Esophageal Cancer Presentation, Treatment, and Outcomes Vary With Hospital Safety-Net Burden

Acute clinical and financial outcomes of esophagectomy at safety-net hospitals in the United States

BACKGROUND

While safety-net hospitals (SNH) play a critical role in the care of underserved communities, they have been associated with inferior postoperative outcomes. This study evaluated the association of hospital safety-net status with clinical and financial outcomes following esophagectomy.

METHODS

All adults (≥18 years) undergoing elective esophagectomy for benign and malignant gastroesophageal disease were identified in the 2010-2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Centers in the highest quartile for the proportion of uninsured/Medicaid patients were classified as SNH (others: non-SNH). Regression models were developed to evaluate adjusted associations between SNH status and outcomes, including in-hospital mortality, perioperative complications, and resource use. Royston-Parmar flexible parametric models were used to assess time-varying hazard of non-elective readmission over 90 days.

RESULTS

Of an estimated 51,649 esophagectomy hospitalizations, 9,024 (17.4%) were performed at SNH. While SNH patients less frequently suffered from gastroesophageal malignancies (73.2 vs 79.6%, p<0.001) compared to non-SNH, the distribution of age and comorbidities were similar. SNH was independently associated with mortality (AOR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03-1.50), intraoperative complications (AOR 1.45, 95% CI 1.20-1.74) and need for blood transfusions (AOR 1.61, 95% CI 1.35-1.93). Management at SNH was also associated with incremental increases in LOS (+1.37, 95% CI 0.64-2.10), costs (+10,400, 95% CI 6,900-14,000), and odds of 90-day non-elective readmission (AOR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00-1.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Care at safety-net hospitals was associated with higher odds of in-hospital mortality, perioperative complications, and non-elective rehospitalization following elective esophagectomy. Efforts to provide sufficient resources at SNH may serve to reduce complications and overall costs for this procedure.

Association between hospital safety-net burden and receipt of trimodality therapy and survival for patients with esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

To examine the relationship between hospital safety-net burden and (1) receipt of surgery after chemoradiation (trimodality therapy) and (2) survival in esophageal cancer patients.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried to identify 22,842 clinical stage II to IVa esophageal cancer patients diagnosed in 2004 to 2015. The treatment facilities were categorized by proportion of uninsured/Medicaid-insured patients into percentiles. No safety-net burden hospitals (0-37th percentile) treated no uninsured/Medicaid-insured patients, whereas low (38-75th percentile) and high (76-100th percentile) safety-net burden hospitals treated a median (range) of 8.8% (0.87%-16.7%) and 23.6% (16.8%-100%), respectively. Adjusted odds ratios and hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were computed, adjusting for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.

RESULTS

Compared to no safety-net burden hospital patients, high safety-net burden hospital patients were significantly more likely to be young, Black, and low-income. Age, female sex, Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, nonprivate insurance, lower income, higher comorbidity score, upper esophageal location, squamous cell histology, higher stage, time to treatment, and treatment at a community program or a low-volume facility were associated with lower odds of receiving trimodality therapy. Adjusting for these factors, high safety-net burden hospital patients were less likely to receive surgery after chemoradiation versus no safety-net burden hospital patients (adjusted odds ratio 0.77 [95% confidence interval 0.68-0.86], P < .0001); no difference was detected comparing low safety-net burden hospitals versus no safety-net burden hospitals (adjusted odds ratio 1.01 [0.92-1.11], P = .874). No significant survival difference was noted by safety-net burden (low safety-net burden hospitals versus no safety-net burden hospitals: adjusted hazard ratio 1.01 [0.96-1.06], P = .704; high safety-net burden hospital versus no safety-net burden hospitals: adjusted hazard ratio 0.99 [0.93-1.06], P = .859).

CONCLUSION

Adjusting for patient, tumor, and treatment factors, high safety-net burden hospital patients were less likely to undergo surgery after chemoradiation but without significant survival differences.

Outcomes, Cost, and Readmission After Surgical Aortic or Mitral Valve Replacement at Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Safety-net hospitals provide essential services to vulnerable patients with complex medical and socioeconomic circumstances. We hypothesized that matched patients at safety-net hospitals and non-safety-net hospitals would have comparable outcomes, costs, and readmission rates after isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR).

