Developing national cancer survivorship standards to inform quality of care in the United States using a consensus approach.

PURPOSE: To develop United States (US) standards for survivorship care that informs (1) essential health system policy and process components and (2) evaluation of the quality of survivorship care. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute and the Department of Veterans Affairs led a review to identify indicators of quality cancer survivorship care in the domains of health system policy, process, and evaluation/assessment. A series of three virtual consensus meetings with survivorship care and research experts and advocates was conducted to rate the importance of the indicators and refine the top indicators. The final set of standards was developed, including ten indicators in each domain. RESULTS: Prioritized items were survivor-focused, including processes to both assess and manage physical, psychological, and social issues, and evaluation of patient outcomes and experiences. Specific indicators focused on developing a business model for sustaining survivorship care and collecting relevant business metrics (e.g., healthcare utilization, downstream revenue) to show value of survivorship care to health systems. CONCLUSIONS: The National Standards for Cancer Survivorship Care can be used by health systems to guide development of new survivorship care programs or services or to assess alignment and enhance services in existing survivorship programs. Given the variety of settings providing care to survivors, it is necessary for health systems to adapt these standards based on factors including age-specific needs, cancer types, treatments received, and health system resources. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: With over 18 million cancer survivors in the United States, many of whom experience varied symptoms and unmet needs, it is essential for health systems to have a comprehensive strategy to provide ongoing care. The US National Standards for Survivorship Care should serve as a blueprint for what survivors and their families can anticipate after a cancer diagnosis to address their needs.

Current Practices, Perceived Barriers, and Promising Implementation Strategies for Improving Quality of Smoking Cessation Support in Accredited Cancer Programs of the American College of Surgeons.

PURPOSE: Persistent smoking is associated with poor outcomes in cancer care. It is strongly recommended that oncology care providers provide cessation support; however, there is limited information about smoking cessation assessment and treatment patterns in routine oncology practice. METHODS: Leaders of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) and National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (National Accredited Program for Breast Cancer) elected to participate in a national quality improvement initiative (Just ASK) focused on smoking assessment/treatment in cancer care. Online baseline survey responses were received from 762 accredited programs. RESULTS: Most programs reported regularly asking about smoking (89.9%), documenting smoking history and current use (85.8%), and advising patients to quit (71.2%). However, less than half of programs reported documenting a smoking cessation treatment plan (41.7%). Even fewer programs reported regularly assisting patients with quitting (41.3%), providing self-help information (27.2%), providing individual counseling (18.2%), and referring patients to an affiliated tobacco treatment program (26.1%) or external Quitline (28.5%). Very few programs reported regularly prescribing medications (17.6%). Principal barriers to tobacco treatment delivery were lack of staff training (68.8%), lack of designated specialists (61.9%), perceived patient resistance (58.3%), lack of available resources (53.3%), competing clinical priorities (50.9%), inadequate program funding (40.6%), insufficient staff time (42.4%), and inadequate reimbursement (31.0%). CONCLUSION: Although programs reported a high rate of smoking assessment, critical gaps in advising and assisting patients with cessation were found. Improving equitable delivery of smoking assessment/treatment in cancer care will require addressing key organizational and provider barriers for implementation of best practices.

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.

Getting ready for prime time: Recommended adaptations of an Empathic Communication Skills training intervention to reduce lung cancer stigma for a national multi-center trial.

