External validation of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center preoperative nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in a cohort of high-grade prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Commonly used preoperative nomograms predicting clinical and pathological outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa) patients have not been yet validated in high-grade only PCa patients. Our objective is to perform an external validation of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) preoperative nomogram as a predictor of lymph node invasion (LNI) in a cohort of high-grade PCa patients. METHODS: We included patients with high-grade PCa (Gleason ≥8) treated at our institution between 2011 and 2020 with radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection without receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) was used to quantify the accuracy of the model to predict LNI. A calibration plot was used to evaluate the model's precision, and a decision curve analysis was computed to evaluate the net benefit associated with its use. This study was approved by our institution's ethics board. RESULTS: A total of 242 patients with a median age of 66 (60-71) years were included. LNI was observed in 70 (29%) patients with a mean of 16 (median = 15; range = 2-42) resected nodes. The MSKCC nomogram discriminative accuracy, as evaluated by the AUC-ROC was 79.0% (CI: [0.727-0.853]). CONCLUSION: The MSKCC preoperative nomogram is a good predictor of LNI and a useful tool associated with net clinical benefit in this patient population.

Clinical ethics consultation services: public-facing information on NCI-designated cancer center websites.

Clinical ethics consultation services (CECS) can be particularly complex in oncology, and widespread misconceptions exist about their nature. As a result, visibility and accessibility of information regarding CECS is critical. We investigated the availability and content of information regarding CECS on websites of NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers and cancer centers (CCs). Each website was reviewed for information on CECS and reviewed for benchmarks partially derived from the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities recommendations for CECS. Our analysis revealed that of 70 NCI-designated center websites, 38 had information on CECS, and 17 were found directly on these sites. When CECS information was available, most websites provided a mission statement (71%) and an explanation of what constitutes an ethics consult (74%). Few provided a description of the consult process (45%) or service membership (39%). Our findings reveal a significant gap in CECS visibility on the websites of NCI-designated CCs.

The role of community outreach and engagement in evaluation of NCI Cancer Center Support Grants.

PURPOSE: National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers are required to consider their impact on the catchment area they serve. These activities are facilitated by community outreach and engagement (COE) activities as specified in the Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG) request for applications. While the critical importance of COE activities to NCI-designated cancer centers is well known, it is less clear what impact the COE component has on the overall CCSG merit descriptor and score. METHODS: We undertook an online survey of all 62 NCI-designated Comprehensive and Clinical centers who reported their COE merit descriptor and overall CCSG priority score as of Fall 2021. RESULTS: Of 48 (77%) of responding centers, we identified a strong correlation between the COE merit descriptor and the overall numerical CCSG score received by the center (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient r = 0.360, p = 0.0053). When stratifying this relationship by center type, we observed a very strong correlation between COE and CCSG ratings for comprehensive cancer centers (n = 40; r = 0.544; p = 0.0003) but not for non-comprehensive cancer centers (n = 8; r = 0.073; p = 0.864). CONCLUSION: COE component merit descriptors for comprehensive cancer center CCSG evaluations are strongly correlated with the overall cancer center review score.

A framework for building comprehensive cancer center's capacity for bidirectional engagement.

PURPOSE: Community engagement has benefits for cancer centers' work and for its researchers. This study examined the experiences and perceptions of community engagement by members of the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center (Case CCC) to create and implement a framework to meet the needs of the entire cancer center. METHODS: This study included three phases: 1) Semi-structured interviews with 12 researchers from a basic science program to identify needs and suggestions for the support of community engagement; 2) Preliminary interview results informed the development of a survey of 86 cancer center members' about their awareness of and readiness to integrate community outreach and engagement into their research; and 3) The Case CCC Office of Community Outreach and Engagement reviewed the results from phases 1 and 2 to develop and then utilize a framework of engagement opportunities. RESULTS: In the interviews and surveys, cancer center members recognized the importance of community engagement and expressed an interest in participating in COE-organized opportunities for bidirectional engagement. While participation barriers include communication issues, limited awareness of opportunities, and competing priorities, members were open to learning new skills, changing approaches, and utilizing services to facilitate engagement. The framework outlines engagement opportunities ranging from high touch, low reach to low touch, and high reach and was used to develop specific services. CONCLUSION: This study identified varying needs around community engagement using an approach aimed at understanding the perspectives of a community of scientists. Implementing the framework enables reaching scientists in different ways and facilitates scientists' recognition of and engagement with opportunities.

