Understanding fragmentation of prostate cancer survivorship care: implications for cost and quality

Does commission on cancer (CoC) accreditation mitigate the effect of care fragmentation on clinical outcome in localized rectal cancer?

BACKGROUND

Studies of fragmented care (FC) in rectal cancer have not adjusted for indicators of hospital quality and may misrepresent the effects of FC.

METHODS

We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing care for clinical stage II and III rectal adenocarcinoma between 2006 and 2019. Those undergoing FC were sub-categorized based on whether (FC CoC) or not (FC non-CoC) they received systemic therapy at CoC accredited facilities.

RESULTS

44,339 patients met inclusion criteria; 23,921 (54 ​%) underwent FC, 16,929 (71 ​%) FC non-CoC. Differences in utilization of neoadjuvant therapy (92.3 ​% vs 89.7 ​% vs 89.5 ​%, p ​< ​0.01) and 5-year overall survival (76.1 vs 75.5 vs 74.1 %, p ​< ​0.01) between treatment cohorts were marginal.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing multimodality therapy for rectal cancer, care fragmentation is not associated with long-term clinical outcome. Decisions regarding where these patients go for systemic therapy may be safely made on the basis of ease of access.

Fragmentation of Care in Patients with Peritoneal Metastases Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery

BACKGROUND

The delivery of multimodal treatment at a high-volume center is known to optimize the outcomes of gastrointestinal malignancies. However, patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for peritoneal metastases often must 'fragment' their surgical and systemic therapeutic care between different institutions. We hypothesized that this adversely affects outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Adults undergoing CRS for colorectal or appendiceal adenocarcinoma at our institution between 2016 and 2022 were identified retrospectively and grouped by care network: 'coordinated care' patients received exclusively in-network systemic therapy, while 'fragmented care' patients received some systemic therapy from outside-network providers. Factors associated with fragmented care were also ascertained. Overall survival (OS) from CRS and systemic therapy-related serious adverse events (SAEs) were compared across the groups.

RESULTS

Among 85 (80%) patients, 47 (55%) had colorectal primaries and 51 (60%) received fragmented care. Greater travel distance [OR 1.01 (CI 1.00-1.02), p = 0.02] and educational status [OR 1.04 (CI 1.01-1.07), p = 0.01] were associated with receiving fragmented care. OS was comparable between patients who received fragmented and coordinated care in the colorectal [32.5 months versus 40.8 months, HR 0.95 (CI 0.43-2.10), p = 0.89] and appendiceal [31.0 months versus 27.4 months, HR 1.17 (CI 0.37-3.74), p = 0.55] subgroups. The frequency of SAEs (7.8% versus 17.6%, p = 0.19) was also similar.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in survival or SAEs based on the networks of systemic therapy delivery. This suggests that patients undergoing CRS at a high-volume center may safely receive systemic therapy at outside-network facilities with comparable outcomes.

The effect of fragmented cancer care and change in nurse staffing grade on cancer patient mortality

BACKGROUND

Continuity of patient care ensures timely and appropriate care and is associated with better patient outcomes among cancer patients. However, the impact of nurse staffing grade changes on patient outcomes remains unknown.

AIMS

This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the effect of fragmented care and changes in nurse staffing grade on the survival of colorectal cancer patients who underwent surgery.

METHODS

This study included 2228 newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients. Fragmented care was defined as the receipt of treatment in multiple hospitals and was divided into three categories based on changes in nurse staffing grade. Five-year survival rates were used to evaluate the effect of fragmented care and nurse staffing grade on outcomes of cancer patients. Survival analysis was performed by adjusting for covariates using the Cox proportional hazards model for 5-year mortality.

RESULTS

Approximately 18.5% of patients died within 5 years; the mortality rate during cancer treatment was higher in patients who received fragmented care, especially in those transferred to hospitals with fewer nurses. Patients who received fragmented care had shorter survival times, and those transferred to hospitals with fewer nurses had higher risks of 5-year mortality (hazard ratio: 1.625; 95% CI: [1.095, 2.412]). Transfers to hospitals with fewer nurses were associated with increased mortality rates in low-income patients, hospitals located in metropolitan and rural areas, and high-severity groups.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

Receipt of fragmented care and change in nurse staffing grade due to patients' transfer to different hospitals were associated with increased mortality rates in cancer patients, thus underlining the importance of ensuring continuity and quality of care. Patients from rural areas, from low-income families, and with high disease severity may have better outcomes if they receive treatment in well-staffed hospitals.

Implications of the interaction between travel burden and area deprivation for patients with pancreatic cancer

INTRODUCTION

Fragmentation of care and distance traveled are classically surrogates for poor access to care, but little is known about how social determinants of health interact with travel burden to affect survival for patients with pancreatic cancer (PC). We sought to characterize the individual and composite impact of these factors.

METHODS

20769 patients treated for PC between 2005 and 2019 in the Texas Cancer Registry were included. The Area Deprivation Index and Poverty Index were used to quantify social determinants of health. Survival analyses were performed at 2 years as well as subgroup analysis on patients with the greatest travel burden.

RESULTS

Improved survival was associated with FC (HR 0.74, CI 0.71-0.77) and distance from an accredited cancer center (Quartile 4 HR 0.90, CI 0.81-1.00). High ADI led to worse outcomes while low ADI led to improved outcomes with increasing travel burden.

CONCLUSIONS

This data shows a complex relationship between travel burden and survival for patients with pancreatic cancer where stratifying by area deprivation reveals divergent outcomes and the potential to exacerbate disparities.

Patterns of multispecialty care for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer in the use of active surveillance

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary models of care have been advocated for prostate cancer (PC) to promote shared decision-making and facilitate quality care. Yet, how this model applies to low-risk disease where the preferred management is expectant remains unclear. Accordingly, we examined recent practice patterns in specialty visits for low/intermediate-risk PC and resultant use of active surveillance (AS).

