Identifying predictors of COVID-related delays in cancer-specific medical care.

PURPOSE: Evidence of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer prevention and control is growing, but little is known about patient-level factors associated with delayed care. We analyzed data from a survey focused on Iowan cancer patients' COVID-19 experiences in the early part of the pandemic. METHODS: Participants were recruited from the University of Iowa Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center's Patients Enhancing Research Collaborations at Holden (PERCH) program. We surveyed respondents on demographic characteristics, COVID-19 experiences and reactions, and delays in any cancer-related health care appointment, or cancer-related treatment appointments. Two-sided significance tests assessed differences in COVID-19 experiences and reactions between those who experienced delays and those who did not. RESULTS: There were 780 respondents (26% response), with breast, prostate, kidney, skin, and colorectal cancers representing the majority of respondents. Delays in cancer care were reported by 29% of respondents. In multivariable-adjusted models, rural residents (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.03, 2.11) and those experiencing feelings of isolation (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.37, 3.47) were more likely to report any delay, where experiencing financial difficulties predicted delays in treatment appointments (OR 5.72; 95% CI 1.96, 16.67). Health insurance coverage and concern about the pandemic were not statistically significantly associated with delays. CONCLUSION: These findings may inform cancer care delivery during periods of instability when treatment may be disrupted by informing clinicians about concerns that patients have during the treatment process. Future research should assess whether delays in cancer care impact long-term cancer outcomes and whether delays exacerbate existing disparities in cancer outcomes.

Data gaps and opportunities for modeling cancer health equity.

Population models of cancer reflect the overall US population by drawing on numerous existing data resources for parameter inputs and calibration targets. Models require data inputs that are appropriately representative, collected in a harmonized manner, have minimal missing or inaccurate values, and reflect adequate sample sizes. Data resource priorities for population modeling to support cancer health equity include increasing the availability of data that 1) arise from uninsured and underinsured individuals and those traditionally not included in health-care delivery studies, 2) reflect relevant exposures for groups historically and intentionally excluded across the full cancer control continuum, 3) disaggregate categories (race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) and their intersections that conceal important variation in health outcomes, 4) identify specific populations of interest in clinical databases whose health outcomes have been understudied, 5) enhance health records through expanded data elements and linkage with other data types (eg, patient surveys, provider and/or facility level information, neighborhood data), 6) decrease missing and misclassified data from historically underrecognized populations, and 7) capture potential measures or effects of systemic racism and corresponding intervenable targets for change.

Diagnosing Provider, Referral Patterns, Facility Type, and Patient Satisfaction Among Iowa Rectal Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: Rectal cancer treatment at high-volume centers is associated with higher likelihood of guideline-concordant care and improved outcomes. Whether rectal cancer patients are referred for treatment at high-volume hospitals may depend on diagnosing provider specialty. We aimed to determine associations of diagnosing provider specialty with treating provider specialty and characteristics of the treating facility for rectal cancer patients in Iowa. METHODS: Rectal cancer patients identified using the Iowa Cancer Registry completed a mailed survey on their treatment experience and decision-making process. Provider type was defined by provider specialty and whether the provider referred patients elsewhere for surgery. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of being diagnosed by a general surgeon who also performed the subsequent surgery. RESULTS: Of 417 patients contacted, 381 (76%) completed the survey; our final analytical sample size was 267. Half of respondents were diagnosed by a gastroenterologist who referred them elsewhere; 30% were diagnosed by a general surgeon who referred them elsewhere, and 20% were diagnosed by a general surgeon who performed the surgery. Respondents who were ≥ 65 years old, had less than a college education, and who made < $50,000 per year were more likely to be diagnosed by a general surgeon who performed surgery. In multivariable-adjusted models, respondents diagnosed and treated by the same general surgeon were more likely to have surgery at hospitals with low annual colorectal cancer surgery volume and less likely to be satisfied with their care. CONCLUSIONS: Among rectal cancer patients in Iowa, respondents who were diagnosed and treated by the same provider were less likely to get treatment at a high-volume facility. This study informs the importance of provider referral in centralization of rectal cancer care.

Provider- and Facility-Level Variation in Precancerous Cervical Biopsy Diagnoses.