Treatment in certified cancer centers is related to better survival in patients with colon and rectal cancer: evidence from a large German cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Certified cancer centers aim to ensure high-quality care by establishing structural and procedural standards according to evidence-based guidelines. Despite the high clinical and health policy relevance, evidence from a nation-wide study for the effectiveness of care for colorectal cancer in certified centers vs. other hospitals in Germany is still missing. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study covering the years 2009-2017, we analyzed patient data using demographic information, diagnoses, and treatments from a nationwide statutory health insurance enriched with information on certification. We investigated whether patients with incident colon or rectal cancer did benefit from primary therapy in a certified cancer center. We used relative survival analysis taking into account mortality data of the German population and adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics via Cox regression with shared frailty for patients in hospitals with and without certification. RESULTS: The cohorts for colon and rectal cancer consisted of 109,518 and 51,417 patients, respectively, treated in a total of 1052 hospitals. 37.2% of patients with colon and 42.9% of patients with rectal cancer were treated in a certified center. Patient age, sex, comorbidities, secondary malignoma, and distant metastases were similar across groups (certified/non-certified) for both colon and rectal cancer. Relative survival analysis showed significantly better survival of patients treated in a certified center, with 68.3% (non-certified hospitals 65.8%) 5-year survival for treatment of colon cancer in certified (p < 0.001) and 65.0% (58.8%) 5-year survival in case of rectal cancer (p < 0.001), respectively. Cox regression with adjustment for relevant covariates yielded a lower hazard of death for patients treated in certified centers for both colon (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.89-0.95) and rectal cancer (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.88-0.95). The results remained robust in a series of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This large cohort study yields new important evidence that patients with colorectal cancer have a better chance of survival if treated in a certified cancer center. Certification thus provides one powerful means to improve the quality of care for colorectal cancer. To decrease the burden of disease, more patients should thus receive cancer care in a certified center.

Palliative care in dermatooncology - Current practice in German dermatooncological centers and specialist offices.

BACKGROUND: Dermato-oncology patients are often treated in certified skin cancer centers or dermato-oncological specialist offices. Especially in higher tumor stages, patients develop symptoms, either disease-related or due to therapy-related side effects, requiring treatment. Despite a markedly improved prognosis since the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapies, advance care planning is required in progressive disease. It is unclear how palliative care of skin cancer patients is currently organized in dermato-oncology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a nationwide survey, all certified skin cancer centers and dermato-oncological specialist offices in Germany were contacted and asked to participate in this anonymized survey. RESULTS: Overall, 45 responses (42%) were received. The majority (98%) of the respondents screen the patients on a regular basis for distressing symptoms, and all centers are connected to palliative medical care providers. Only 5% of the medical staff members have the additional qualification "palliative medicine". In 68% of the participating institutions, the opportunity for care planning is offered to patients. For 89%, palliative care is relevant for everyday work, and 82% desire more research opportunities on this topic. CONCLUSIONS: This survey has shown that palliative care plays a major role in dermato-oncological work. Given that only a small proportion of the staff have received specialized training in palliative care, however, an increase of this proportion would be desirable for comprehensive care.

Increasing clinician participation in tobacco cessation by an implementation science-based tobacco cessation champion program.

BACKGROUND: We designed a process to increase tobacco cessation in an academic center and its widely distributed network community sites using clinical champions to overcome referral barriers. METHODS: In 2020 a needs assessment was performed across the City of Hope Medical Center and its 32 community treatment sites. We reviewed information science strategies to choose elements for our expanded tobacco control plan, focusing on distributed leadership with tobacco cessation champions. We analyzed smoking patterns in patients with cancer before and following program implementation. We evaluated the champion experience and measured tobacco abstinence after 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Cancer center leadership committed to expanding tobacco control. Funding was obtained through a Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) grant. Multi-disciplinary leaders developed a comprehensive plan. Disease-focused clinics and community sites named cessation champions (a clinician and nurse) supported by certified tobacco treatment specialists. Patient, staff, clinician, and champion training/education were developed. Roles and responsibilities of the champions were defined. Implementation in pilot sites showed increased tobacco assessment from 80.8 to 96.6%, increased tobacco cessation referral by 367%, and moderate smoking abstinence in both academic (27.2%) and community sites (22.5%). 73% of champions had positive attitudes toward the program. CONCLUSION: An efficient process to expand smoking cessation in the City of Hope network was developed using implementation science strategies and cessation champions. This well-detailed implementation process may be helpful to other cancer centers, particularly those with a tertiary care cancer center and community network.