Building upon prior work developing and pilot testing a provider-focused Empathic Communication Skills (ECS) training intervention, this study sought feedback from key invested partners who work with individuals with lung cancer (i.e. stakeholders including scientific and clinical advisors and patient advocates) on the ECS training intervention. The findings will be used to launch a national virtually-delivered multi-center clinical trial that will examine the effectiveness and implementation of the evidence-based ECS training intervention to reduce patients' experience of lung cancer stigma. A 1-day, hybrid, key invested partners meeting was held in New York City in Fall 2021. We presented the ECS training intervention to all conference attendees (N = 25) to seek constructive feedback on modifications of the training content and platform for intervention delivery to maximize its impact. After participating in the immersive training, all participants engaged in a group discussion guided by semi-structured probes. A deductive thematic content analysis was conducted to code focus group responses into 12 distinct a priori content modification recommendations. Content refinement was suggested in 8 of the 12 content modification themes: tailoring/tweaking/refining, adding elements, removing elements, shortening/condensing content, lengthening/extending content, substituting elements, re-ordering elements, and repeating elements. Engagement and feedback from key invested multi-sector partner is a valuable resource for intervention content modifications. Using a structured format for refining evidence-based interventions can facilitate efforts to understand the nature of modifications required for scaling up interventions and the impact of these modifications on outcomes of interest. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05456841.

This study was done to get feedback from people who are involved with patients with lung cancer (PwLCs) including scientists, clinicians, and patient advocates on training in Empathic Communication Skills (ECS). The training is intended to reduce PwLCs experience of lung cancer stigma. The feedback is being used to help prepare for launching the training program in multiple cancer centers across the USA to test how well the training will work to reduce the stigma felt by PwLCs. A one-day, hybrid (in-person and virtual attendees) meeting was held in New York City in October 2021. We presented the original version of the ECS training program to all conference attendees (N = 25) to get feedback on modifications to improve the training program for the larger study planned at many cancer centers. After the training, all meeting attendees participated in a semi-structured group discussion. The content of the discussion was analyzed and sorted into 12 distinct categories that were defined before the meeting. Changes to the content were suggested in 8 of the 12 categories. These changes included tailoring/tweaking/refining, adding elements, removing elements, shortening/condensing content, lengthening/extending content, substituting elements, re-ordering elements, and repeating elements. Engaging and getting feedback from people involved in a topic is a good way to improve content and delivery of training materials.

Political Attitudes and Disease Threat: Regional Pathogen Stress Is Associated With Conservative Ideology Only for Older Individuals.

What environmental factors are associated with individual differences in political ideology, and do such associations change over time? We examine whether reductions in pathogen prevalence in U.S. states over the past 60 years are associated with reduced associations between parasite stress and conservatism. We report a positive association between infection levels and conservative ideology in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s. However, this correlation reduces from the 1980s onwards. These results suggest that the ecological influence of infectious diseases may be larger for older people who grew up (or whose parents grew up) during earlier time periods. We test this hypothesis by analyzing the political affiliation of 45,000 Facebook users, and find a positive association between self-reported political affiliation and regional pathogen stress for older (>40 years) but not younger individuals. It is concluded that the influence of environmental pathogen stress on ideology may have reduced over time.

A query theory account of the attraction effect.

We provide novel support for Query Theory, a reason-based decision framework, extending it to multialternative choices and applying it to the classic phenomenon known as the attraction effect. In Experiment 1 (N = 261), we generalised the two key metrics used in Query Theory from binary to multialternative choices and found that reasons supporting the target option were generated earlier and in greater quantity than those supporting the competitor, as predicted by the theory. In Experiment 2 (N = 703), we investigated the causal relationships between reasoning and choices by exogenously manipulating the order in which participants generated their reasons. As predicted, the size of the attraction effect was a function of this query order manipulation. We also introduced a bidirectional reason coding protocol to measure the valence of reasons, which confirmed support for Query Theory. We suggest the Query Theory framework can be useful for studying the high-level deliberation processes behind multialternative choices.

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.

Palliative care use and utilization determinants among patients treated for advanced stage lung cancer care in the community and academic medical setting.

