Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Intensity of Care at the End of Life for Patients With Lung Cancer: A 13-Year Population-Based Study.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Disparities in lung cancer mortality among racial and ethnic minorities are well documented. Less is known as to whether racial and ethnic minority patients with lung cancer experience higher rates of intensity of care at the end of life (EOL) compared with non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients. METHODS: We conducted a population-based analysis of patients 18 years and older with a lung cancer diagnosis who died between 2005 and 2018 using the California Cancer Registry linked to patient discharge data abstracts. Our primary outcome was intensity of care in the last 14 days before death (defined as any hospital admission or emergency department [ED] visit, intensive care unit [ICU] admission, intubation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR], hemodialysis, and death in an acute care setting). We used multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate associations between race and ethnicity and intensity of EOL care. RESULTS: Among 207,429 patients with lung cancer who died from 2005 to 2018, the median age was 74 years (range, 18-107) and 106,821 (51%) were male, 146,872 (70.8%) were NHW, 1,045 (0.5%) were American Indian, 21,697 (10.5%) were Asian Pacific Islander (API), 15,490 (7.5%) were Black, and 22,325 (10.8%) were Hispanic. Compared with NHW patients, in the last 14 days before death, API, Black, and Hispanic patients had greater odds of a hospital admission, an ICU admission, intubation, CPR, and hemodialysis and greater odds of a hospital or ED death. CONCLUSION: Compared with NHW patients, API, Black, and Hispanic patients who died with lung cancer experienced higher intensity of EOL care. Future studies should develop approaches to eliminate such racial and ethnic disparities in care delivery at the EOL.

Lay healthcare worker financial toxicity intervention: a pilot financial toxicity screening and referral program.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity is a source of significant distress for patients with urologic cancers, yet few studies have addressed financial burden in this patient population. METHODS: We developed a financial toxicity screening program using a lay health worker (LHW) and social worker (SW) to assess and mitigate financial toxicity in a single academic medical clinic. As part of a quality improvement project, the LHW screened all newly diagnosed patients with advanced stages of prostate, kidney, or urothelial cancer for financial burden using three COST tool questions and referred patients who had significant financial burden to an SW who provided personalized recommendations. The primary outcome was feasibility defined as 80% of patients with financial burden completing the SW consult. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, change in COST Tool responses, and qualitative assessment of financial resources utilized. RESULTS: The LHW screened a total of 185 patients for financial toxicity; 82% (n = 152) were male, 65% (n = 120) White, and 75% (n = 139) reported annual household income >$100,000 US Dollars; 60% (n = 114) had prostate cancer. A total of 18 (9.7%) participants screened positive for significant financial burden and were referred to the SW for consultation. All participants (100%) completed and reported satisfaction with the SW consultation and had 0.83 mean lower scores on the COST Tool post-intervention assessment compared to pre-intervention (95% confidence interval [0.26, 1.41]). CONCLUSION: This multidisciplinary financial toxicity intervention using an LHW and SW was feasible, acceptable, and associated with reduced financial burden among patients with advanced stages of urologic cancers. Future work should evaluate the effect of this intervention among cancer patients in diverse settings.

Trends in Epidemiology of Esophageal Cancer in the US, 1975-2018.