Improving Access to Patient Education: an Audit of Extant Educational Materials.

Health information exchange between provider and patient, along with patient participation in their care (self-management), can lead to improved health outcomes. A step towards achieving better outcomes is the systematic provision of education materials to patients and caregivers throughout the cancer trajectory. An audit of patient education (PE) materials was conducted at a cancer center to identify content gaps and determine areas for future development. The PE audit was conducted in all outpatient clinics (13) and clinic-specific PE materials were identified, reviewed, and categorized by cancer type and under the following topics: About Cancer/Disease, Medical Tests and Imaging, Treatment, Symptom Management, Rehabilitation/Survivorship, General Wellbeing, Medical Device Care, Practical and Other. Four hundred forty-seven PE materials were included in the audit. Totals for each topic were summed and analyzed for education development opportunities. Results varied based on clinic and cancer type. Majority of the materials were found in the following clinics: Hematology (75), Genitourinary (74), and Gastrointestinal (57). The most common information topics were treatment (277), about cancer/disease (134), and symptom management (120). When broken down by cancer type, it was clear that while the collection of PE materials is well established for some diagnoses (e.g., 28 prostate cancer materials), there is a significant dearth in materials for others (e.g., 0 penile cancer materials). Audit results will be used to identify opportunities for future education material development. Determining cancer-specific information gaps is important in achieving equal information access for patients and caregivers, regardless of cancer diagnosis.

Improved survival in cervical cancer patients receiving care at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced cervical cancer (CC) remains lethal in the United States. We investigate the effect of receiving care at an National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center (NCICC) on survival. METHODS: Data for women diagnosed with CC from 2004 to 2016 who received radiation treatment were extracted from the California Cancer Registry (n = 4250). Cox proportional hazards regression models assessed whether (1) receiving care at NCICCs was associated with risk of CC-specific death, (2) this association remained after multivariable adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, and insurance status, and (3) this association was explained by receipt of guideline-concordant treatment. RESULTS: Median age was 50 years (interquartile range [IQR] 41-61 years), with median follow-up of 2.7 years (IQR 1.3-6.0 years). One-third of patients were seen at an NCICC, and 29% died of CC. The hazard of CC-specific death was reduced by 20% for those receiving care at NCICCs compared with patients receiving care elsewhere (HR = .80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.90). Adjustment for guideline-concordant treatment and other covariates minimally attenuated the association to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.95), suggesting that the survival advantage associated with care at NCICCs may not be due to receipt of guideline-concordant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates survival benefit for patients receiving care at NCICCs compared with those receiving care elsewhere that is not explained by differences in guideline-concordant care. Structural, organizational, or provider characteristics and differences in patients receiving care at centers with and without NCI designation could explain observed associations. Further understanding of these factors will promote equality across oncology care facilities and survival equity for patients with CC.

Is treatment in certified cancer centers related to better survival in patients with pancreatic cancer? Evidence from a large German cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of cancer patients in certified cancer centers, that meet specific quality standards in term of structures and procedures of medical care, is a national treatment goal in Germany. However, convincing evidence that treatment in certified cancer centers is associated with better outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer is still missing. METHODS: We used patient-specific information (demographic characteristics, diagnoses, treatments) from German statutory health insurance data covering the period 2009-2017 and hospital characteristics from the German Standardized Quality Reports. We investigated differences in survival between patients treated in hospitals with and without pancreatic cancer center certification by the German Cancer Society (GCS) using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox regression with shared frailty. RESULTS: The final sample included 45,318 patients with pancreatic cancer treated in 1,051 hospitals (96 GCS-certified, 955 not GCS-certified). 5,426 (12.0%) of the patients were treated in GCS-certified pancreatic cancer centers. Patients treated in certified and non-certified hospitals had similar distributions of age, sex, and comorbidities. Median survival was 8.0 months in GCS-certified pancreatic cancer centers and 4.4 months in non-certified hospitals. Cox regression adjusting for multiple patient and hospital characteristics yielded a significantly lower hazard of long-term, all-cause mortality in patients treated in GCS-certified pancreatic centers (Hazard ratio = 0.89; 95%-CI = 0.85-0.93). This result remained robust in multiple sensitivity analyses, including stratified estimations for subgroups of patients and hospitals. CONCLUSION: This robust observational evidence suggests that patients with pancreatic cancer benefit from treatment in a certified cancer center in terms of survival. Therefore, the certification of hospitals appears to be a powerful strategy to improve patient outcomes in pancreatic cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04334239 ).