METHODS

Using SEER-Medicare, we ascertained whether patients saw urology and radiation oncology (i.e., multispecialty care) versus urology alone, based on self-designated specialty codes, for newly diagnosed PC from 2010 to 2017. We also examined the association with AS, defined as the absence of treatment within 12 months of diagnosis. Time trends were analyzed using Cochran-Armitage test. Chi-squared and logistic regression analyses were applied to compare sociodemographic and clinicopathologic characteristics between these models of care.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients seeing both specialists was 35.5% and 46.5% for low- and intermediate-risk patients respectively. Trend analysis showed a decline in multispecialty care in low-risk patients (44.1% to 25.3% years 2010-2017; P < 0.001). Between 2010 and 2017, the use of AS increased 40.9% to 68.6% (P < 0.001) and 13.1% to 24.6% (P < 0.001) for patients seeing urology and those seeing both specialists respectively. Age, urban residence, higher education, SEER region, co-morbidities, frailty, Gleason score, predicted receipt of multispecialty care (all P < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Uptake of AS among men with low-risk PC has occurred primarily under the purview of urologists. While selection is certainly at play, these data suggest that multispecialty care may not be required to promote the utilization of AS for men with low-risk PC.

The Role of Nurses in the Quality of Cancer Care Management: Perceptions of Cancer Survivors and Oncology Teams

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore the perceptions of cancer survivors and oncology professionals of quality in cancer care and the role of oncology nurses in prompting and maintaining quality across the cancer care continuum.

DATA SOURCES

Semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 cancer survivors and 22 healthcare professionals between August and October 2021. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using ATLAS.ti v8 software according to a thematic analysis method based on grounded theory. The COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) was used to guide the report of the study.

CONCLUSION

Four main themes emerged from the interviews, which are outlined as follows. (1) Patient participation in the cancer care plan: shared information and decision-making; (2) emotional and support aspects in cancer care; (3) continuity in cancer care: from being a patient at the hospital to a survivor in the community; and (4) cancer care management. Cancer survivors pointed to elements that can increase the quality of cancer care, including the ongoing provision of information, support in decision-making, and continuity of care. Oncology staff interviewees mentioned the need for a single staff member to manage the cancer care plan and serve as a case manager for patients and survivors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses have a central role in achieving the highest possible quality of cancer care for the growing number of survivors and their families. It is recommended to expand the role of oncology nurses, providing them the training and competencies needed to formally declare them as care managers throughout the continuum of cancer care.

Is Fragmented Cancer Care Associated With Medical Expenditure? Nationwide Evidence From Patients With Lung Cancer Using National Insurance Claim Data

Objectives: We aimed to investigate the association between fragmented cancer care in the early phase after cancer diagnosis and patient outcomes using national insurance claim data. Methods: We identified National Health Insurance beneficiaries diagnosed with lung cancer in South Korea from 2010 to 2014. We included 1,364 lung cancer patients with reduced immortal time bias and heterogeneity. We performed multiple regression analysis using a generalized estimate equation with a gamma distribution for medical expenditures. Results: Among the 1,364 patients with lung cancer, 12.8% had fragmented cancer care. Healthcare costs were higher in fragmented cancer care for both during diagnosis to 365 days and diagnosis to 1,825 days. Linear regression results showed that fragmented cancer care was associated with 1.162 times higher costs during the period from diagnosis to 365 days and 1.163 times the cost for the period from diagnosis to 1,825 days. Conclusion: We found fragmented cancer care is associated with higher medical expenditure. Future health policy should consider the limitation of patients' free will when opting for fragmented cancer care, as there are currently no control mechanisms.

Nurses and Physicians' Perceptions Regarding the Role of Oncology Clinical Nurse Specialists in an Exploratory Qualitative Study

The purpose of the study was to examine the attitudes of nursing and medical teams about the role of oncology clinical nurse specialists in the healthcare system in Israel, where, unlike many countries in the world, such a role has not yet been developed or professionally defined. We conducted 24 interviews with physicians and nurses between August and October 2021. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a thematic analysis method. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist was used to report the study. Five main themes emerged from the interviews: (1) contribution to the healthcare system, (2) contribution to the patient, (3) drawing professional boundaries, (4) additional responsibilities and authority for oncology clinical nurse specialists, and (5) the field's readiness for a new position of oncology clinical nurse specialists. The findings provide evidence about the need to develop the role of clinical nurse specialists in the oncology field due to its potential benefits for nurses, physicians, patients, family members, and the healthcare system. At the same time, an in-depth exploration of the boundaries of the role and its implementation, in full cooperation with the oncologists and relevant professional unions, is needed to prevent unnecessary conflicts in the oncology field. Professional development training programs in nursing must create a platform for open dialogue between key stakeholders, nurses, and physicians, in order to help all involved parties, place the benefits to the patients above any personal or status considerations.

Multi-institutional Care in Clinical Stage II and III Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Management of clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer requires multidisciplinary care. Multi-institutional care has been associated with worse survival in other malignant diseases. This study aimed to determine the impact of multi-institutional care on survival in patients with stage II or III esophageal cancer.

METHODS

The 2004 to 2016 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy followed by surgical resection. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: multi-institutional or single-institution care. Survival between groups was compared using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with multi-institutional care.

RESULTS

Overall, 11 399 patients met study criteria: 6569 (57.6%) received multi-institutional care and 4,830 (42.4%) received care at a single institution. In a multivariable analysis, factors associated with multi-institutional care were later year of diagnosis, greater distance from treating facility, residence in an urban or rural setting (vs metro), and residence in states without Medicaid expansion. Care at a single institution was associated with Black race, lack of insurance, and treatment at higher-volume or academic centers. Despite these differences, patients who received multi-institutional care had survival comparable to that in patients who received care at a single institution (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.92-1.03; P = .30).

CONCLUSIONS

In this National Cancer Database analysis, multi-institutional care was not associated with inferior overall survival. As complex cancer care becomes more regionalized, patients may consider receiving part of their cancer care closer to home, whereas traveling to surgical centers of excellence should be encouraged.

Web-Based Asynchronous Tool to Facilitate Communication Between Primary Care Providers and Cancer Specialists: Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Cancer poses a significant global health burden. With advances in screening and treatment, there are now a growing number of cancer survivors with complex needs, requiring the involvement of multiple health care providers. Previous studies have identified problems related to communication and care coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and cancer specialists.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine whether a web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) could facilitate communication between PCPs and cancer specialists (oncologists and oncology nurses) to improve patient-reported continuity of care among patients receiving treatment or posttreatment survivorship care.

METHODS

In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial, a total of 173 patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (eOncoNote plus usual methods of communication between PCPs and cancer specialists) or a control group (usual communication only), including 104 (60.1%) patients in the survivorship phase (breast and colorectal cancer) and 69 (39.9%) patients in the treatment phase (breast and prostate cancer). The primary outcome was patient-reported team and cross-boundary continuity (Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire). Secondary outcome measures included the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire on Major Depression, and Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire. Patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and at 2 points following randomization. Patients in the treatment phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 1 month and at either 4 months (patients with prostate cancer) or 6 months following randomization (patients with breast cancer). Patients in the survivorship phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 6 months and at 12 months following randomization.

