Purpose

Colorectal cancer (CRC) disparities have persisted over the last two decades. CRC is a complex disease requiring multidisciplinary care from specialists who may be geographically separated. Few studies have assessed the association between integrated health care system (IHS) CRC care quality, survival, and disparities. The purpose of this study was to determine if exposure to an IHS positively affects quality of care, risk of mortality, and disparities.

Patients and methods

This retrospective secondary-data analysis study, using the California Cancer Registry linked to state discharge abstracts of patients treated for colon cancer (2001 to 2006), compared the rates of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline-based care, the hazard of mortality, and racial/ethnic disparities in an IHS versus other settings.

Results

More than 30,000 patient records were evaluated. The IHS had overall higher rates of adherence to NCCN guidelines. Propensity score-matched Cox models showed an independent and protective association between care in the IHS and survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.85 to 0.90). This advantage persisted across stage groups. Black race was associated with increased hazard of mortality in all other settings (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.27); however, there was no disparity within the IHS for any minority group (P > .11 for all groups) when compared with white race.

Conclusion

The IHS delivered higher rates of evidence-based care and was associated with lower 5-year mortality. Racial/ethnic disparities in survival were absent in the IHS. Integrated systems may serve as the cornerstone for developing accountable care organizations poised to improve cancer outcomes and eliminate disparities under health care reform.

Background

Examination of at least 12 lymph nodes (LNs) in the staging of colon cancer (CC) was recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network in 2000; however, rates of an adequate examination remain low. This study compares the impact of the hospital contextual variance against that of the operating surgeon on delivery of an adequate LN examination.

Study design

Retrospective analysis of California Cancer Registry data for all CC operations (2001-2006). Hierarchical models predicted the adequacy of LN examination as a function of patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics. Models were created using penalized quasi-likelihood approximation with second order Taylor linearization as implemented in MLwiN 2.15.

Results

A total of 25,606 resections involving 3376 surgeons operating in 346 hospitals were analyzed. Half of cases had an adequate examination. Hierarchical models showed the median odds of an adequate examination associated with the hospital context [(MORhosp 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-2.2) was much higher than that associated with the surgeon (MORsurg 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.4)]. Hospital characteristics teaching and high volume predicted higher odds of an adequate examination. There was no association with hospital revenue.

Conclusions

Approximately half of patients undergoing surgery for CC received an adequate LN examination. Hospital contextual factors had a stronger association with receipt of an adequate examination than surgeon factors. Our results suggest that quality improvement initiatives and incentives should be targeted at the hospital level to achieve the highest impact. Furthermore, we have identified nonteaching and low volume settings as rational targets for these efforts.

Background

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality across U.S. racial/ethnic groups. Existing studies often focus on a particular race/ethnicity or single domain within the care continuum. Granular exploration of disparities among different racial/ethnic groups across the entire colon cancer care continuum is needed. We aimed to characterize differences in colon cancer outcomes by race/ethnicity across each stage of the care continuum.

Methods

We used the 2010-2017 National Cancer Database to examine differences in outcomes by race/ethnicity across six domains: clinical stage at presentation; timing of surgery; access to minimally invasive surgery; post-operative outcomes; utilization of chemotherapy; and cumulative incidence of death. Analysis was via multivariable logistic or median regression, with select demographics, hospital factors, and treatment details as covariates.

Results

326,003 patients (49.6% female, 24.0% non-White, including 12.7% Black, 6.1% Hispanic/Spanish, 1.3% East Asian, 0.9% Southeast Asian, 0.4% South Asian, 0.3% AIAE, and 0.2% NHOPI) met inclusion criteria. Relative to non-Hispanic White patients: Southeast Asian (OR 1.39, p < 0.01), Hispanic/Spanish (OR 1.11 p < 0.01), and Black (OR 1.09, p < 0.01) patients had increased odds of presenting with advanced clinical stage. Southeast Asian (OR 1.37, p < 0.01), East Asian (OR 1.27, p = 0.05), Hispanic/Spanish (OR 1.05 p = 0.02), and Black (OR 1.05, p < 0.01) patients had increased odds of advanced pathologic stage. Black patients had increased odds of experiencing a surgical delay (OR 1.33, p < 0.01); receiving non-robotic surgery (OR 1.12, p < 0.01); having post-surgical complications (OR 1.29, p < 0.01); initiating chemotherapy more than 90 days post-surgery (OR 1.24, p < 0.01); and omitting chemotherapy altogether (OR 1.12, p = 0.05). Black patients had significantly higher cumulative incidence of death at every pathologic stage relative to non-Hispanic White patients when adjusting for non-modifiable patient factors (p < 0.05, all stages), but these differences were no longer statistically significant when also adjusting for modifiable factors such as insurance status and income.

