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.

Postpartum Breast Cancer and Survival in Women With Germline BRCA Pathogenic Variants.

Importance: In young-onset breast cancer (YOBC), a diagnosis within 5 to 10 years of childbirth is associated with increased mortality. Women with germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) are more likely to be diagnosed with BC at younger ages, but the impact of childbirth on mortality is unknown. Objective: To determine whether time between most recent childbirth and BC diagnosis is associated with mortality among patients with YOBC and germline BRCA1/2 PVs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study included women with germline BRCA1/2 PVs diagnosed with stage I to III BC at age 45 years or younger between 1950 and 2021 in the United Kingdom, who were followed up until November 2021. Data were analyzed from December 3, 2021, to November 29, 2023. Exposure: Time between most recent childbirth and subsequent BC diagnosis, with recent childbirth defined as 0 to less than 10 years, further delineated to 0 to less than 5 years and 5 to less than 10 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, censored at 20 years after YOBC diagnosis. Mortality of nulliparous women was compared with the recent post partum groups and the 10 or more years post partum group. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were adjusted for age, tumor stage, and further stratified by tumor estrogen receptor (ER) and BRCA gene status. Results: Among 903 women with BRCA PVs (mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 34.7 [6.1] years; mean [SD] follow-up, 10.8 [9.8] years), 419 received a BC diagnosis 0 to less than 10 years after childbirth, including 228 women diagnosed less than 5 years after childbirth and 191 women diagnosed 5 to less than 10 years after childbirth. Increased all-cause mortality was observed in women diagnosed within 5 to less than 10 years post partum (hazard ratio [HR], 1.56 [95% CI, 1.05-2.30]) compared with nulliparous women and women diagnosed 10 or more years after childbirth, suggesting a transient duration of postpartum risk. Risk of mortality was greater for women with ER-positive BC in the less than 5 years post partum group (HR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.02-5.42]) and ER-negative BC in the 5 to less than 10 years post partum group (HR, 3.12 [95% CI, 1.22-7.97]) compared with the nulliparous group. Delineated by BRCA1 or BRCA2, mortality in the 5 to less than 10 years post partum group was significantly increased, but only for BRCA1 carriers (HR, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.15-3.58]). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that YOBC with germline BRCA PVs was associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality if diagnosed within 10 years after last childbirth, with risk highest for ER-positive BC diagnosed less than 5 years post partum, and for ER-negative BC diagnosed 5 to less than 10 years post partum. BRCA1 carriers were at highest risk for poor prognosis when diagnosed at 5 to less than 10 years post partum. No such associations were observed for BRCA2 carriers. These results should inform genetic counseling, prevention, and treatment strategies for BRCA PV carriers.

National Estimates of the Participation of Patients With Cancer in Clinical Research Studies Based on Commission on Cancer Accreditation Data.

PURPOSE: National estimates of cancer clinical trial participation are nearly two decades old and have focused solely on enrollment to treatment trials, which does not reflect the willingness of patients to contribute to other elements of clinical research. We determined inclusive, contemporary estimates of clinical trial participation for adults with cancer using a national sample of data from the Commission on Cancer (CoC). METHODS: The data were obtained from accreditation information submitted by the 1,200 CoC programs, which represent more than 70% of all cancer cases diagnosed in the United States each year. Deidentified, institution-level aggregate counts of annual enrollment to treatment, biorepository, diagnostic, economic, genetic, prevention, quality-of-life (QOL), and registry studies were examined. Overall, study-type estimates for the period 2013-2017 were estimated. Multiple imputation by chained equations was used to account for missing data, with summary estimates calculated separately by type of program (eg, National Cancer Institute [NCI]-designated cancer centers) and pooled. RESULTS: The overall estimated patient participation rate to cancer treatment trials was 7.1%. Patients with cancer participated in a wide variety of other studies, including biorepository (12.9%), registry (7.3%), genetic (3.6%), QOL (2.8%), diagnostic (2.5%), and economic (2.4%) studies. Treatment trial enrollment was 21.6% at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers, 5.4% at academic (non-NCI-designated) comprehensive cancer programs, 5.7% at integrated network cancer programs, and 4.1% at community programs. One in five patients (21.9%) participated in one or more cancer clinical research studies. CONCLUSION: In a first-time use of national accreditation information from the CoC, enrollment to cancer treatment trials was 7.1%, higher than historical estimates of <5%. Patients participated in a diverse set of other study types. Contributions of adult patients with cancer to clinical research is more common than previously understood.