OBJECTIVES: Reproducibility of cervical biopsy diagnoses is low and may vary based on where the diagnostic test is performed and by whom. Our objective was to measure multilevel variation in diagnoses across colposcopists, pathologists, and laboratory facilities. METHODS: We cross-sectionally examined variation in cervical biopsy diagnoses within the 5 sites of the Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR I) consortium within levels defined by colposcopists, pathologists, and laboratory facilities. Patients aged 18 to 65 years with a colposcopy with biopsy performed were included, with diagnoses categorized as normal, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1), grade 2 (CIN2), and grade 3 (CIN3). Using Markov Chain Monte-Carlo methods, we fit mixed-effects logistic regression models for biopsy diagnoses and presented median odds ratios (MORs), which reflect the variability within each level. Median odds ratios can be interpreted as the average increased odds a patient would have for a given outcome (e.g., CIN2 or CIN3 vs normal or CIN1) when switching to a provider with higher odds of diagnosing that outcome. The MOR is always 1 or greater, and a value of 1 indicates no variation in outcome for that level, with higher values indicating greater variation. RESULTS: A total of 130,110 patients were included who received care across 82 laboratory facilities, 2,620 colposcopists, and 489 pathologists. Substantial variation in biopsy diagnoses was found at each level, with the most occurring between laboratory facilities, followed by pathologists and colposcopists. Substantial variation in biopsy diagnoses of CIN2 or CIN3 (vs normal or CIN1) was present between laboratory facilities (MOR: 1.26; 95% credible interval = 1.19-1.36). CONCLUSIONS: Improving consistency in cervical biopsy diagnoses is needed to reduce underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, and unnecessary treatment resulting from variation in cervical biopsy diagnoses.

Referrals and Decision-Making Considerations Involved in Selecting a Surgeon for Rectal Cancer Treatment in the Midwestern United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of superior outcomes for rectal cancer at high-volume, multidisciplinary cancer centers, many patients undergo surgery in low-volume hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine considerations of former patients with rectal cancer when selecting their surgeon and to evaluate which considerations were associated with surgery at high-volume hospitals. DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, patients were surveyed about what they considered when selecting a cancer surgeon. SETTINGS: Study data were obtained via survey and the statewide Iowa Cancer Registry. PATIENTS: All eligible individuals diagnosed with invasive stages II/III rectal cancer from 2013 to 2017 identified through the registry were invited to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the characteristics of the hospital where they received surgery (ie, National Cancer Institute designation, Commission on Cancer accreditation, and rectal cancer surgery volume). RESULTS: Among respondents, 318 of 417 (76%) completed surveys. Sixty-nine percent of patients selected their surgeon based on their physician's referral/recommendation, 20% based on surgeon/hospital reputation, and 11% based on personal connections to the surgeon. Participants who chose their surgeon based on reputation had significantly higher odds of surgery at National Cancer Institute-designated (OR 7.5; 95% CI, 3.8-15.0) or high-volume (OR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.7) hospitals than those who relied on referral. LIMITATIONS: This study took place in a Midwestern state with a predominantly white population, which limited our ability to evaluate racial/ethnic associations. CONCLUSION: Most patients with rectal cancer relied on referrals in selecting their surgeon, and those who did were less likely to receive surgery at a National Cancer Institute-designated or high-volume hospitals compared to those who considered reputation. Future research is needed to determine the impact of these decision factors on clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. In addition, patients should be aware that relying on physician referral may not result in treatment from the most experienced or comprehensive care setting in their area. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897.REMISIONES Y CONSIDERACIONES PARA LA TOMA DE DECISIONES RELACIONADAS CON LA SELECCIÓN DE UN CIRUJANO PARA EL TRATAMIENTO DEL CÁNCER DE RECTO EN EL MEDIO OESTE DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOSANTECEDENTES:A pesar de la evidencia de resultados superiores para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto en centros oncológicos de gran volumen y multidisciplinarios, muchos pacientes se someten a cirugía en hospitales de bajo volumen.OBJETIVOS:Examinar las consideraciones de los antiguos pacientes con cáncer de recto al momento de seleccionar a su cirujano y evaluar qué consideraciones se asociaron con la cirugía en hospitales de gran volumen.DISEÑO:Encuestamos a los pacientes sobre qué aspectos consideraron al elegir un cirujano oncológico para completar este estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTE:Los datos del estudio se obtuvieron mediante una encuesta y el Registro de Cáncer del estado de Iowa.PACIENTES:Se invitó a participar a todas las personas elegibles diagnosticadas con cáncer de recto invasivo en estadios II/III entre 2013 y 2017 identificadas a través del registro.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados principales fueron las características del hospital donde fue realizada la cirugía (es decir, designación del Instituto Nacional del Cáncer, acreditación de la Comisión de Cáncer y volumen de cirugía del cáncer de recto).RESULTADOS:Hubo 318 de 417 (76%) encuestas completadas. El sesenta y nueve por ciento seleccionó a su cirujano en función de la referencia / recomendación de su médico, el 20% por la reputación del cirujano/hospital, y el 11% por sus conexiones personales con el cirujano. Los participantes que eligieron a su cirujano en función a la reputación tuvieron probabilidades significativamente más altas de cirugía en el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer designado (OR = 7,5, IC del 95%: 3,8-15,0) o en hospitales de alto volumen (OR = 2,6, IC del 95%: 1,2-5,7) que aquellos que dependían de la derivación.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio se llevó a cabo en un estado del medio oeste con una población predominantemente blanca, lo que limitó nuestra capacidad para evaluar las asociaciones raciales/étnicas.CONCLUSIONES:La mayoría de los pacientes con cáncer de recto dependían de las derivaciones para seleccionar a su cirujano, y los que lo hacían tenían menos probabilidades de recibir cirugía en un hospital designado por el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer o en hospitales de gran volumen en comparación con los que consideraban la reputación. Se necesitan investigaciones a futuro para determinar el impacto de estos factores de decisión en los resultados clínicos, la satisfacción del paciente y la calidad de vida. Además, los pacientes deben ser conscientes de que depender de la remisión de un médico puede no resultar en el tratamiento más experimentado o integral en su área. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897. (Traducción-Dr Osvaldo Gauto).