RESULTS

The results did not show an intervention effect on the primary outcome of team and cross-boundary continuity of care or on the secondary outcomes of depression and patient experience with their health care. However, there was an intervention effect on anxiety. In the treatment phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score from baseline to the 1-month follow-up for GAD-7 (mean difference -2.3; P=.03). In the survivorship phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score for GAD-7 between baseline and the 6-month follow-up (mean difference -1.7; P=.03) and between baseline and the 12-month follow-up (mean difference -2.4; P=.004).

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to eOncoNote is not significantly associated with patient-reported continuity of care. However, PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to the eOncoNote intervention may be a factor in reducing patient anxiety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03333785; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03333785.

Associations among navigational support and health care utilization and costs in patients with advanced cancer: An analysis based on administrative health insurance data

BACKGROUND

Fragmented and complex healthcare systems make it difficult to provide continuity of care for patients with advanced cancer near the end of life. Nurse-based cross-sectoral navigation support has the potential to increase patients' quality of life. The objective of this paper was to evaluate associations between navigation support and health care utilization, and the associated costs of care.

METHODS

The evaluation is based on claims data from 37 statutory health insurance funds. Non-randomized recruitment of the intervention group (IG) took place between 2018 and 2019 in four German hospitals. The comparison group (CG) was defined ex post. It comprises nonparticipating clients of the involved health insurance funds matched on age, gender, and diagnosis in a 1:4 ratio to the IG. Healthcare resource utilization was compared using incident rate ratios (IRRs) based on negative binomial regression models. Linear mixed models were performed to compare differences in lengths of hospital stays and costs between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 717 patients were included (IG: 149, CG: 568). IG patients showed shorter average lengths of hospital stays (IG: 11 days [95% CI: 10, 13] vs. CG: 15 days [95% CI: 14, 16], p < 0.001). In the IG, 21% fewer medications were prescribed and there were on average 15% fewer outpatient doctor contacts per month. Average billed costs in the IG were 23% lower than in the CG (IG: 6754 EUR [95% CI: 5702, 8000] vs. CG: 8816 EUR [95% CI: 8153, 9533], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention was associated with decreased costs mainly as a result of a non-intended navigation effect. The social care nurses had navigated patients within the hospital early, needs-oriented and effectively but interpreted their function less cross-sectorally. Linkage of hospital-based navigators with the outpatient care sector needs further exploration.

Does fragmented cancer care affect survival? Analysis of gastric cancer patients using national insurance claim data

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the association between fragmented cancer care in the early phase after cancer diagnosis and patient outcomes using national insurance claim data.

METHODS

From a nationwide sampled cohort database, we identified National Health Insurance beneficiaries diagnosed with gastric cancer (ICD-10: C16) in South Korea during 2005-2013. We analyzed the results of a multiple logistic regression analysis using the generalized estimated equation model to investigate which patient and institution characteristics affected fragmented cancer care during the first year after diagnosis. Then, survival analysis using the Cox proportional hazard model was conducted to investigate the association between fragmented cancer care and five-year mortality.

RESULTS

Of 2879 gastric cancer patients, 11.9% received fragmented cancer care by changing their most visited medical institution during the first year after diagnosis. We found that patients with fragmented cancer care had a higher risk of five-year mortality (HR: 1.310, 95% CI: 1.023-1.677). This association was evident among patients who only received chemotherapy or radiotherapy (HR: 1.633, 95% CI: 1.005-2.654).

CONCLUSIONS

Fragmented cancer care was associated with increased risk of five-year mortality. Additionally, changes in the most visited medical institution occurred more frequently in either patients with severe conditions or patients who mainly visited smaller medical institutions. Further study is warranted to confirm these findings and examine a causal relationship between fragmented cancer care and survival.

Fragmentation of Care in Pancreatic Cancer: Effects on Receipt of Care and Survival

BACKGROUND

The impact of fragmentation of care (FC), i.e., receipt of care at > 1 institution, on treatment of pancreatic cancer is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine factors associated with FC in curative-intent treatment of pancreatic cancer (PDAC) patients and evaluate how FC affects survival outcomes.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), data on stage I-III PDAC patients diagnosed 2006-2016 were extracted. Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors predictive of FC and survival.

RESULTS

Of the 20,013 patients identified, 24.1% had FC. Factors predictive of FC were stage-III tumors (odds ratio [OR] 1.36; p = 0.014), higher median-income [third quartile (OR 1.38; p = 0.006) and highest-quartile (OR 1.50; p = 0.003)], care at high-volume facility (OR 1.47; p < 0.001), and receipt of multi-modal therapy (OR 1.69; p < 0.001). In contrast, age > 80 years (OR 0.82; p = 0.018), Black (OR 0.85; p = 0.013) or Asian race (OR 0.76; p = 0.033), Charlson comorbidity-index 2 (OR 0.85; p = 0.033), treatment at non-academic facility (OR 0.87; p = 0.041), and non-private insurance were negatively predictive of FC. FC independently predicted decreased 30-day [OR 0.57; p < 0.001] and 90-day mortality [OR 0.61; p < 0.001] and improved overall survival [hazard ratio 0.91; p < 0.001].

DISCUSSION

Sociodemographic factors are significantly associated with FC in curative-intent treatment of PDAC patients. FC was found to predict improved 30-day, 90-day, and overall survival outcomes.

Patient and Healthcare Provider Perspectives on the Implementation of a Web-Based Clinical Communication System for Cancer: A Qualitative Study

Previous research has identified communication and care coordination problems for patients with cancer. Healthcare providers (HCPs) have reported communication issues due to the incompatibility of electronic medical records (EMR) software and not being consistently copied on patient reports. We evaluated an asynchronous web-based communication system ("eOncoNote") for primary care providers and cancer specialists to improve cancer care coordination. The objectives were to examine patients' perceptions of the role of eOncoNote in their healthcare, and HCPs' experiences of implementing eOncoNote. Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients with breast and prostate cancer, primary care providers, and cancer specialists. Eighteen patients and fourteen HCPs participated. Six themes were identified from the patient interviews focusing on HCP and patient roles related to care coordination and patient awareness of communication among their HCPs. Four themes were identified from HCP interviews related to the context of care coordination and experience with eOncoNote. Both patients and HCPs described the important role patients and caregivers play in care coordination. The results show that patients were often unaware of the communication between their HCPs and assumed they were communicating. HCPs encountered challenges incorporating eOncoNote into their workflow.