Association Between Cancer Center Accreditation and Compliance With Price Disclosure of Common Oncologic Surgical Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Cancer center accreditation status is predicated on several factors that measure high-value healthcare. However, price transparency, which is critical in healthcare decisions, is not a quality measure included for accreditation. We reported the rates of price disclosure of surgical procedures for 5 cancers (breast, lung, cutaneous melanoma, colon, and prostate) among hospitals ranked by the American College of Surgeon's Commission on Cancer (ACS-CoC). METHODS: We identified nonfederal, adult, and noncritical access ACS-CoC accredited hospitals and used the commercial Turquoise Health database to perform a cross-sectional analysis of hospital price disclosures for 5 common oncologic procedures (mastectomy, lobectomy, wide local excision for cutaneous melanoma, partial colectomy, prostatectomy). Publicly available financial reporting data were used to compile facility-specific features, including bed size, teaching status, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid wage index, and patient revenues. Modified Poisson regression evaluated the association between price disclosure and ACS-CoC accreditation after adjusting for hospital financial performance. RESULTS: Of 1,075 total ACS-CoC accredited hospitals, 544 (50.6%) did not disclose prices for any of the surgical procedures and only 313 (29.1%) hospitals reported prices for all 5 procedures. Of the 5 oncologic procedures, prostatectomy and lobectomy had the lowest price disclosure rates. Disclosing and nondisclosing hospitals significantly differed in ACS-CoC accreditation, ownership type, and teaching status. Hospitals that disclosed prices were more likely to receive Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments, have lower average charge to cost ratios (4.53 vs 5.15; P<.001), and have lower net hospital margins (-2.03 vs 0.44; P=.005). After adjustment, a 1-point increase in markup was associated with a 4.8% (95% CI, 2.2%-7.4%; P<.001) higher likelihood of nondisclosure. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the hospitals did not disclose prices for any of the 5 most common oncologic procedures despite ACS-CoC accreditation. It remains difficult to obtain price transparency for common oncologic procedures even at centers of excellence, signaling a discordance between quality measures visible to patients.

Developing the Florida Academic Cancer Center Alliance Health Disparities Common Measure: The Florida Health and Ancestry Survey.

PURPOSE: Our specific aim was to develop and assess the consensus-based validity of common measures for understanding health behaviors and ancestry in Florida's population subgroups and establish the feasibility of wide-scale implementation of the measures and biospecimen collection within three cancer centers' catchment areas. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Institute's Grid-Enabled Measures web-based platform and an iterative process, we developed the Florida Health and Ancestry Survey (FHAS). We then used three sampling approaches to implement the FHAS: community-engaged, panel respondent, and random digit dialing (RDD). We asked a subset of participants to provide a saliva sample for future validation of subjective ancestry report with DNA-derived ancestry markers. RESULTS: This process supported the FHAS content validity. As an indicator of feasibility, the goals for completed surveys by sampling approach were met for two of the three cancer centers, yielding a total of 1438 completed surveys. The RDD approach produced the most representative sample. The panel sampling approach produced inadequate representation of older individuals and males. The community-engaged approach along with social media recruitment produced extreme underrepresentation only for males. Two of the cancer centers mailed biospecimen kits, whereas one did not due to resource constraints. On average, the community engaged approach was more productive in obtaining returned biospecimen samples (80%) than the panel approach (48%). CONCLUSIONS: We successfully developed and implemented the FHAS as a common measure to show its feasibility for understanding cancer health disparities in Florida. We identified sampling approach successes and challenges to obtaining biospecimens for ancestry research.