PURPOSE: Despite clinical guidelines, palliative care is underutilized during advanced stage lung cancer treatment. To inform interventions to increase its use, patient-level barriers and facilitators (i.e., determinants) need to be characterized, especially among patients living in rural areas or those receiving treatment outside academic medical centers. METHODS: Between 2020 and 2021, advanced stage lung cancer patients (n = 77; 62% rural; 58% receiving care in the community) completed a one-time survey assessing palliative care use and its determinants. Univariate and bivariate analyses described palliative care use and determinants and compared scores by patient demographic (e.g., rural vs. urban) and treatment setting (e.g., community vs. academic medical center) factors. RESULTS: Roughly half said they had never met with a palliative care doctor (49.4%) or nurse (58.4%) as part of cancer care. Only 18% said they knew what palliative care was and could explain it; 17% thought it was the same as hospice. After palliative care was distinguished from hospice, the most frequently cited reasons patients stated they would not seek palliative care were uncertainty about what it would offer (65%), concerns about insurance coverage (63%), difficulty attending multiple appointments (60%), and lack of discussion with an oncologist (59%). The most common reasons patients stated they would seek palliative care were a desire to control pain (62%), oncologist recommendation (58%), and coping support for family and friends (55%). CONCLUSION: Interventions should address knowledge and misconceptions, assess care needs, and facilitate communication between patients and oncologists about palliative care.

Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Resectable Metastatic Colon Cancer in Non-academic and Academic Programs.

BACKGROUND: Overall survival advantage of chemotherapy before versus after metastasectomy of liver or lung lesion is not clear for colon cancer with synchronous liver or lung metastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults 20 years or older with primary colon cancer and single organ metastatic disease either in the liver or lung at diagnosis were identified between 2010 and 2015 through the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients were categorized into 2 cohorts: pre-operative/peri-operative chemotherapy (neoadjuvant -[NAC]) or post-operative chemotherapy (adjuvant [AC]). Survivals and factors associated with were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 3038 patients with colon cancer with liver or lung metastases were identified. The percentage of patients receiving NAC had steadily increased from 12.29% to 28.31%, mostly in academic programs. On multivariate analysis, patients who received NAC had an overall survival advantage in the non-academic setting whereas no advantage is seen in the patients treated in the academic settings. The median overall survival for patients receiving NAC and AC was 47.24 months and 38.08 months, respectively. Factors associated with overall survival advantage in NAC patients treated in non-academic programs included age 20-49 years, CEA value of >30, right-sided colon primary, liver metastasis, and clear resection margins. CONCLUSIONS: Metastatic colon cancer with single organ liver or lung lesions benefits from neoadjuvant chemotherapy, especially in -non-academic settings. The overall survival advantage in this setting has not been shown before.

Evaluation of a National Quality Improvement Collaborative for Improving Cancer Screening.

Importance: Cancer screening deficits during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic were found to persist into 2021. Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are projected to increase if these deficits are not addressed. Objective: To assess whether participation in a nationwide quality improvement (QI) collaborative, Return-to-Screening, was associated with restoration of cancer screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: Accredited cancer programs electively enrolled in this QI study. Project-specific targets were established on the basis of differences in mean monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) between representative prepandemic (September 2019 and January 2020) and pandemic (September 2020 and January 2021) periods to restore prepandemic volumes and achieve a minimum of 10% increase in MTV. Local QI teams implemented evidence-based screening interventions from June to November 2021 (intervention period), iteratively adjusting interventions according to their MTVs and target. Interrupted time series analyses was used to identify the intervention effect. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2022. Exposures: Collaborative QI support included provision of a Return-to-Screening plan-do-study-act protocol, evidence-based screening interventions, QI education, programmatic coordination, and calculation of screening deficits and targets. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of QI projects reaching target MTV and counterfactual differences in the aggregate number of screening tests across time periods. Results: Of 859 cancer screening QI projects (452 for breast cancer, 134 for colorectal cancer, 244 for lung cancer, and 29 for cervical cancer) conducted by 786 accredited cancer programs, 676 projects (79%) reached their target MTV. There were no hospital characteristics associated with increased likelihood of reaching target MTV except for disease site (lung vs breast, odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7 to 4.7). During the preintervention period (April to May 2021), there was a decrease in the mean MTV (slope, -13.1 tests per month; 95% CI, -23.1 to -3.2 tests per month). Interventions were associated with a significant immediate (slope, 101.0 tests per month; 95% CI, 49.1 to 153.0 tests per month) and sustained (slope, 36.3 tests per month; 95% CI, 5.3 to 67.3 tests per month) increase in MTVs relative to the preintervention trends. Additional screening tests were performed during the intervention period compared with the prepandemic period (170 748 tests), the pandemic period (210 450 tests), and the preintervention period (722 427 tests). Conclusions and Relevance: In this QI study, participation in a national Return-to-Screening collaborative with a multifaceted QI intervention was associated with improvements in cancer screening. Future collaborative QI endeavors leveraging accreditation infrastructure may help address other gaps in cancer care.