Patterns and Impact of Fragmented Care in Stage II and III Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Optimal management of stage II/III gastric cancer requires multidisciplinary care, often necessitating treatment at more than one facility. We aimed to determine patterns of "fragmented" care and its impact on outcomes, including concordance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and overall survival.

METHODS

The 2006-2016 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with clinical stage II/III gastric adenocarcinoma who received preoperative therapy in addition to surgery. Patients were stratified based on whether surgery and chemotherapy/chemoradiation were performed at one versus multiple facilities (termed "coordinated" and "fragmented" care, respectively). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with fragmented care. Survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods.

RESULTS

Overall, 2033 patients met study criteria: 1043 (51.3%) received coordinated care and 990 (48.7%) fragmented care. There was no significant difference in time to surgery or pathologic upstaging by care structure. On adjusted analysis, factors associated with receipt of fragmented care included increasing age and distance traveled to the treating facility. Factors associated with coordinated care included metropolitan residence and treatment at academic and high-volume centers. Fragmented care was associated with a reduction in guideline-preferred perioperative chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.97, p = 0.02) and increased mortality (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.00-1.34, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with stage II/III gastric cancer, fragmented care is associated with inferior outcomes, including a reduction in preferred perioperative treatment and survival. Further work is needed to ensure equitable outcomes among patients as complex cancer care becomes more regionalized.

Barriers and facilitators to the use of survivorship care plans by hematopoietic stem cell transplant survivors and clinicians

PURPOSE

Survivors of hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) have complex care needs for the remainder of their lives, known as the survivorship period. Survivorship care plans (SCPs) have been proposed to improve care coordination and ultimately survivorship outcomes. We explored the barriers and facilitators of SCP use among HSCT survivors and their clinicians in order to develop more useful SCPs for the HSCT context.

METHODS

Analogous surveys regarding perceived barriers to and facilitators of SCP use based on a sample SCP for a female allogenic HSCT survivor were administered to HSCT survivors and non-transplant oncology and primary care clinicians.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven HSCT survivors and 18 clinicians completed the survey. The main barriers to SCP use were lack of awareness of SCP existence, uncertainty regarding where to find SCP, unclear roles and responsibilities among healthcare teams, length of SCP, and difficultly understanding SCPs. The facilitators of SCP use were increased understanding of survivorship care needs, clarified roles and responsibilities of survivors and clinicians, SCPs that are readily available and searchable in electronic health record, increased awareness of SCP existence and provision to all survivors, and if the SCP is survivor-specific and up-to-date.

CONCLUSIONS

Much of the work regarding SCPs has looked at barriers to creation and provision; however, our study examines factors influencing use of SCPs. By determining the barriers and facilitators surrounding SCP use for HSCT survivors and their clinicians, we can create SCP templates and clinical workflows to optimize SCP use, ideally leading to better outcomes for HSCT survivors.

Impact of care fragmentation on the outcomes of patients receiving neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is increasingly used for localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The impact of care fragmentation during NT on the outcomes of patients with PDAC is unknown.

METHODS

Adult patients with Stage I-III PDAC who received NT and patients who underwent surgery first followed by adjuvant therapy (AT) between 2004 and 2016 were queried from the National Cancer Database. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between patients who received fragmented care (FC; care provided at >1 hospital) versus integrated care (IC; care at a single institution).

RESULTS

Among 6522 patients who underwent NT before pancreatectomy, 3755 (57.6%) received FC and 2767 (42.4%) received IC. While patients who received FC had a longer time to initiation of treatment (33.2 vs. 29.7 days, p < 0.001), there was no difference in median overall survival (OS) (26.7 vs. 26.5 months, p = 0.6). Among patients who underwent upfront surgery followed by AT (n = 15 291), patients who received FC had a longer time from diagnosis to undergoing surgery but less time from surgery to AT and no difference in OS (24.0 vs. 24.0 months, p = 0.910).

CONCLUSION

Although care fragmentation was associated with slightly longer times to initiate and complete treatment among patients with localized PDAC, long-term survival outcomes were similar.

Fragmentation of surgery and chemotherapy in the initial phase of ovarian cancer care and its association with overall survival

BACKGROUND

Fragmentation occurs when a patient receives care at more than one hospital, and the long-term effects in ovarian cancer are unknown. We examined the association between fragmentation of primary debulking surgery (PDS) and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) and overall survival (OS).

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was used to identify women with stage II-IV epithelial ovarian cancer between 2004 and 2016 who underwent PDS followed by AC. Fragmentation was defined as receipt of AC at a different institution than where PDS was performed. After propensity score weighting, proportional hazard models were developed to estimate the association between fragmented care and OS.

RESULTS

Of the 36,300 patients identified, 13,347 (36.8%) had fragmented care. Patient factors associated with fragmentation included older age, higher income, and longer travel distance for PDS; hospital factors included PDS performed at a community center or a facility with lower annual surgical volume (P < 0.05, all). Fragmentation was associated with a 15% risk of 30-day delay to AC (aRR 1.15, 95% CI 1.09-1.22). In a propensity scoring weighted analysis, mortality was reduced when AC was fragmented (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.97). Sensitivity analyses indicated fragmentation was associated with improved survival in metropolitan residents. Stratified analyses indicated patients who traveled 50 miles or more with PDS and AC at the same institution had the worst OS.

CONCLUSION

Fragmentation of PDS and AC has no adverse effects on long-term survival. Survival outcomes were worst for those who received care at the same institution 50 miles or more away.

Fragmented Care in the Treatment of Rectal Cancer and Time to Definitive Therapy

BACKGROUND

The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) emphasizes a multidisciplinary approach for treating rectal cancer and has developed performance measures to ensure that patients receive standardized care. We hypothesized that rectal cancer patients receiving care at multiple centers would be less likely to receive timely and appropriate care.

STUDY DESIGN

A single institution retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed. All patients undergoing proctectomy and ≤1 other treatment modality (eg radiation and/or chemotherapy) for Stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma were included. Unified care was defined as receiving all modalities of care at our institution, and fragmented care was defined as having at least 1 treatment modality at another institution.