Survival Among Patients With High-Risk Gastrointestinal Cancers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Prior reports demonstrated that patients with cancer experienced worse outcomes from pandemic-related stressors and COVID-19 infection. Patients with certain malignant neoplasms, such as high-risk gastrointestinal (HRGI) cancers, may have been particularly affected. Objective: To evaluate disruptions in care and outcomes among patients with HRGI cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic, assessing for signs of long-term changes in populations and survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the National Cancer Database to identify patients with HRGI cancer (esophageal, gastric, primary liver, or pancreatic) diagnosed between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. Data were analyzed between August 23 and September 4, 2023. Main Outcome and Measures: Trends in monthly new cases and proportions by stage in 2020 were compared with the prior 2 years. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression were used to assess 1-year mortality in 2020 compared with 2018 to 2019. Proportional monthly trends and multivariable logistic regression were used to evaluate 30-day and 90-day mortality in 2020 compared with prior years. Results: Of the 156 937 patients included in this study, 54 994 (35.0%) were aged 60 to 69 years and 100 050 (63.8%) were men. There was a substantial decrease in newly diagnosed HRGI cancers in March to May 2020, which returned to prepandemic levels by July 2020. For stage, there was a proportional decrease in the diagnosis of stage I (-3.9%) and stage II (-2.3%) disease, with an increase in stage IV disease (7.1%) during the early months of the pandemic. Despite a slight decrease in 1-year survival rates in 2020 (50.7% in 2018 and 2019 vs 47.4% in 2020), survival curves remained unchanged between years (all P > .05). After adjusting for confounders, diagnosis in 2020 was not associated with increased 1-year mortality compared with 2018 to 2019 (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.01). The rates of 30-day (2.1% in 2018, 2.0% in 2019, and 2.1% in 2020) and 90-day (4.3% in 2018, 4.4% in 2019, and 4.6% in 2020) operative mortality also remained similar. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study, a period of underdiagnosis and increase in stage IV disease was observed for HRGI cancers during the pandemic; however, there was no change in 1-year survival or operative mortality. These results demonstrate the risks associated with gaps in care and the tremendous efforts of the cancer community to ensure quality care delivery during the pandemic. Future research should investigate long-term survival changes among all cancer types as additional follow-up data are accrued.

Data-driven optimization of version 9 American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for anal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system undergoes periodic revisions to maintain contemporary survival outcomes related to stage. Recently, the AJCC has developed a novel, systematic approach incorporating survival data to refine stage groupings. The objective of this study was to demonstrate data-driven optimization of the version 9 AJCC staging system for anal cancer assessed through a defined validation approach. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients diagnosed with anal cancer in 2012 through 2017. Kaplan-Meier methods analyzed 5-year survival by individual clinical T category, N category, M category, and overall stage. Cox proportional hazards models validated overall survival of the revised TNM stage groupings. RESULTS: Overall, 24,328 cases of anal cancer were included. Evaluation of the 8th edition AJCC stage groups demonstrated a lack of hierarchical prognostic order. Survival at 5 years for stage I was 84.4%, 77.4% for stage IIA, and 63.7% for stage IIB; however, stage IIIA disease demonstrated a 73.0% survival, followed by 58.4% for stage IIIB, 59.9% for stage IIIC, and 22.5% for stage IV (p <.001). Thus, stage IIB was redefined as T1-2N1M0, whereas Stage IIIA was redefined as T3N0-1M0. Reevaluation of 5-year survival based on data-informed stage groupings now demonstrates hierarchical prognostic order and validated via Cox proportional hazards models. CONCLUSION: The 8th edition AJCC survival data demonstrated a lack of hierarchical prognostic order and informed revised stage groupings in the version 9 AJCC staging system for anal cancer. Thus, a validated data-driven optimization approach can be implemented for staging revisions across all disease sites moving forward.