Conclusions

Non-White patients disproportionately experience advanced stage at presentation. Disparities for Black patients are seen across the entire colon cancer care continuum. Targeted interventions may be appropriate for some groups; however, major system-level transformation is needed to address disparities experienced by Black patients.

Background

There are more than 18 million cancer survivors in the United States. Yet, survivors of color remain under-represented in cancer survivorship research (Saltzman et al. in Contemp Clin Trials Commun 29:100986, 2022; Pang et al. in J Clin Oncol 34:3992-3999, 2016; Lythgoe et al. in Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 24:1208-1211, 2021). Our long-term goal is to enroll and follow a cohort of historically under-represented cancer survivors, to better understand modifiable risk factors that influence clinical and quality of life outcomes in these populations. Towards that goal, we describe herein how we applied community-based participatory research approaches to develop inclusive study materials for enrolling such a cohort.

Methods

We implemented community engagement strategies to inform and enhance the study website and recruitment materials for this cohort including: hiring a dedicated engagement coordinator/community health educator as a member of our team; working with the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center Office of Community Engagement (OCE) and Community Advisory Board members; presenting our educational, research, and study recruitment materials at community events; and establishing a community advisory group specifically for the study (4 individuals). In parallel with these efforts, 20 semi-structured user testing interviews were conducted with diverse cancer survivors to inform the look, feel, and usability of the study website.

Results

Engagement with community members was a powerful and important approach for this study's development. Feedback was solicited and used to inform decisions regarding the study name (eat move sleep, EMOVES), logo, study website content and imagery, and recruitment materials. Based on community feedback, we developed additional educational materials on healthy groceries and portion size in multiple languages and created a study video.

Conclusions

Including an engagement coordinator as a permanent team member, partnering with the institutional community outreach and engagement resources (i.e., OCE), and allocating dedicated time and financial support for cultivating relationships with stakeholders outside the university were critical to the development of the study website and materials. Our community guided strategies will be tested as we conduct enrollment through community advisor networks and via the state cancer registry.

Context

No information is available on oncology patients' level of stress and symptom burden during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Objectives

To evaluate for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics, levels of social isolation and loneliness, and the occurrence and severity of common symptoms between oncology patients with low vs. high levels of COVID-19 and cancer-related stress. In addition, to determine which of these characteristics were associated with membership in the high-stressed group.

Methods

Patients were 18 years and older; had a diagnosis of cancer; and were able to complete an online survey.

Results

Of the 187 patients in this study, 31.6% were categorized in the stressed group (Impact of Event Scale-Revised [score of ≥24]). Stressed group's Impact of Event Scale-Revised score exceeds previous benchmarks in oncology patients and equates with probable post-traumatic stress disorder. In this stressed group, patients reported occurrence rates for depression (71.2%), anxiety (78.0%), sleep disturbance (78.0%), evening fatigue (55.9%), cognitive impairment (91.5%), and pain (75.9%). Symptom severity scores equate with clinically meaningful levels for each symptom.

Conclusion

We identified alarmingly high rates of stress and an extraordinarily high symptom burden among patients with cancer, exceeding those previously benchmarked in this population and on par with noncancer patients with post-traumatic stress disorder. Given that the COVID-19 pandemic will likely impact cancer care for an indefinite period, clinicians must exhibit increased vigilance in their assessments of patients' level of stress and symptom burden. Moreover, an increase in referrals to appropriate supportive care resources must be prioritized for high-risk patients.