Relationships between health literacy, having a cancer care coordinator, and long-term health-related quality of life among cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Care coordination is a strategy to reduce healthcare navigation challenges for cancer patients. The objectives of this study were to assess the association between having a cancer care coordinator (CCC) and long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and to evaluate whether this association differed by level of health literacy. METHODS: A population-based sample of survivors diagnosed with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer in 2015 from the Iowa Cancer Registry participated in an online survey conducted in 2017-2018 (N = 368). Chi-squared tests and logistic regression were used to model the association between patient characteristics and having a cancer care coordinator. Linear regression was used to model the association between patient perception of having a cancer care coordinator and post-treatment physical or mental HRQoL by differing levels of health literacy while controlling for sociodemographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Most survivors (81%) reported having one healthcare professional who coordinated their cancer care. Overall, patient perception of having a coordinator was not significantly associated with physical HRQoL (p = 0.118). However, participants with low health literacy (21%) who had a coordinator had significantly higher physical HRQoL scores compared to those who did not (adjusted mean difference 5.2, p = 0.010), while not so for medium (29%) or high (51%) health literacy (p = 0.227, and p = 0.850, respectively; test for interaction p = 0.001). Mental HRQoL was not associated with having a coordinator in our analyses. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that care coordinators improved post-treatment physical HRQoL, particularly for participants with low health literacy. Care coordinators may be beneficial to the most vulnerable patients struggling to navigate the complex healthcare system during cancer treatment. Future research should focus on the mechanisms by which care coordination may affect post-treatment HRQoL.

Patterns and characteristics of patients' selection of cancer surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: Despite evidence of volume-outcome relationships for cancer surgery, treatment at low-volume hospitals remains common. Our objective was to evaluate whether individuals actively involved in selecting their cancer surgeon were more likely to go to hospitals recognized for quality cancer care. METHODS: Individuals diagnosed with breast, prostate and colorectal cancer in 2015 completed online surveys in 2017-2018. Participants were categorized as "directed" to a surgeon (relied on referral) or "active" (sought additional information), and hospitals were categorized by NCI-designation, CoC accreditation, and academic affiliation. RESULTS: Of 299 participants, 42% were active. Individuals with breast cancer were more active (aOR = 2.46,95%CI:1.32-4.59). Active participants had nonsignificantly higher odds of surgery at NCI-designated facilities (aOR = 2.04,95%CI:0.95-4.38), or academic centers (aOR = 1.51,95%CI:0.86-2.64). CONCLUSIONS: While most participants were directed to their cancer surgeon, active participants tended to select NCI-designated/academic hospitals. Although centralization of cancer care would require altering referral patterns, decision-support resources may help patients make informed choices.