Return to work after cancer: Improved mental health in working cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: Aim of the study was to compare working and non-working patients over a period of 12 months regarding socio-demographic, cancer-specific and mental health parameters. METHODS: This study was conducted as part of a Germany-wide longitudinal survey among 1398 patients in 13 national Comprehensive Cancer Centers. The sample used for analysis consisted of n = 430 cancer patients younger than 65 years (age M = 52.4 years, SD = 8.1; 67.0% females). Socio-demographic, cancer-specific and mental health parameters (Depression: Patient Health Questionnaire, Anxiety: Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale, Distress: Distress Thermometer) were assessed at baseline during hospitalization and at 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: 73.7% of all patients (n = 317) have returned to work after one year. While working and non-working patients did not differ in socio-demographic parameters, there were significant differences in the presence of metastases, tumor and treatment status. Mixed analysis of variances revealed significant interactions between working status and time for depression (p = 0.009), anxiety (p = 0.003) and distress (p = 0.007). Non-working patients reported higher levels of depression, anxiety and distress than working patients over time. A logistic regression showed significant associations between lower depression (p = 0.019), lower distress (p = 0.033) and the absence of a tumor (p = 0.015) with working status. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of cancer survivors returned to work. Non-working patients had higher levels of depression, anxiety and distress than working patients. After controlling for cancer-specific factors, mental health parameters were still independently associated with working status. Return to work can thus be associated with an improved mental health in cancer survivors. In order to establish causality, further research is necessary.

Efficacy of risk-stratified indicators for adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin after hepatectomy for colorectal cancer liver metastasis.

BACKGROUND: The recurrence rate after hepatectomy for colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM) is high, and there is no consensus regarding the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) using oxaliplatin (doublet AC) in these patients. METHODS: The present study included 91 patients who underwent hepatectomy for complete resection at our hospitals between 2008 and 2018. Based on whether or not they had undergone doublet AC, patients were divided into AC (n = 35) and non-AC (n = 56) groups. The recurrent risk was evaluated by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center clinical risk score (MSKCC-CRS). RESULTS: The number of females and median age were higher in the AC group (51.4% vs 25.0%, p = 0.010 and 67 vs 61 years, p = 0.012, respectively). The median follow-up period was 45 months (range, 6-101 months). Doublet AC was an independent prognostic factor for 5-year relapse-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.225; 95%CI, 0.097-0.522; p < 0.001) and for 5-year overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.165; 95%CI, 0.057-0.476; p < 0.001) in multivariate analysis. In patients with a high risk of recurrence (MSKCC-CRS 3-5), 5-year relapse-free survival and 5-year overall survival was higher in the doublet AC group than in the non-AC group (p < 0.01). In low-risk patients (MSKCC-CRS 0-2), 5-year relapse-free survival and 5-year overall survival were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Doublet AC could have a positive effect on prognosis after curative resection of CRLM, especially in high-risk patients. The selection of patients and AC regimen should take into consideration the risk of recurrence.

Lessons learned from an outbreak of COVID-19 in the head and neck surgery ward of a Japanese cancer center during the sixth wave by Omicron.

INTRODUCTION: We describe a coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in a cancer center's head and neck surgery ward and the interventions to halt ongoing exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare workers and patients with cancer. METHODS: Case definition included all healthcare workers and all patients associated to the ward from January 27 to January 31, 2022 with a positive SARS-COV-2 antigen test. This retrospective descriptive study was conducted between January 27, 2022, and February 14, 2022. RESULTS: From January 28, 2022, to February 9, 2022, 84 cases (36 healthcare workers, 48 patients) were screened, and 26 (12 healthcare workers, 14 patients) were identified as SARS-CoV-2-positive. The proportion of healthcare providers who performed aerosol generating procedures on positive patients was 91% for positive cases and 49% for non-cases. Room sharing with patients with COVID-19 was 64% for positive cases and 21% for non-cases (57% vs. 21% with positive tracheostomy patients; 43% vs. 9% with positive cases using a nebulizer; 50% vs. 15% with positive cases requiring sputum suctioning, respectively). Compliance with the universal masking policy for patients was 36% of positive cases and 79% of non-cases. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of a nosocomial outbreak of COVID-19 in a head and neck surgery ward during the Omicron pandemic. Notably, there were a high number of positive cases among healthcare workers who performed aerosol generating procedures for positive patients and patients who shared the room with a patient with COVID-19 with the potential to generate aerosols.