Evaluating information loss in the National Cancer Database from cases lost to follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cancer registries must focus on data capture which returns value while reducing resource burden with minimal loss of data. Identifying the optimum length of follow-up data collection for patients with cancer achieves this goal. METHODS: A two-step analysis using entropy calculations to assess information gain for each follow-up year, and second-order differences to compare survival outcomes between the defined follow-up periods and lifetime follow-up. A total of 391 567 adult cases, deidentified in the National Cancer Database and diagnosed in 1989. Comparisons examined a subset of 61 908 lung cancer cases, 48 387 colon and rectal cancer cases, and 64 134 breast cancer cases in adults. A total of 4133 pediatric cases were diagnosed in 1989 examining 1065 leukemia cases and 494 lymphoma cases. RESULTS: Annual increases in information gain fell below 1% after 16 years of follow-up for adult cases and 9 years for pediatric cases. Comparison of second-order differences showed 62% of the comparisons were similar between 15 years and lifetime follow-up when examining restricted mean survival time. In addition, 90% of the comparisons were statistically similar when comparing hazard ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Survival analysis using 15 years postdiagnosis follow-up showed minimal differences in information gain compared to lifetime follow-up.

Lung Cancer in Young Adults: A Single-Center Experience.

OBJECTIVE: This single-center retrospective review examines the unique characteristics of young patients (ages 18 to 40 years) who were diagnosed as having non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at Markey Cancer Center, the only National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in the state of Kentucky. METHODS: This retrospective study examines adult patients with NSCLC who were between ages 18 and 40 at diagnosis. Patients diagnosed between 2012 and 2018 were included. The final cohort consisted of 35 patients. The data collected included patient demographic information, tumor topography, clinical stage, cell type, treatment information/dates, metastasis, and survival data. RESULTS: In total, 36 of 3246 total NSCLC cases treated at Markey Cancer Center from 2012 to 2018 were diagnosed in adults aged 18 to 40 (1.11%); 35 of these 36 patients were included in our cohort. The majority (22; 62.86%) presented at an advanced stage of disease (stage III or IV). Furthermore, our cohort consisted of a strong majority of female patients (24; 68.57%). The most common histological type was adenocarcinoma (14; 40.00%). The 5-year survival rate was 47% (standard error 9%). CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer is rare in young patients; when present, often it presents at the advanced stage. Despite many diagnostic tools and treatment modalities available, long-term survival remains poor. Our experience showed a small proportion of patients with NSCLC aged 18 to 40 at diagnosis; among this unique patient population, there is a predominance of smokers, women, adenocarcinoma, and advanced disease.

Designing a Framework for Remote Cancer Care Through Community Co-design: Participatory Development Study.