Alterations in Cancer Treatment During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic created challenges to the evaluation and treatment of cancer, and abrupt resource diversion toward patients with COVID-19 put cancer treatment on hold for many patients. Previous reports have shown substantial declines in cancer screening and diagnoses in 2020; however, the extent to which the delivery of cancer care was altered remains unclear. Objective: To assess alterations in cancer treatment in the US during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) on patients older than 18 years with newly diagnosed cancer from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were accessibility (time to treatment, travel distance, and multi-institutional care), availability (proportional changes in cancer treatment between years), and utilization (reductions by treatment modality, hospital type) of cancer treatment in 2020 compared with 2018 to 2019. Autoregressive models forecasted expected findings for 2020 based on observations from prior years. Results: Of 1 229 654 patients identified in the NCDB in 2020, 1 074 225 were treated for cancer, representing a 16.8% reduction from what was expected. Patients were predominately female (53.8%), with a median age of 66 years (IQR, 57-74 years), similar to demographics in 2018 and 2019. Median time between diagnosis and treatment was 26 days (IQR, 0-36 days) in 2020, and median travel distance for care was 11.1 miles (IQR, 5.0-25.3 miles), similar to 2018 and 2019. In 2020, fewer patients traveled longer distances (20.2% reduction of patients traveling >35 miles). The proportions of patients treated with chemotherapy (32.0%), radiation (29.5%), and surgery (57.1%) were similar to those in 2018 and 2019. Overall, 146 805 fewer patients than expected underwent surgery, 80 480 fewer received radiation, and 68 014 fewer received chemotherapy. Academic hospitals experienced the greatest reduction in cancer surgery and treatment, with a decrease of approximately 484 patients (-19.0%) per hospital compared with 99 patients (-12.6%) at community hospitals and 110 patients (-12.8%) at integrated networks. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that among patients diagnosed with cancer in 2020, access and availability of treatment remained intact; however, reductions in treated patients varied across treatment modalities and were greater at academic hospitals than at community hospitals and integrated networks compared with expected values. These results suggest the resilience of cancer service lines and frame the economic losses from reductions in cancer treatment during the pandemic.

Gut Microbiome Wellness Index 2 for Enhanced Health Status Prediction from Gut Microbiome Taxonomic Profiles.

Recent advancements in human gut microbiome research have revealed its crucial role in shaping innovative predictive healthcare applications. We introduce Gut Microbiome Wellness Index 2 (GMWI2), an advanced iteration of our original GMWI prototype, designed as a robust, disease-agnostic health status indicator based on gut microbiome taxonomic profiles. Our analysis involved pooling existing 8069 stool shotgun metagenome data across a global demographic landscape to effectively capture biological signals linking gut taxonomies to health. GMWI2 achieves a cross-validation balanced accuracy of 80% in distinguishing healthy (no disease) from non-healthy (diseased) individuals and surpasses 90% accuracy for samples with higher confidence (i.e., outside the "reject option"). The enhanced classification accuracy of GMWI2 outperforms both the original GMWI model and traditional species-level α-diversity indices, suggesting a more reliable tool for differentiating between healthy and non-healthy phenotypes using gut microbiome data. Furthermore, by reevaluating and reinterpreting previously published data, GMWI2 provides fresh insights into the established understanding of how diet, antibiotic exposure, and fecal microbiota transplantation influence gut health. Looking ahead, GMWI2 represents a timely pivotal tool for evaluating health based on an individual's unique gut microbial composition, paving the way for the early screening of adverse gut health shifts. GMWI2 is offered as an open-source command-line tool, ensuring it is both accessible to and adaptable for researchers interested in the translational applications of human gut microbiome science.

In vivo label-free optical signatures of chemotherapy response in human pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patient-derived xenografts.

Pancreatic cancer is a devastating disease often detected at later stages, necessitating swift and effective chemotherapy treatment. However, chemoresistance is common and its mechanisms are poorly understood. Here, label-free multi-modal nonlinear optical microscopy was applied to study microstructural and functional features of pancreatic tumors in vivo to monitor inter- and intra-tumor heterogeneity and treatment response. Patient-derived xenografts with human pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were implanted into mice and characterized over five weeks of intraperitoneal chemotherapy (FIRINOX or Gem/NabP) with known responsiveness/resistance. Resistant and responsive tumors exhibited a similar initial metabolic response, but by week 5 the resistant tumor deviated significantly from the responsive tumor, indicating that a representative response may take up to five weeks to appear. This biphasic metabolic response in a chemoresistant tumor reveals the possibility of intra-tumor spatiotemporal heterogeneity of drug responsiveness. These results, though limited by small sample size, suggest the possibility for further work characterizing chemoresistance mechanisms using nonlinear optical microscopy.

Survival outcomes used to validate version 9 of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for appendiceal cancer.