RESULTS

From 2009 to 2019, 415 patients met inclusion criteria, with 197 (47.5%) receiving fragmented care and 218 (52.5%) receiving unified care. The unified cohort patients were more likely to see a colorectal surgeon before starting treatment (89.0% vs 78.7%, p < 0.01) and start definitive treatment within 60 days of diagnosis (89.0% vs 79.7%, p = 0.01). On adjusted analysis, unified care patients were 2.78 times more likely to see a surgeon before starting treatment (95% CI 1.47-5.24) and 2.63 times more likely to start treatment within 60 days (95% CI 1.35-5.13). There was no difference in 90-day mortality or 5-year disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective cohort study suggests patients with rectal cancer receiving fragmented care are at an increased risk of delays in care without any impact on disease-free survival. These findings need to be considered within the context of ongoing regionalization of rectal cancer care to ensure all patients receive optimal care, irrespective of whether care is delivered across multiple institutions.

Does multicenter care impact the outcomes of surgical patients with gastrointestinal malignancies requiring complex multimodality therapy?

BACKGROUND

Regionalization of oncologic care has increased, but less is known whether patient outcomes are influenced by receipt of multimodality care through multicenter care (MCC) or single-center care (SCC).

METHODS

Patients from 2004 to 2015 National Cancer Data Base diagnosed with stage II-III esophageal (EA), stage II-III pancreatic (PA), and stage II-IV rectal (RA) adenocarcinoma who underwent resection at a high volume center (HVC) and required radiation and/or chemotherapy were included. MCC (care at 2+ facilities) and SCC patients were propensity-score matched 1:2 and Cox proportional hazards regression used to analyze survival.

RESULTS

On multivariable regression analysis, MCC in RA patients (N = 325/2097, 15.5%) was more associated with residing ≥40 miles from the HVC (odds ratio [OR] = 2.37; P = .044) and receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (1.42, P = .040). In PA patients (N = 75/380, 19.7%), residing ≥40 miles from the HVC (OR = 3.22; P = .001), and in EA patients (N = 88/534, 16.5%), younger patients (<50 years: OR = 2.96; P = .011) were associated with MCC. Following propensity score matching, EA (N = 147), PA (N = 133), and RA (N = 661) patients had no difference in 1-year and 3-year overall survival when comparing MCC to SCC.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of MCC appears safe without a difference in survival and may offer significant advantages in convenience to patients as they undergo their complex oncologic care.

Differences in ambulatory care fragmentation between cancer survivors and noncancer controls

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic conditions are treated by many providers, which can increase the risk of communication gaps across providers and potential harm to patients. However, to the authors' knowledge, the extent of fragmented care among this population is unknown. In the current study, the authors sought to determine whether cancer survivors have more fragmented care than noncancer controls and to quantify the extent of fragmentation.

METHODS

Data from the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study linked to Medicare claims were used. The authors included beneficiaries with continuous Part A and B coverage for 12 months at the time of their baseline REGARDS survey. The primary outcome of the current study was claims-based fragmentation over 12 months, which was calculated using the reversed Bice-Boxerman Index so a higher score reflected greater fragmentation. Unadjusted differences in fragmentation were compared between cancer survivors and controls. Beta regression models were used to estimate associations between cancer status and fragmentation, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

The authors included 4922 participants aged ≥65 years at baseline. Of these patients, approximately 21% were cancer survivors. Survivors had a median of 11 visits (interquartile range, 7-15 visits) with 5 providers compared with controls, who had a median of 9 visits (interquartile range, 6-14 visits) with 4 providers (P < .0001). Cancer survivors had significantly more fragmented care compared with controls (median reversed Bice-Boxerman Index, 0.80 vs 0.76; P < .0001). After adjusting for confounders, cancer survivors had an increased odds of having fragmented care (odds ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Care fragmentation is more prevalent among cancer survivors compared with those without a history of cancer. Future studies should examine whether fragmentation puts survivors at risk of worse outcomes.

Advanced Practice Providers in Radiation Oncology

PURPOSE

The report highlights utilization of advanced practice providers (APPs) in an academic radiation oncology center and how their role benefits patient care and departmental workflow.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A self-reported workflow analysis of department APPs was conducted across 5 disease sites. A review of electronic medical records was performed to determine the percent of APP follow-ups completed independently versus in a shared capacity with the radiation oncologist. A review of the APP's didactic and clinical training program was performed.

RESULTS

Across all disease sites, approximately 40% of the APP's time was spent on direct patient care, predominantly composed of independent follow-up visits (9%-35%) and telehealth (2%-30%). The breast malignancies group was an outlier with a higher focus on consults or shared visits (25%). Indirect patient care accounts for 30% to 50% of workflow with the focus on visit preparation or care coordination (13%-35%) and dictation (8%-13%). Administrative responsibilities including process improvement, research, education, and leadership account for the remainder (5%-26%) and are varied across disease sites. The central nervous system malignancies group and genitourinary malignancies group reported a greater percentage of their time (23%-26%) on administration compared with other groups (5%-9%). On average APPs see most of their visits independently from the physicians (86.41%) with 13.59% of visits being seen in a shared capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

APPs can positively affect the field of radiation oncology by augmenting clinical capacity, optimizing workflow and increasing department efficiency via both direct and indirect patient care and through involvement in administrative and leadership duties. By implementing an independent-to practice model, simultaneous APP and physician clinics run parallel to each other, limiting shared visits for complex cases. This promotes APP job satisfaction and provides greater access to patient care without compromising quality. This article highlights a model for the utilization of APPs, which can be implemented by other radiation oncology departments or practices.

Continuity of Care, Follow-Up Care, and Outcomes among Breast Cancer Survivors

This retrospective cohort study examined the effects of care continuity on the utilization of follow-up services and outcome of breast cancer patients (stages I-III) in the post-treatment phase of care. Propensity score matching and generalized estimation equations were used in the analysis of data obtained from national longitudinal databases. The continuity of care index (COCI) was calculated separately for primary care physicians (PCP) and oncologists. Our results revealed that breast cancer survivors with a higher oncology COCI were more likely than those with a lower oncology COCI to use mammography or breast ultrasound during the follow-up period (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.19-1.32; OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.06-1.18; respectively). In terms of health outcomes, a higher oncology COCI was associated with a lower likelihood of hospitalization (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.71-0.85) and emergency department use (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.82-0.95). A higher PCP COCI was also associated with a lower likelihood of hospitalization (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.70-0.85) and emergency department use (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.68-0.82). Overall, this study determined that ambulatory care continuity is positively associated with the likelihood of using recommended follow-up care services and negatively associated with adverse health events among breast cancer survivors.