METHODS

The National Readmissions Database was queried to identify patients who underwent isolated AVR (n = 109 744) or MVR (n = 31 475) from 2016 to 2018. Safety-net burden was defined as the percentage of patients who were uninsured or insured with Medicaid, with hospitals in the top quartile designated as safety-net hospitals. After propensity score matching, outcomes for AVR and MVR at safety-net hospitals vs non-safety-net hospitals were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 17 925 AVRs (16%) and 5516 MVRs (18%) were performed at safety-net hospitals, and these patients had higher comorbidity rates, had lower socioeconomic status, and more frequently required urgent surgery. Observed inhospital mortality was similar between safety-net hospitals and non-safety-net hospitals (AVR 2.2% vs 2.1%, P = .4; MVR 4.8% vs 4.3%, P = .1). After matching, rates of inhospital mortality, major morbidity, and readmission were similar; however, safety-net hospitals had longer length of stay after AVR (7 vs 6 days, P = .001) and higher total cost after AVR ($49 015 vs $42 473, P < .001) and MVR ($59 253 vs $52 392, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Isolated surgical AVR and MVR are both performed at safety-net hospitals with outcomes comparable to those at non-safety-net hospitals, supporting efforts to expand access to these procedures for underserved populations. Investment in care coordination resources to reduce length of stay and curtail cost at safety-net hospitals is warranted.

Treatment quality and outcomes vary with hospital burden of uninsured and Medicaid patients with cancer in early non–small cell lung cancer

Objectives

Safety-net hospitals deliver a significant level of care to uninsured patients, Medicaid-enrolled patients, and other vulnerable patients. Little is known about the impact of safety-net hospital status on outcomes in non–small cell lung cancer. We aimed to compare treatment characteristics and outcomes between hospitals categorized according to their relative burden of uninsured or Medicaid-enrolled patients with non–small cell lung cancer.

Methods

We queried the National Cancer Database for patients with clinical stage I and II non–small cell lung cancer presenting from 2004 to 2018. We categorized hospitals on the basis of their relative burden of uninsured or Medicaid-enrolled patients with non–small cell lung cancer into low-burden (<8.2%), medium-burden (8.2%-12.0%), high-burden (12.1%-16.8%), and highest burden (>16.8%) quartiles. We investigated the impact of care at these hospitals on outcomes while controlling for sociodemographic, clinical, and facility characteristics.

Results

We identified 204,189 patients treated at 1286 facilities. There were 592 low-burden, 297 medium-burden, 219 high-burden, and 178 highest burden hospitals. Patients at highest burden hospitals were more likely to be younger, male, Black, and Hispanic (P < .01), and to reside in rural, low-income, and low-educated regions (P < .01). Patients at these facilities had a greater likelihood of not receiving surgery, undergoing an open procedure, undergoing a regional lymph node examination involving less than 10 lymph nodes, having a length of stay more than 4 days, and not receiving treatment (P < .05).

Conclusions

Our results indicate reduced treatment quality and higher mortality in patients undergoing surgery for early non–small cell lung cancer at hospitals with an increased burden of uninsured or Medicaid-enrolled patients with non–small cell lung cancer. There is a need to raise the standard of care to improve outcomes in vulnerable populations.

Oral cancer patients achieve comparable survival at high safety-net burden hospitals

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of hospital safety-net burden and social demographics on the overall survival of patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified 48,176 oral cancer patients diagnosed between the years 2004 to 2015 from the National Cancer Database and categorized treatment facilities as no, low, or high safety-net burden hospitals based on the percentage of uninsured or Medicaid patients treated. Using the Kaplan Meier method and multivariate analysis, we examined the effect of hospital safety-net burden, sociodemographic variables, and clinical factors on overall survival.

RESULTS

Of the 1269 treatment facilities assessed, the median percentage of uninsured/Medicaid patients treated was 0% at no, 11.6% at low, and 23.5% at high safety-net burden hospitals and median survival was 68.6, 74.8, and 55.0 months, respectively (p < 0.0001). High safety-net burden hospitals treated more non-white populations (15.4%), lower median household income (<$30,000) (23.2%), and advanced stage cancers (AJCC III/IV) (54.6%). Patients treated at low (aHR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.91-1.04, p = 0.405) and high (aHR = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.98-1.13, p = 0.175) safety-net burden hospitals did not experience worse survival outcomes compared to patients treated at no safety-net burden hospitals.

CONCLUSION

High safety-net burden hospitals treated more oral cancer patients of lower socioeconomic status and advanced disease. Multivariate analysis showed high safety-net burden hospitals achieved comparable patient survival to lower burden hospitals.

Hot Tea Consumption and Esophageal Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Objective

Many laboratory studies have shown that tea consumption protected against the development of esophageal cancer (EC). However, in epidemiological studies, inconsistent or even contradictory results were frequently observed, especially when drinking tea at higher temperatures.