The standard for cancer staging in the United States for all cancer sites, including primary carcinomas of the appendix, is the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system. AJCC staging criteria undergo periodic revisions, led by a panel of site-specific experts, to maintain contemporary staging definitions through the evaluation of new evidence. Since its last revision, the AJCC has restructured its processes to include prospectively collected data because large data sets have become increasingly robust and available over time. Thus survival analyses using AJCC eighth edition staging criteria were used to inform stage group revisions in the version 9 AJCC staging system, including appendiceal cancer. Although the current AJCC staging definitions were maintained for appendiceal cancer, incorporating survival analysis into the version 9 staging system provided unique insight into the clinical challenges in staging rare malignancies. This article highlights the critical clinical components of the now published version 9 AJCC staging system for appendix cancer, which (1) justified the separation of three different histologies (non-mucinous, mucinous, signet-ring cell) in terms of prognostic variance, (2) demonstrated the clinical implications and challenges in staging heterogeneous and rare tumors, and (3) emphasized the influence of data limitations on survival analysis for low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms.

Survival outcomes used to generate version 9 American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for anal cancer.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for all cancer sites, including anal cancer, is the standard for cancer staging in the United States. The AJCC staging criteria are dynamic, and periodic updates are conducted to optimize AJCC staging definitions through a panel of experts charged with evaluating new evidence to implement changes. With greater availability of large data sets, the AJCC has since restructured and updated its processes, incorporating prospectively collected data to validate stage group revisions in the version 9 AJCC staging system, including anal cancer. Survival analysis using AJCC eighth edition staging guidelines revealed a lack of hierarchical order in which stage IIIA anal cancer was associated with a better prognosis than stage IIB disease, suggesting that, for anal cancer, tumor (T) category has a greater effect on survival than lymph node (N) category. Accordingly, version 9 stage groups have been appropriately adjusted to reflect contemporary long-term outcomes. This article highlights the changes to the now published AJCC staging system for anal cancer, which: (1) redefined stage IIB as T1-T2N1M0 disease, (2) redefined stage IIIA as T3N0-N1M0 disease, and (3) eliminated stage 0 disease from its guidelines altogether.

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.

Telehealth for Women's Preventive Services for Reproductive Health and Intimate Partner Violence: a Comparative Effectiveness Review.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth delivery of preventive health services may improve access to care; however, its effectiveness and adverse effects are unknown. We conducted a comparative effectiveness review on the effectiveness and harms of telehealth interventions for women's reproductive health and intimate partner violence (IPV) services. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Scopus for English-language studies (July 2016 to May 2022) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of telehealth strategies for women's reproductive health and IPV versus usual care. Two investigators identified studies and abstracted data using a predefined protocol. Study quality was assessed using study design-specific standardized methods; disagreements were resolved through consensus. RESULTS: Eight RCTs, 1 nonrandomized trial, and 7 observational studies (n=10 731) were included (7 studies of contraceptive care and 9 of IPV services). Telehealth interventions to supplement contraceptive care demonstrated similar rates as usual care for contraceptive use, sexually transmitted infections, and pregnancy (low strength of evidence [SOE]); evidence on abortion was insufficient. Outcomes were also similar between telehealth interventions to replace or supplement IPV services and comparators for repeat IPV, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, fear of partner, coercive control, self-efficacy, and safety behaviors (low SOE). In these studies, telehealth barriers included limited internet access, digital literacy, technical challenges, and confidentiality concerns. Strategies to ensure safety increased telehealth use for IPV services. Evidence on access, health equity, or harms was lacking. DISCUSSION: Telehealth interventions for contraceptive care and IPV services demonstrate equivalent clinical and patient-reported outcomes versus in-person care, although few studies are available. Effective approaches for delivering these services and how to best mobilize telehealth, particularly for women facing barriers to care remain uncertain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021282298.

Evaluation of the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Reliability of Cancer Surveillance Data in the National Cancer Database.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the reliability of cancer cases reported to the National Cancer Database (NCDB) during 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Total number of cancer cases reported to the NCDB between January 2018 and December 2020 were calculated for all cancers and 21 selected cancer sites. The additive outlier method was used to identify structural breaks in trends compared with previous years. The difference between expected (estimated using the vector autoregressive method) and observed number of cases diagnosed in 2020 was estimated using generalized estimating equation under assumptions of the Poisson distribution for count data. Interrupted time series analysis was used to compare changes in the number of records processed by registrars each month of 2020. All models accounted for seasonality, regional variation, and random error. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant decrease (structural break) in the number of cases diagnosed in April 2020, with no recovery in number of cases during subsequent months, leading to a 12.4% deficit in the number of cases diagnosed during the first year of the pandemic. While the number of cancer records initiated by cancer registrars also decreased, the number of records marked completed increased during the first months of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: There was a significant deficit in the number of cancer diagnoses in 2020 that was not due to cancer registrars' inability to extract data during the pandemic. Future studies can use NCDB data to evaluate the impact of the pandemic on cancer care and outcomes.