Importance: Esophageal cancer (EC) is the 7th most common cancer worldwide and 14th in the US. More data are needed to study the changing incidence patterns of its 2 primary histologic subtypes, squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (SCE) and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (ACE). Objective: To examine temporal trends in incidence rates of EC, ACE, and SCE from 1975 through 2018. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this population-based cross-sectional study, data were derived from 9 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries from January 1975 through December 2018 and from all 21 registries for January 2000 through December 2018 for patients with a diagnosis of EC from 1975 through 2018 (International Classification of Disease-Oncology, Third Edition codes). Age-adjusted incidence rates (AAIRs) of EC, ACE, and SCE were calculated. The timing and magnitude of the annual percentage change (APC) in incidence were examined using Joinpoint regression analyses. Data analysis was started in 2021 and updated and completed in 2023. Main Outcome and Measures: The APC for age-adjusted EC incidence rates as stratified by histology, anatomical location, stage, sex, age, race and ethnicity, and geographic region. Results: A total of 47 648 patients with a diagnosis of EC were retained for analysis. These included 22 419 (47.1%) with a diagnosis of SCE, 22 217 (46.6%) with ACE, and 3012 (6.3%) with other subtypes. The AAIR for EC changed from 4.14 per 100 000 population in 1975 to 4.18 in 2018, AAIRs of SCE declined from 3.06 in 1975 to 1.15 in 2018 as well as for ACE, and AAIRs increased from 0.42 in 1975 to 2.78 in 2018. From 1975 through 2004, EC incidence significantly increased (APC, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.4 to 0.7) but significantly decreased (APC, -1.03; 95% CI, -1.3 to -0.7) from then until 2018. The APC of SCE significantly continued to decline (-2.80, 95% CI, -3.0 to -2.6), and ACE increased from 2000 to 2006 (APC, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.0) but has since stabilized from 2006 to 2018. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that the incidence of EC modestly declined since 2004 and that the incidence of SCE continued to decline while the incidence rate of ACE plateaued for more than a decade. Understanding factors associated with plateaued rates of ACE may help inform public health interventions.

"I Have Constant Fear": A National Qualitative Study on the Impact of COVID-19 on Cancer Care and Potential Solutions to Improve the Cancer Care Experience During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly affected cancer care delivery for patients, including cancellation or delays in surveillance imaging, clinic visits, and treatments. Yet, gaps remain in understanding the extent of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer and potential ways to overcome these impacts. METHODS: We conducted semistructured, in-depth, one-on-one qualitative interviews among adults with a past or current history of cancer in the United States. Participants from a parent quantitative survey were purposively sampled to participate in a qualitative interview. Interview questions addressed (1) experiences with cancer care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) unmet concerns regarding care and other impacts; and (3) approaches to improve patient experiences. We conducted inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-seven interviews were conducted. Four themes emerged: (1) concern regarding the risk of COVID-19 infection among patients with cancer and their families; (2) disruptions in care increased patients' anxiety about poor cancer outcomes and death from cancer; (3) significant social and economic impacts; and (4) increased social isolation and anxiety about the future. Suggestions for current clinical practice include (1) clear communication on patients' health risks; (2) increased attention to mental health needs and access to mental health services; and (3) routine use of telemedicine as frequently as possible when clinically appropriate. CONCLUSION: These rich findings reveal the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer and potential approaches to mitigate the impact from the patient perspective. The findings not only inform current cancer care delivery but also health system responses to future public health or environmental crises that may pose a unique health risk for patients with cancer or disrupt their care.

Exploring cancer care needs for Latinx adults: a qualitative evaluation.

PURPOSE: Latinx adults with cancer, as compared with non-Latinx White adults, are diagnosed with more advanced stages and experience worse quality of life. Identifying barriers in cancer care among low-income Latinx adults is crucial to designing and implementing culturally appropriate interventions. The objective of this study was to explore the specific barriers encountered by Latinx adults after a cancer diagnosis and perspectives on the use of community health workers (CHWs) to address these barriers. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with low-income Latinx adults with a past or current history of cancer and/or their caregivers in a community oncology clinic located in an agricultural community in California. Analysis was based in grounded theory and performed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Sixteen interviews were conducted with patients alone (n = 11), a caregiver alone (n = 1), and patient-caregiver pairs (n = 4 patients; n = 4 caregivers). Four major themes emerged: (1) low cancer health literacy including cancer diagnosis and treatment, cancer fatalism, navigating next steps after diagnosis, advance directives, and precision medicine; (2) challenges in communicating and receiving supportive services due to language barriers; (3) stress and anxiety regarding financial hardships related to job loss, insurance barriers, and the COVID-19 pandemic; (4) the need for supportive, bilingual, and bicultural personnel to assist in overcoming these challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Low-income Latinx adults with cancer and their caregivers experience health literacy, communication, and financial barriers that impede quality cancer care delivery. Embedding CHWs in the care team could be one way to address these barriers to culturally concordant, accessible care.