The influence of patient-related factors on the frequency and duration of psycho-oncological sessions in a university cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed at identifying factors that are associated with the frequency and duration of psycho-oncological sessions. DESIGN: In a retrospective single-center study, data of all patients who made use of the psycho-oncological service (POS) at the University Hospital Erlangen from April 2017 - March 2018 were registered. SAMPLE: Over the course of one year, N = 1601 patients made use of the POS. METHODS: In the hospital's digital documentation system, relevant data such as frequency of sessions, duration of sessions, gender, age, family status, preexisting mental disorder, prior psychotherapy, cancer entity (type of cancer) and treatment modality were recorded. Socio-demographic and clinical parameters were analyzed to predict frequency and duration of the psycho-oncology sessions. FINDINGS: Regression analyses revealed that among POS users, women, younger patients, patients with a longer hospital stay and those with a preexisting mental disorder attended significantly more sessions than other patients (p < .001). Patients with skin cancer had significantly fewer POS sessions than those with a hematological diagnosis. Also, patients who had undergone surgery had significantly fewer sessions than patients with pharmacological treatment. Younger age and a longer hospital stay significantly predicted longer sessions (p < .001). In the regression model, patients with brain tumors and lung cancer had significantly longer sessions than patients with skin cancer. IMPLICATIONS: With the identification of specific risk groups that require more and longer sessions, we can provide the basis for more patient-tailored intervention approaches and better scheduling according to the patients' needs. However, our results also suggest that the frequency and duration of POS sessions also depend on illness- and treatment-related criteria, e.g. the length of the hospital stay.

[Health- and disease-related data of inpatients in palliative care units of the Comprehensive Cancer Centers and other hospitals in comparison-Data from the Hospice and Palliative Care Register]. / Gesundheits- und krankheitsbezogene Daten von Patienten auf Palliativstationen der onkologischen Spitzenzentren und anderer Krankenhäuser im Vergleich ­ Daten aus dem Hospiz- und Palliativregister.

BACKGROUND: The National Hospice and Palliative Registry is a database for palliative care facilities documenting a core data set for quality assurance and scientific evaluations. OBJECTIVES: The study aims identifying differences between patients in palliative care units treated in Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) or other hospitals (OH) focussing on sociodemographic and health/disease-related characteristics. METHODS: Descriptive data analysis using IBM SPSS Statistics 21 included patients treated from 2014 to 2018. Comparisons included sociodemographic data, diagnoses, ECOG status and treatment duration. RESULTS: 12,922 patient data were analyzed (CCC n = 4975/OH = 7947). In CCCs 79.8% had a tumor diagnosis, in other hospitals 85.1%. The proportion of patients with ECOG 4 was higher in CCCs than in other hospitals. The average length of stay in CCCs was 12.6 days, in other hospitals 11.3 days (p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Data show differences between patients in palliative care implicating CCCs treating more complex palliative care patients than other hospitals.

Educational short film versus powerpoint based lecture in school tobacco awareness programs: Study from a tertiary cancer Center, Kerala, India.

Multimedia, being more attention-getting and attention-holding, is a powerful tool for mass awareness creation and is used for intervention among students in many studies. Our aim was to see the effectiveness of an educational short film in tobacco awareness generation and to compare it with the traditional lecture-based awareness. Selected schools were divided into two groups as per convenience. Short film was used as intervention in Group 1 and PowerPoint-based lecture in Group 2. The increase in awareness was assessed by a pre and posttest. On analysis, though both methods increased awareness as given by higher posttest score, it is found that the awareness levels showed a statistically significant difference between educational short film on hazards of tobacco and power point-based lecture using Mann-Whitney test. Our study proves that an educational short film carefully scripted and picturized can be used effectively in imparting awareness in school-based tobacco control programs.

Expenditures among young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia by site of care.