Effect of fragmentation of cancer care on treatment use and survival in hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Fragmented cancer care (FC), or care received from multiple institutions, increases systemic health care costs and potentiates cancer care disparities. There is a paucity of data on mechanisms contributing to FC and the resulting effect on patient outcomes. This study characterized patient- and hospital-level factors associated with FC, time to treatment (TTT), and overall survival (OS) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Patients newly diagnosed with HCC from 2004 to 2015 and receiving treatment were identified in the Texas Cancer Registry. Patient- and hospital-level factors were compared across 2 cohorts: an FC treatment group and a nonfragmented cancer care (NFC) treatment group. Covariate-adjusted treatment use and OS were compared between the 2 treatment groups.

RESULTS

Among 4329 patients with HCC, 1185 (27.4%) received FC, and 3144 (72.6%) received NFC. Compared with NFC patients, FC patients had larger tumors (median size ≥4 cm, 52.6% vs 35.2%; P < .001), and a higher proportion had a regional/metastatic stage (35.9% vs 26.7%; P < .001). Among patients with localized disease, FC was associated with decreased odds of curative therapy (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-0.9). FC was associated with worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.24) and increased TTT (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.7-0.8). In the subset of patients with localized-stage HCC who received curative therapy, FC was associated with worse OS (median survival, 67 vs 43 months; HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.4) and increased TTT (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.7-0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

FC patients were less likely to undergo curative therapy when they were diagnosed at an early stage. After covariate adjustment, newly diagnosed patients with HCC receiving FC had worse OS and increased TTT.

Determinants of quality prostate cancer survivorship care across the primary and specialty care interface: Lessons from the Veterans Health Administration

Background

With over 3 million US prostate cancer survivors, ensuring high‐quality, coordinated cancer survivorship care is important. However, implementation of recommended team‐based cancer care has lagged, and determinants of quality care across primary and specialty care remain unclear. Guided by the theoretical domains framework (TDF), we explored multidisciplinary determinants of quality survivorship care in an integrated delivery system.

Methods

We conducted semistructured interviews with primary (4) and specialty (7) care providers across 6 Veterans Health Administration clinic sites. Using template analysis, we coded interview transcripts into the TDF, mapping statements to specific constructs within each domain. We assessed whether each construct was perceived a barrier or facilitator, examining results for both primary care providers (PCPs) and prostate cancer specialists.

Results

Cancer specialists and PCPs identified 2 primary TDF domains impacting their prostate cancer survivorship care: Knowledge and Environmental context and resources. Both groups noted knowledge (about survivorship care) and procedural knowledge (about how to deliver survivorship care) as positive determinants or facilitators, whereas resources/material resources (to deliver survivorship care) was noted as a negative determinant or barrier to care. Additional domains more commonly referenced by cancer specialists included Social/professional role and identity and Goals, while PCPs reported the domain Beliefs about capabilities as relevant.

Conclusions

We used the TDF to identify several behavioral domains acting as determinants of high‐quality, team‐based prostate cancer survivorship care. These results can inform prostate cancer survivorship care plan content, and may guide tailored, multidisciplinary implementation strategies to improve survivorship care across the primary and specialty care interface.

Prostate Cancer Surveillance After Radiation Therapy in a National Delivery System

Guideline concordance with PSA surveillance among veterans treated with definitive radiation therapy was generally high, but opportunities may exist to improve surveillance among select groups.

Health care use during cancer survivorship: Review of 5 years of evidence

Improvements in treatment strategies have resulted in increasing survival rates among patients diagnosed with cancer but also result in a growing population of individuals who have greater health care needs. These needs will persist from diagnosis throughout the continuing phase of care, or the survivorship phase. To better define models of survivorship care, there must be a strong evidence base in survivor health care use patterns. The objective of this review, which covers studies from 2012 to January 2018, was to evaluate the available evidence on patterns of health care visits among survivors of adult cancers and to understand what is known about the rate of health care visits, the physician specialties associated with these visits, and/or the types health care settings (eg, outpatient, emergency room). The findings underscore the importance of primary care, with the majority of studies reporting that >90% of survivors visited a primary care provider in the prior year. Visits to oncologists and/or other physician specialties were positively associated with receiving cancer screenings and obtaining quality care for noncancer-related conditions. High care density/low care fragmentation between physician specialties had lower costs and a lower likelihood of redundant health care utilization. The follow-up in almost all studies was 3 years, providing short-term evidence; however, as the survivorship period lengthens with improved treatments, longer follow-up will be required. The long-term patterns with which survivors of cancer engage the health care system are critical to designing long-term follow-up care plans that are effective in addressing the complex morbidity that survivors experience.

Impact of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma on visits to different provider specialties among elderly Medicare beneficiaries: challenges for care coordination

Newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) can pose significant challenges to care coordination. We utilized a social-ecological model to understand the impact of DLBCL diagnosis on visits to primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists, a key component of care coordination, over a 3-year period of cancer diagnosis and treatment. We used hurdle models and multivariable logistic regression with the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Result-Medicare linked dataset to analyze visits to PCPs and specialists by DLBCL patients (n = 5,455) compared with noncancer patients (n = 14,770). DLBCL patients were more likely to visit PCPs (adjusted odds ratio, AOR [95% confidence interval, CI]: 1.25 [1.18, 1.31]) and had greater number of visits to PCPs (β, SE: 0.384, -0.014) than noncancer patients. Further, DLBCL patients were more likely to have any visit to cardiologists (AOR [95% CI]: 1.40 [1.32, 1.47]), endocrinologists (1.43, [1.21, 1.70]), and pulmonologists (1.51 [1.36, 1.67]) than noncancer patients. Among DLBCL patients, the number of PCP visits markedly increased during the treatment period compared with the baseline period (β, SE: 0.491, -0.028) and then decreased to baseline levels (-0.464, -0.022). Visits to PCPs and specialists were much more frequent for DLBCL patients than noncancer patients, which drastically increased during the DLBCL treatment period for chronic care. More chronic conditions, treatment side effects, and frequent testing may have increased visits to PCPs and specialists. Interventions to improve care coordination may need to target the DLBCL treatment period, when patients are most vulnerable to poor care coordination.