BACKGROUND: Recent shifts to telemedicine and remote patient monitoring demonstrate the potential for new technology to transform health systems; yet, methods to design for inclusion and resilience are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to design and implement a participatory framework to produce effective health care solutions through co-design with diverse stakeholders. METHODS: We developed a design framework to cocreate solutions to locally prioritized health and communication problems focused on cancer care. The framework is premised on the framing and discovery of problems through community engagement and lead-user innovation with the hypothesis that diversity and inclusion in the co-design process generate more innovative and resilient solutions. Discovery, design, and development were implemented through structured phases with design studios at various locations in urban and rural Kentucky, including Appalachia, each building from prior work. In the final design studio, working prototypes were developed and tested. Outputs were assessed using the System Usability Scale as well as semistructured user feedback. RESULTS: We co-designed, developed, and tested a mobile app (myPath) and service model for distress surveillance and cancer care coordination following the LAUNCH (Linking and Amplifying User-Centered Networks through Connected Health) framework. The problem of awareness, navigation, and communication through cancer care was selected by the community after framing areas for opportunity based on significant geographic disparities in cancer and health burden resource and broadband access. The codeveloped digital myPath app showed the highest perceived combined usability (mean 81.9, SD 15.2) compared with the current gold standard of distress management for patients with cancer, the paper-based National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (mean 74.2, SD 15.8). Testing of the System Usability Scale subscales showed that the myPath app had significantly better usability than the paper Distress Thermometer (t63=2.611; P=.01), whereas learnability did not differ between the instruments (t63=-0.311; P=.76). Notable differences by patient and provider scoring and feedback were found. CONCLUSIONS: Participatory problem definition and community-based co-design, design-with methods, may produce more acceptable and effective solutions than traditional design-for approaches.

A national quality improvement study identifying and addressing cancer screening deficits due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are expected to increase due to cancer screening deficits associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although national deficits have been quantified, a structured response to identifying and addressing local deficits has not been widely available. The objectives of this report are to share preliminary data on monthly screening deficits in breast, colorectal, lung, and cervical cancers across diverse settings and to provide online materials from a national quality improvement (QI) study to help other institutions to address local screening deficits. METHODS: This prospective, national QI study on Return-to-Screening enrolled 748 accredited cancer programs in the United States from April through June 2021. Local prepandemic and pandemic monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) were used to calculate the relative percent change in MTV to describe the monthly screening gap. RESULTS: The majority of facilities reported monthly screening deficits (colorectal cancer, 80.6% [n = 104/129]; cervical cancer, 69.0% [n = 20/29]; breast cancer, 55.3% [n = 241/436]; lung cancer, 44.6% [n = 98/220]). Overall, the median relative percent change in MTV ranged from -17.7% for colorectal cancer (interquartile range [IQR], -33.6% to -2.8%), -6.8% for cervical cancer (IQR, -29.4% to 1.7%), -1.6% for breast cancer (IQR, -9.6% to 7.0%), and 1.2% for lung cancer (IQR, -16.9% to 19.0%). Geographic differences were not observed. There were statistically significant differences in the percent change in MTV between institution types for colorectal cancer screening (P = .02). CONCLUSION: Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the screening resources made available online may help facilities to close critical gaps and address screenings missed in 2020. LAY SUMMARY: Question: How can the effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on cancer screening be mitigated? FINDINGS: When national resources were provided, including methods to calculate local screening deficits, 748 cancer programs promptly enrolled in a national Return-to-Screening study, and the majority identified local screening deficits, most notably in colorectal cancer. Using these results, 814 quality improvement projects were initiated with the potential to add 70,000 screening tests in 2021. Meaning: Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the online resources that we provide may help to close critical screening deficits.

Twenty-Five Years of Cancer Follow-Up; Is the Data Worth the Effort?