BACKGROUND: Individuals diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) between the ages of 22 and 39 years experience worse outcomes than those diagnosed when they are 21 years old or younger. Treatment at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) mitigates these disparities but may be associated with higher expenditures. METHODS: Using deidentified administrative claims data (OptumLabs Data Warehouse), the cancer-related expenditures were examined among patients with ALL diagnosed between 2001 and 2014. Multivariable generalized linear model with log-link modeled average monthly health-plan-paid (HPP) expenditures and amount owed by the patient (out-of-pocket [OOP]). Cost ratios were used to calculate excess expenditures (CCC vs non-CCC). Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) compared CCC and non-CCC monthly visit rates. Models adjusted for sociodemographics, comorbidities, adverse events, and months enrolled. RESULTS: Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were comparable between CCC (n = 160) and non-CCC (n = 139) patients. Higher monthly outpatient expenditures in CCC patients ($15,792 vs $6404; P < .001) were driven by outpatient hospital HPP expenditures. Monthly visit rates and per visit expenditures for nonchemotherapy visits (IRR = 1.6; P = .001; CCC = $8247, non-CCC = $1191) drove higher outpatient hospital expenditures among CCCs. Monthly OOP expenditures were higher at CCCs for outpatient care (P = .02). Inpatient HPP expenditures were significantly higher at CCCs ($25,918 vs $13,881; ꞵ = 0.9; P < .001) before accounting for adverse events but were no longer significant after adjusting for adverse events (ꞵ = 0.4; P = .1). Hospitalizations and length of stay were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Young adults with ALL at CCCs have higher expenditures, likely reflecting differences in facility structure, billing practices, and comprehensive patient care. It would be reasonable to consider CCCs comparable to the oncology care model and incentivize the framework to achieve superior outcomes and long-term cost savings. LAY SUMMARY: Health care expenditures in young adults (aged 22-39 years) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are higher among patients at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) than those at non-CCCs. The CCC/non-CCC differences are significant among outpatient expenditures, which are driven by higher rates of outpatient hospital visits and outpatient hospital expenditures per visit at CCCs. Higher expenditures and visit rates of outpatient hospital visits among CCCs may also reflect how facility structure and billing patterns influence spending or comprehensive care. Young adults at CCCs face higher inpatient HPP expenditures; these are driven by serious adverse events.

No evidence to support the impact of migration background on treatment response rates and cancer survival: a retrospective matched-pair analysis in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Immigration has taken the central stage in world politics, especially in the developed countries like Germany, where the continuous flow of immigrants has been well documented since 1960s. Strikingly, emerging data suggest that migrant patients have a poorer response to the treatment and lower survival rates in their new host country, raising concerns about health disparities. Herein, we present our investigation on the treatment response rate and cancer survival in German patients with and without an immigrant background that were treated at our comprehensive cancer center in Germany. METHODS: Initially, we considered 8162 cancer patients treated at the Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), University Hospital Bonn, Germany (April 2002-December 2015) for matched-pair analysis. Subsequently, the German patients with a migration background and those from the native German population were manually identified and catalogued using a highly specific name-based algorithm. The clinical parameters such as demographic characteristics, tumor characteristics, defined staging criteria, and primary therapy were further adjusted. Using these stringent criteria, a total of 422 patients (n = 211, Germans with migration background; n = 211, native German population) were screened to compare for the treatment response and survival rates (i.e., 5-year overall survival, progression-free survival, and time to progression). RESULTS: Compared to the cohort with migration background, the cohort without migration background was slightly older (54.9 vs. 57.9 years) while having the same sex distribution (54.5% vs. 55.0% female) and longer follow-up time (36.9 vs. 42.6 months). We did not find significant differences in cancer survival (5-year overall survival, P = 0.771) and the response rates (Overall Remission Rate; McNemar's test, P = 0.346) between both collectives. CONCLUSION: Contrary to prior reports, we found no significant differences in cancer survival between German patients with immigrant background and native German patients. Nevertheless, the advanced treatment protocols implemented at our comprehensive cancer center may possibly account for the low variance in outcome. To conduct similar studies with a broader perspective, we propose that certain risk factors (country-of-origin-specific infections, dietary habits, epigenetics for chronic diseases etc.) should be considered, specially in the future studies that will recruit new arrivals from the 2015 German refugee crisis.