Care coordination for complex cancer survivors in an integrated safety-net system: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

The growing numbers of cancer survivors challenge delivery of high-quality survivorship care by healthcare systems. Innovative ways to improve care coordination for patients with cancer and multiple chronic conditions ("complex cancer survivors") are needed to achieve better care outcomes, improve patient experience of care, and lower cost. Our study, Project CONNECT, will adapt and implement three evidence-based care coordination strategies, shown to be effective for primary care conditions, among complex cancer survivors. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to: 1) Implement a system-level EHR-driven intervention for 500 complex cancer survivors at Parkland; 2) Test effectiveness of the strategies on system- and patient-level outcomes measured before and after implementation; and 3) Elucidate system and patient factors that facilitate or hinder implementation and result in differences in experiences of care coordination between complex patients with and without cancer.

METHODS

Project CONNECT is a quasi-experimental implementation study among 500 breast and colorectal cancer survivors with at least one of the following chronic conditions: diabetes, hypertension, chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart disease. We will implement three evidence-based care coordination strategies in a large, county integrated safety-net health system: 1) an EHR-driven registry to facilitate patient transitions between primary and oncology care; 2) co-locating a nurse practitioner trained in care coordination within a complex care team; 3) and enhancing teamwork through coaching. Segmented regression analysis will evaluate change in system-level (i.e. composite care quality score) and patient-level outcomes (i.e. self-reported care coordination). To evaluate implementation, we will merge quantitative findings with structured observations and physician and patient interviews.

DISCUSSION

This study will result in an evaluation toolkit identifying key model elements, barriers, and facilitators that can be used to guide care coordination interventions in other safety-net settings. Because Parkland is a vanguard of safety-net healthcare nationally, findings will be widely applicable as other safety-nets move toward increased integration, enhanced EHR capability, and experience with growing patient diversity. Our proposal recognizes the complexity of interventions and scaffolds evidence-based strategies together to meet the needs of complex patients, systems of care, and service integration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02943265 . Registered 24 October 2016.

Factors Associated with Emergency Department Utilization and Admission in Patients with Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

We assessed emergency department (ED) utilization in patients with colorectal cancer to identify factors associated with ED visits and subsequent admission, as well as identify a high-risk subset of patients that could be targeted to reduce ED visits.

METHODS

Data from Optum Labs Data Warehouse, a national administrative claims database, was retrospectively analyzed to identify patients with colorectal cancer from 2008 to 2014. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with ED visits and ED "super-users" (3+ visits). Repeated measures analysis was used to model ED visits resulting in hospitalization as a logistic regression based on treatments 30 days prior to ED visit.

RESULTS

Of 13,466 patients with colorectal cancer, 7440 (55.2%) had at least one ED visit within 12 months of diagnosis. Factors associated with having an ED visit included non-white race, advancing age, increased comorbidities, and receipt of chemotherapy or radiation. 69.2% of patients who visited the ED were admitted to the hospital. A group of 1834 "super-users" comprised 13.6% of our population yet accounted for 52.1% of the total number of ED visits and 32.3% of admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Over half of privately insured patients undergoing treatment for colorectal cancer will visit the ED within 12 months of diagnosis. Within this group, we identify common factors for a high-risk subset of patients with three or more ED visits who account for over half of all ED visits and a third of all admissions. These patients could potentially be targeted with alternative management strategies in the outpatient setting.

System-Level Health-Care Integration and the Costs of Cancer Care Across the Disease Continuum

PURPOSE

Policy reforms in the Affordable Care Act encourage health care integration to improve quality and lower costs. We examined the association between system-level integration and longitudinal costs of cancer care.

METHODS

We used linked SEER-Medicare data to identify patients age 66 to 99 years diagnosed with prostate, bladder, esophageal, pancreatic, lung, liver, kidney, colorectal, breast, or ovarian cancer from 2007 to 2012. We attributed each patient to one or more phases of care (ie, initial, continuing, and end of life) according to time from diagnosis until death or end of study interval. For each phase, we aggregated all claims with the primary cancer diagnosis and identified patients treated in an integrated delivery network (IDN), as defined by the Becker Hospital Review list of the top 100 most integrated health delivery systems. We then determined if care provided in an IDN was associated with decreased payments across cancers and for each individual cancer by phase and across phases.

RESULTS

We identified 428,300 patients diagnosed with one of 10 common cancers. Overall, there were no differences in phase-based payments between IDNs and non-IDNs. Average adjusted annual payments by phase for IDN versus non-IDNs were as follows: initial, $14,194 versus $14,421, respectively ( P = .672); continuing, $2,051 versus $2,099 ( P = .566); and end of life, $16,257 versus $16,232 ( P = .948). However, in select cancers, we observed lower payments in IDNs. For bladder cancer, payments at the end of life were lower for IDNs ($11,041 v $12,331; P = .008). Of the four cancers with the lowest 5-year survival rates (ie, pancreatic, lung, esophageal, and liver), average expenditures during the initial and continuing-care phases were lower for patients with liver cancer treated in IDNs.

CONCLUSION

For patients with one of 10 common malignancies, treatment in an IDN generally is not associated with lower costs during any phase of cancer care.

Enhancing prostate cancer survivorship care through self-management

The lack of clear roles for prostate cancer survivorship care providers places prostate cancer survivors at significant risk of inappropriate use of services delivered piecemeal by different providers, persistent bothersome symptoms, and silent suffering. Optimizing quality of care for prostate cancer survivors hinges on decreasing fragmentation of care, and providing quality symptom management. This is achieved through comprehensive, appropriate medical, surgical, pharmacological and psychosocial care, coupled with self-management, as highlighted in several recent resources addressing long-term and late effects of treatment. Although further study is warranted, prostate cancer survivors engaging in self-management may reduce the negative impact of prostate cancer in their lives through better quality of care (better symptom management and efficient use of services) and quality of life.

Achieving Coordinated Care for Patients With Complex Cases of Cancer: A Multiteam System Approach

Patients with cancer with multiple chronic conditions pose a unique challenge to how primary care and specialty care teams provide well-coordinated, patient-centered care. Effectiveness of these care teams in providing optimal health care depends on the extent to which they coordinate their goals and knowledge as components of a multiteam system (MTS). This article outlines challenges of care coordination in the context of an MTS, illustrated through the care experience of "Mr Fuentes," a patient in the Dallas County integrated safety-net system, Parkland. As a continuing patient with chronic illnesses, the patient being discussed is managed through one of the Parkland community-oriented primary care clinics. However, a cancer diagnosis triggered an additional need for augmented coordination between his different provider teams. Further research and practice should investigate the relationships of MTS coordination for shared care management, transfer to and from specialty care, treatment compliance, barriers to care, and health outcomes of chronic comorbid conditions, as well as cancer control and surveillance.