Guideline-Recommended Chemoradiation for Patients With Rectal Cancer at Large Hospitals: A Trend in the Right Direction.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with rectal cancer are treated at small, low-volume hospitals despite evidence that better outcomes are associated with larger, high-volume hospitals. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine trends of patients with rectal cancer who are receiving care at large hospitals, to determine the patient characteristics associated with treatment at large hospitals, and to assess the relationships between treatment at large hospitals and guideline-recommended therapy. DESIGN: This study was a retrospective cohort analysis to assess trends in rectal cancer treatment. SETTINGS: Data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Patterns of Care studies were used. PATIENTS: The study population consisted of adults diagnosed with stages II/III rectal cancer in 1990/1991, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was treatment at large hospitals (≥500 beds). The receipt of guideline-recommended preoperative chemoradiation therapy and postoperative chemotherapy was assessed for patients diagnosed in 2005+. RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred thirty-one patients were included. The proportion treated at large hospitals increased from 19% in 1990/1991 to 27% in 2015 (ptrend < 0.0001). Black race was associated with treatment at large hospitals (vs white) (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.30-2.31), as was being 55 to 64 years of age (vs 75+), and diagnosis in 2015 (vs 1990/1991). Treatment in large hospitals was associated with twice the odds of preoperative chemoradiation, as well as younger age and diagnosis in 2010 or 2015 (vs 2005). LIMITATIONS: The study did not account for the change in the number of large hospitals over time. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that patients with rectal cancer are increasingly being treated in large hospitals where they receive more guideline-recommended therapy. Although this trend is promising, patients receiving care at larger, higher-volume facilities are still the minority. Initiatives increasing patient and provider awareness of benefits of specialized care, as well as increasing referrals to large centers may improve the use of recommended treatment and ultimately improve outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A994. QUIMIORRADIACIÓN RECOMENDADA EN GUÍAS PARA PACIENTES CON CÁNCER RECTAL EN HOSPITALES DE GRAN TAMAÑO: UNA TENDENCIA EN LA DIRECCIÓN CORRECTA: Muchos pacientes con cáncer rectal se tratan en hospitales pequeños y de bajo volumen a pesar de evidencia de que los mejores resultados se asocian con hospitales más grandes y de gran volumen. OBJETIVOS: Examinar las tendencias en los pacientes con cáncer rectal que reciben atención en hospitales de gran tamaño, determinar las características de los pacientes asociadas con el tratamiento en hospitales grandes y evaluar la relación entre el tratamiento en hospitales grandes y la terapia recomendada en guías. DISEÑO:: Este estudio fue un análisis de cohorte retrospectivo para evaluar las tendencias en el tratamiento del cáncer de recto. ESCENARIO: Se utilizaron datos de los estudios del programa Patrones de Atención, Vigilancia, Epidemiología y Resultados Finales (SEER) del Instituto Nacional de Cáncer (NIH). PACIENTES: La población de estudio consistió en adultos diagnosticados con cáncer rectal en estadio II / III en 1990/1991, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 y 2015. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: El resultado primario fue el tratamiento en hospitales grandes (≥500 camas). La recepción de quimiorradiación preoperatoria recomendada según las guías y la quimioterapia posoperatoria se evaluaron para los pacientes diagnosticados en 2005 y posteriormente. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 2,231 pacientes. La proporción tratada en los hospitales grandes aumentó del 19% en 1990/1991 al 27% en 2015 (ptrend < 0.0001). La raza afroamericana se asoció con el tratamiento en hospitales grandes (vs. blanca) (OR, 1.73; IC 95%, 1.30-2.31), al igual que 55-64 años de edad (vs ≥75) y diagnóstico en 2015 (vs 1990/1991). El tratamiento en los hospitales grandes se asoció con el doble de probabilidad de quimiorradiación preoperatoria, así como con una edad más temprana y diagnóstico en 2010 o 2015 (vs 2005). LIMITACIONES: El estudio no tomó en cuenta el cambio en el número de hospitales grandes a lo largo del tiempo. CONCLUSIONES: Los resultados sugieren que los pacientes con cáncer rectal reciben cada vez más tratamiento en hospitales grandes donde reciben terapia recomendada por las guías mas frecuentemente. Aunque esta tendencia es prometedora, los pacientes que reciben atención en hospitales más grandes y de mayor volumen siguen siendo una minoría. Las iniciativas que aumenten la concientización del paciente y del proveedor de servicios médicos sobre los beneficios de la atención especializada, así como el aumento de las referencias a centros grandes podrían mejorar el uso del tratamiento recomendado y, en última instancia, mejorar los resultados. Vea el Resumen en video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A994.