BACKGROUND: Substantial resources are dedicated to long-term follow-up within cancer registries; however, the completeness of these data is poorly characterized. Our objectives were to quantify long-term cancer follow-up data completeness and the effort required to collect these data using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). METHODS: To quantify data completeness, patients diagnosed with cancer in 1989 were identified in the NCDB and loss to follow-up rates were assessed for 25 years after diagnosis. To quantify data collection effort, patients diagnosed from 1989 to 2014 who were alive and eligible for follow-up in 2014 were identified and the effort to perform patient follow-up was obtained via a survey of tumor registrars. The effort to perform follow-up beyond various intervals after diagnosis was calculated. RESULTS: In total, 484,201 patients at 958 hospitals were diagnosed with cancer in 1989. After 5 years, 6.5% of patients were lost to follow-up (13.1% of living patients), 50.3% were deceased, and 43.2% had ongoing follow-up. After 15 years, 22.9% were lost to follow-up (68.7% of living patients), 66.7% were deceased, and 10.5% had ongoing follow-up. By 25 years, loss to follow-up increased to 28.6% (93.7% of living patients), 69.5% were deceased, and 1.9% had ongoing follow-up. In 2014, 522,838 h were spent performing follow-up for 2,091,353 patients at 1456 hospitals who were >15 years from their initial cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: While 5-year follow-up is excellent in the NCDB, loss to follow-up increases over time. The impact of curtailing data collection is under investigation and follow-up duration requirements will be re-evaluated.

Improving cancer care locally: Study of a hospital affiliate network model.

PURPOSE: The University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center Affiliate Network (MCCAN) increased access to high-quality cancer care for patients treated in community hospitals across the state by leveraging the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) standards to improve quality among its member sites. This study describes the network activities and services identified as most helpful or effective to its members, as well as the perceived value of joining MCCAN or pursing accreditation. METHODS: An independent research team conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with 18 administrators and clinicians from 10 MCCAN hospitals in 2019. Interviews were transcribed and a thematic analysis was conducted. FINDINGS: Network affiliation and CoC accreditation were perceived as helpful to improving quality of care. Having both clinician and administrative champions were key facilitators to achieving CoC standards and made mentoring of member sites a critical activity of the Network. Other components identified as valuable and/or key to the Network's success included providing access to specific CoC-required clinical services (eg, genetic counseling); offering regular performance monitoring and individualized feedback; establishing a culture of quality improvement; and fostering trust within the Network with patient referrals (ie, sending patients back to their local hospital for ongoing care). CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement in community cancer programs is challenging but several strategies were identified by members as valuable and effective. Efforts to disseminate the MCCAN model should focus on identifying the needs of community hospitals, implementing a quality monitoring system, and fostering site-level champions who can be influential drivers of change.

Description of a Lung Cancer Hotspot: Disparities in Lung Cancer Histology, Incidence, and Survival in Kentucky and Appalachian Kentucky.

INTRODUCTION: Kentucky is recognized as the state with the highest lung cancer burden for more than 2 decades, but how lung cancer differs in Kentucky relative to other US populations is not fully understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined lung cancer reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program by Kentucky and the other SEER regions for patients diagnosed between 2012 and 2016. Our analyses included histologic types, incidence rates, stage at diagnosis, and survival in Kentucky and Appalachian Kentucky relative to other SEER regions. RESULTS: We found that both squamous cell carcinomas and small-cell lung cancers represent larger proportions of lung cancer diagnoses in Kentucky and Appalachian Kentucky than they do in the SEER registries. Furthermore, age-adjusted cancer incidence rates were higher in Kentucky for every subtype of lung cancer examined. Most notably, for Appalachian women the rate of small-cell carcinomas was 3.5-fold higher, and for Appalachian men the rate of squamous cell carcinoma was 3.1-fold higher, than the SEER rates. In Kentucky, lung cancers were diagnosed at later stages and lung cancer survival was lower for adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine carcinomas than in SEER registries. Squamous cell carcinomas and small-cell carcinomas were most lethal in Appalachian Kentucky. CONCLUSION: Together, these data highlight the considerable disparities among lung cancer cases in the United States and demonstrate the continuing high burden and poor survival of lung cancer in Kentucky and Appalachian Kentucky. Strategies to identify and rectify causes of these disparities are discussed.