Providing prostate cancer survivorship care in Japan: Implications from the USA care model

Despite an increasing number of prostate cancer survivors in Japan, the current delivery of prostate cancer survivorship care is insufficient and lacks a multidisciplinary approach. We carried out a study to characterize prostate cancer survivorship care in Japan, examine the Japanese workforce available to deliver survivorship care, introduce a conceptual framework for survivorship and identify opportunities to improve Japanese survivorship care. We systematically searched PubMed for prostate cancer survivorship care studies, including those from Japan. We also searched the internet for prostate cancer guidelines relevant to survivorship care. We found 392 articles, of which 71 were relevant, read in detail and reported here. In Japan, survivorship care is mostly provided by urologists. Primary care as a specialty does not exist in Japan, and there are no independent nurse practitioners or physician assistants to assist with survivorship care. Japanese quality of life studies characterize the long-term effects of prostate cancer treatment, but routine use of patient-reported outcomes is not common in Japan. In the USA, in light of a growing comprehensive awareness of challenges facing survivors and their providers, the American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines serve as a tool for optimizing the management of long-term treatment effects and coordination of care. In order to deliver high-quality survivorship care in Japan, urologists need to establish collaborations with other disciplines within the delivery system. A multidisciplinary guideline for prostate cancer survivorship care in Japan appears warranted.

Barriers to follow-up care among survivors of adolescent and young adult cancer

PURPOSE

Though the need for risk-based follow-up care for survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer has been documented, survivors often report forgoing recommended care due to cost. We sought to understand whether additional barriers to follow-up care exist for AYA survivors.

METHODS

We recruited survivors who were diagnosed with cancer between the ages of 15 and 39 using the Utah Cancer Registry (UCR). Overall, 28 survivors participated in 6 focus groups held between March and May 2015 in Salt Lake City and St. George, UT. Focus group discussions focused on the reasons survivors may or may not attend recommended medical visits after completing therapy.

RESULTS

Survivors reported myriad barriers to follow-up medical visits, including lack of clear provider recommendation, fear of recurrent cancer diagnosis, wishing to move on with life, competing life responsibilities due to work and children, and not perceiving the need for a visit due to lack of symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Though cost likely plays a major part in follow-up care adherence for survivors of AYA cancer, in our focus groups, participants indicated there were many other psychosocial and logistic barriers to care. Such factors play an important role in the day-to-day lives of survivors and are critical in medical decision-making.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Several factors impede follow-up care adherence for survivors of AYA cancer that are amenable to interventions, including clearer provider recommendations, flexible appointment times, and childcare availability in clinics.

Relationship Between Quality of Comorbid Condition Care and Costs for Cancer Survivors

PURPOSE

To estimate the association between cancer survivors' comorbid condition care quality and costs; to determine whether the association differs between cancer survivors and other patients.

METHODS

Using the SEER-Medicare-linked database, we identified survivors of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers who were diagnosed in 2004, enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service for at least 12 months before diagnosis, and survived ≥ 3 years. Quality of care was assessed using nine process indicators for chronic conditions, and a composite indicator representing seven avoidable outcomes. Total costs on the basis of Medicare amount paid were grouped as inpatient and outpatient. We examined the association between care quality and costs for cancer survivors, and compared this association among 2:1 frequency-matched noncancer controls, using comparisons of means and generalized linear regressions.

RESULTS

Our sample included 8,661 cancer survivors and 17,332 matched noncancer controls. Receipt of recommended care was associated with higher outpatient costs for eight indicators, and higher inpatient and total costs for five indicators. For three measures (visit every 6 months for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or diabetes, and glycosylated hemoglobin or fructosamine every 6 months for patients with diabetes), costs for cancer survivors who received recommended care increased less than for noncancer controls. The absence of avoidable events was associated with lower costs of each type. An annual eye examination for patients with diabetes was associated with lower inpatient costs.

CONCLUSION

Higher-quality processes of care may not reduce short-term costs, but the prevention of avoidable outcomes reduces costs. The association between quality and cost was similar for cancer survivors and noncancer controls.

Prostate cancer survivorship care in the Veterans Health Administration

The burden of prostate cancer among Veterans is substantial with over 200,000 survivors and 12,000 new diagnoses annually. Most men live with rather than die from this common and expensive disease making prostate cancer survivorship care especially important. In addition, the symptom burden after prostate cancer treatment can be substantial, last well into survivorship and lead to reduced quality of life and greater use of services. For these reasons, it is increasingly recognized that cancer survivorship care is similar to chronic disease management in requiring a combination of primary care providers and cancer specialists to deliver care over long periods of time. Because of its leadership in chronic disease care and the proportion of older men served, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is well positioned to become one of the national leaders in prostate cancer survivorship care. However, best practices and portfolios of quality indicators for prostate cancer survivorship care remain underdeveloped. More broadly, there is a limited consensus about who (primary care providers or prostate cancer specialists - urologists, radiation and medical oncologists) has primary responsibility for prostate cancer surveillance, and who manages the often substantial and lingering treatment-related side effects. Unclear roles and regional variation in the VHA cancer specialist workforce also complicate delivery of quality survivorship care. Ultimately, the design and implementation of tools to facilitate the delivery of optimal cancer survivorship care in VHA rests upon understanding how responsibility for survivorship care is managed and the barriers to quality survivorship care. Due to the expanding population of Veteran prostate cancer survivors, improving their quality of survivorship care through effective use of the VHA's provider workforce and latest telemedicine initiatives has potential to transform the national efficiency and effectiveness of cancer specialty care delivery.

Encounters in cancer treatment: intersubjective configurations of a need for rehabilitation

Based on extensive ethnographic material from in-depth interviews with Danish cancer patients after treatment, this study analyzes their stories to explore how interactions with the physician configures and situates a need for rehabilitation. We identify three themes in the illness stories: (1) attentiveness and care; (2) fragmentation and objectification; and (3) mistrust and dehumanization. These are all closely tied to the concept of recognition, showing how the themes are configured by the social interaction between the patient and the physician and how the need for rehabilitation is shaped by this encounter. The significance of the social encounters in cancer treatment is elucidated through this analysis, and we demonstrate how the need for recognition of the complex effects of cancer on one's life is central to counter experiences of objectification and dehumanization.