Community health workers and precision medicine: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Precision cancer care has reduced cancer-related mortality. However, minorities remain less likely to receive precision medicine than White populations with cancer due to language and system-level barriers. Precision medicine knowledge increases involvement in treatment decisions and receipt of such treatment. Few interventions exist that seek to improve precision medicine knowledge among low-income and racial and ethnic minorities with cancer. METHODS: We designed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a community health worker (CHW)-delivered intervention on patients' knowledge of precision medicine in partnership with a community oncology clinic in Monterey County, California. Eligibility includes adults with newly diagnosed, progression or recurrence of cancer, low-income, or racial and ethnic minorities, or uninsured, insured by Medicaid or by a local agricultural employer. We will randomize 110 patients with cancer to the intervention or usual cancer care. The intervention group will be assigned to a CHW who will deliver culturally tailored and personalized education on precision medicine and advance care planning, screen for social determinants of health barriers and connect patients to community resources. The primary outcome is precision medicine knowledge measured by a 6-item survey adapted from Davies at baseline, 3-, 6- and 12-months post-enrollment. Exploratory outcomes include patient satisfaction with decision, activation, health care utilization, and receipt of evidence-based precision medicine care. CONCLUSION: This trial will assess whether the CHW-led intervention can increase knowledge of precision medicine as well as several exploratory outcomes including receipt of evidence-based cancer care among low-income and racial and ethnic minority adults with cancer. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Registration # NCT04843332.

CD20-Targeted Therapy Ablates De Novo Antibody Response to Vaccination but Spares Preestablished Immunity.

To obtain a deeper understanding of poor responses to COVID-19 vaccination in patients with lymphoma, we assessed blocking antibodies, total anti-spike IgG, and spike-specific memory B cells in the peripheral blood of 126 patients with lymphoma and 20 age-matched healthy controls 1 and 4 months after COVID-19 vaccination. Fifty-five percent of patients developed blocking antibodies postvaccination, compared with 100% of controls. When evaluating patients last treated from days to nearly 18 years prior to vaccination, time since last anti-CD20 was a significant independent predictor of vaccine response. None of 31 patients who had received anti-CD20 treatment within 6 months prior to vaccination developed blocking antibodies. In contrast, patients who initiated anti-CD20 treatment shortly after achieving a vaccine-induced antibody response tended to retain that response during treatment, suggesting a policy of immunizing prior to treatment whenever possible. SIGNIFICANCE: In a large cohort of patients with B-cell lymphoma, time since anti-CD20 treatment was an independent predictor of neutralizing antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination. Comparing patients who received anti-CD20 treatment before or after vaccination, we demonstrate that vaccinating first can generate an antibody response that endures through anti-CD20-containing treatment. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 85.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Patients With Cancer: A National Study of Patient Experiences.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic abruptly disrupted cancer care. The impact of these disruptions on patient experiences remain relatively understudied. The objective of this study was to assess patients' perspectives regarding the impact of COVID-19 on their experiences, including their cancer care, emotional and mental health, and social determinants of health, and to evaluate whether these outcomes differed by cancer stage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a survey among adults with cancer across the United States from April 1, 2020 to August 26, 2020 using virtual snowball sampling strategy in collaboration with professional organizations, cancer care providers, and patient advocacy groups. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics, χ2 and t tests. RESULTS: Three hundred twelve people with cancer participated and represented 38 states. The majority were non-Hispanic White (n=183; 58.7%) and female (n=177; 56.7%) with median age of 57 years. Ninety-one percent spoke English at home, 70.1% had health insurance, and 67% had access to home internet. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis (n=67; 21.5%). Most had Stage 4 disease (n=80; 25.6%). Forty-six percent (n=145) experienced a change in their care due to COVID-19. Sixty percent (n=187) reported feeling very or extremely concerned that the pandemic would affect their cancer and disproportionately experienced among those with advanced cancer stages compared with earlier stages (P<0.001). Fifty-two percent (n=162) reported impact of COVID-19 on 1 or more aspects of social determinants of health with disproportionate impact among those with advanced cancer stages compared with earlier stages. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 impacted the care and well-being of patients with cancer and this impact was more pronounced among people with advanced cancer stages. Future work should consider tailored interventions to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer.