers and reproducible over time. If repeated and expanded, they could provide PRO surveillance data from patients with cancer on a national scale.

Fatigue as a Driver of Overall Quality of Life in Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: This manuscript describes an approach for analyzing large amounts of disparate clinical data to elucidate the most impactful factor(s) that relate to a meaningful clinical outcome, in this case, the quality of life of cancer patients. The relationships between clinical and quality of life variables were evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health domain--a validated surrogate variable for overall cancer patient well-being. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was used to evaluate the determinants of global health in cancer patients who initiated treatment at two regional medical centers between January 2001 and December 2009. Variables analyzed included 15 EORTC QLQ-C30 scales, age at diagnosis, gender, newly diagnosed/ recurrent disease status, and stage. The decision tree algorithm, perhaps unfamiliar to practicing clinicians, evaluates the relative contribution of individual parameters in classifying a clinically meaningful functional endpoint, such as the global health of a patient. FINDINGS: Multiple patient characteristics were identified as important contributors. Fatigue, in particular, emerged as the most prevalent indicator of cancer patients' quality of life in 16/23 clinically relevant subsets. This analysis allowed results to be stated in a clinically-intuitive, rule set format using the language and quantities of the Quality of Life (QoL) tool itself. INTERPRETATION: By applying the classification algorithms to a large data set, identification of fatigue as a root factor in driving global health and overall QoL was revealed. The ability to practice mining of clinical data sets to uncover critical clinical insights that are immediately applicable to patient care practices is illustrated.

Can quality of life assessments differentiate heterogeneous cancer patients?

PURPOSE: This research conducted a face validation study of patient responses to the application of an HRQOL assessment research tool in a comprehensive community cancer program setting across a heterogeneous cohort of cancer patients throughout the natural history of diagnosed malignant disease, many of whom would not be considered candidates for clinical research trial participation. METHODS: Cancer registries at two regional cancer treatment centers identified 11072 cancer patients over a period of nine years. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was administered to patients at the time of their initial clinical presentation to these centers. To determine the significance of differences between patient subgroups, two analytic criteria were used. The Mann-Whitney test was used to determine statistical significance; clinical relevance defined a range of point differences that could be perceived by patients with different health states. RESULTS: Univariate analyses were conducted across stratification variables for population, disease severity and demographic characteristics. The largest differences were associated with cancer diagnosis and recurrence of disease. Large differences were also found for site of origin, mortality and stage; minimal differences were observed for gender and age. Consistently sensitive QoL scales were appetite loss, fatigue and pain symptoms, and role (work-related), social and physical functions. CONCLUSIONS: 1) The EORTC QLQ-C30 collected meaningful patient health assessments in the context of non-research based clinical care, 2) patient assessment differences are manifested disparately across 15 QoL domains, and 3) in addition to indicating how a patient may feel at a point in time, QoL indicators may also reveal information about underlying biological responses to disease progression, treatments, and prospective survival.