Methods

We conducted a meta-analysis based on published observational studies to explore whether hot tea consumption was a risk factor of EC. Relevant studies were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Web of science up to October 13, 2021, and we also manually retrieved the literature in the included studies and recent reviews.

Results

A total of 23 eligible reports were identified, including 5,050 cases and 10,609 controls, and a meta-analysis with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software (version 2.0) was conducted. A statistically significant increased EC risk was observed when drinking tea at higher temperature (odds ratios (ORs) = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.48–2.15, p = 0.00). Except for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), this increased risk was also found in the majority of subgroups, which are the European and Australian populations.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis showed that people who drank hot tea had a significantly increased risk of Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), but no significant association for EAC.

Disparities in Laryngeal Cancer Treatment and Outcomes: An Analysis by Hospital Safety-Net Burden

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To analyze the impact of hospital safety-net burden on survival outcomes for laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

From 2004 to 2015, 59,733 LSCC patients treated with curative intent were identified using the National Cancer Database. Low (LBH) <25th, medium (MBH) 25th-75th, and high (HBH) >75th safety-net burden hospitals were defined by the percentage quartiles (%) of uninsured/Medicaid-insured patients treated. Social and clinicopathologic characteristics and overall survival (using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis) were evaluated. Crude and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed using Cox regression modeling.

RESULTS

There were 324, 647, and 323 hospitals that met the criteria as LBH, MBH, and HBH, respectively. The median follow-up was 38.6 months. A total of 27,629 deaths were reported, with a median survival of 75.8 months (a 5-year survival rate of 56.6%). Median survival was 83.2, 77.8, and 69.3 months for patients from LBH, MBH, and HBH, respectively (P < .0001). The median % of uninsured/Medicaid-insured patients treated among LBH, MBH, and HBH were 3.6%, 14.0%, and 27.0%, respectively. Patients treated at HBH were significantly more likely to be young, Black, Hispanic, of low income, and present with more advanced disease compared to LBH and MBH. Survival was comparable for LBH and MBH (HR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.97-1.07, P = .408) on multivariate analysis. HBH, compared to LBH patients, had inferior survival (HR = 1.07; 95% CI = 1.01-1.13, P = .023).

CONCLUSIONS

High burden safety-net hospitals receive disproportionately more patients with advanced-stage and low socioeconomic status, yielding inferior survival compared to low burden hospitals.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 (individual cohort study) Laryngoscope, 131:E1987-E1997, 2021.

Presentation, Treatment, and Outcomes of Vulnerable Populations With Esophageal Cancer Treated at a Safety-Net Hospital

Social determinants of health have been associated with poor outcomes in esophageal cancer. Primary language and immigration status have not been examined in relation to esophageal cancer outcomes. This study aims to investigate the impact of these variables on stage of presentation, treatment, and outcomes of esophageal cancer patients at an urban safety-net hospital. Clinical data of patients with esophageal cancer at our institution between 2003 and 2018 were reviewed. Demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics were obtained. Outcomes included median overall survival, stage-specific survival, and utilization of surgical and perioperative therapy. Statistical analysis was conducted using Chi-square test, Fisher's exact tests, Kaplan-Meier method, and logistic regression. There were 266 patients; 77% were male. Mean age was 63.9 years, 23.7% were immigrants, 33.5% were uninsured/Medicaid, and 16.2% were non-English speaking. Adenocarcinoma was diagnosed in 55.3% and squamous cell in 41.0%. More patients of non-Hispanic received esophagectomies when compared to those of Hispanic origin (64% vs 25%, P = 0.012). Immigrants were less likely to undergo esophagectomy compared to US-born patients (42% vs 76%, P = 0.001). Patients with adenocarcinoma were more likely than squamous cell carcinoma patients to undergo esophagectomy (odds ratio = 4.40, 95% confidence interval 1.61-12.01, P = 0.004). More commercially/privately insured patients (75%) received perioperative therapy compared to Medicaid/uninsured (54%) and Medicare (49%) patients (P = 0.030). There was no association between demographic factors and the utilization of perioperative chemoradiation for patients with operable disease. Approximately 23% of patients with operable disease were too frail or declined to undergo surgical intervention. In this small single-center study, race and primary language were not associated with median survival for patients treated for esophageal cancer. US-born patients experienced higher surgical utilization and privately insured patients were more likely to receive perioperative therapy. Many patients with operable cancer were too frail to undergo a curative surgery. Studies should expand on the relationships between social determinants of health and nonclinical services on delivery of care and survival of vulnerable populations with esophageal cancer.