Hospital transfer after a breast cancer diagnosis: A population-based study in the Netherlands of the extent, predictive characteristics and its impact on time to treatment

Relationship between patient outcomes and patterns of fragmented cancer care in older adults with gastric cancer: A nationwide cohort study in South Korea

INTRODUCTION

Fragmented cancer care, defined as receipt of care from multiple hospitals, has been shown to be associated with poor patient outcomes and high expense. However, evidence regarding the effects of hospital choice by patients with cancer on overall survival are lacking. Thus, we investigated the relationship between patterns of fragmented care and five-year mortality in patients with gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the Korean National Health Insurance senior cohort of adults aged ≥60 years, we identified patients with gastric cancer who underwent gastrectomy during 2007-2014. We examined the distribution of the study population by five-year mortality, and used Kaplan-Meier survival curves/log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard model to compare five-year mortality with fragmented cancer care.

RESULTS

Among the participants, 19.5% died within five years. There were more deaths among patients who received fragmented care, especially those who transferred to smaller hospitals (46.6%) than to larger ones (40.0%). The likelihood of five-year mortality was higher in patients who received fragmented cancer care upon moving from large to small hospitals than those who did not transfer hospitals (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.48, P = .001). Moreover, mortality was higher among patients treated in large hospitals or in the capital area for initial treatment, and this association was greater for patients from rural areas.

DISCUSSION

Fragmentation of cancer care was associated with reduced survival, and the risk of mortality was higher among patients who moved from large to small hospitals.

Treatment time interval in breast cancer: A population-based study on the impact of type and number of cancer centres attended

OBJECTIVES

We studied both the independent and combined effects of the places of biopsy and treatment on the treatment time interval based on a population-based study.

METHODS

We analysed the proportion of patients having a treatment time interval higher than the EUSOMA recommendation of 6 weeks, as a function of the number and the type of care centres the patients attended, from a French population-based regional cohort of women treated in 2015 for an incident invasive non-metastatic cancer (n = 505).

RESULTS

About 33% [95% CI: 27; 38] of patients had a treatment time interval higher than 6 weeks. About 48% of the patients underwent their biopsy and their initial treatment in the different centres. Results from multivariable analyses supported the impact of the type and number of centres attended on the proportion of time intervals over 6 weeks. This proportion was higher among patients with biopsy and treatment in different centres and among patients treated in a university hospital.

CONCLUSION

We pointed out the independent impact of the type and the number of care centres the patients attended, from biopsy to first treatment, on the treatment time interval, which is a well-known prognosis factor.

Are patients living far from hospital at higher risk of late adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer?

INTRODUCTION

Late adjuvant chemotherapy (aCT) administration after colectomy (> 56 days) is known to be associated with impaired prognosis. We aim to identify risk factors associated with late aCT, especially the travel time between patients' home and hospital.

METHOD

We performed a retrospective monocentre cohort study. Patients included had a colectomy for a stage III or "high risk" stage II colon cancer between 2009 and 2015 performed at a French university hospital. Risk factors for late aCT were identified using a fractional polynomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients were included. The risk of late aCT was associated with travel time length, emergent colectomy, the need for scheduled care before aCT, and length of time between colectomy and postoperative multidisciplinary meeting advising aCT.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that, in patients with colon cancer, factors unrelated to disease severity and complexity could be associated with a higher risk of late aCT.

Predictors of delayed breast reconstruction in the Netherlands: a 5-year follow-up study in stage I-III breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

Delayed breast reconstruction (DBR) is a valid option for postmastectomy breast cancer patients who have a desire for breast reconstruction but are not considered suitable for immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical practice and predictors of the use of DBR in the Netherlands.

METHODS

Stage I-III breast cancer patients diagnosed from January to March 2012 and treated with mastectomy were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Routinely collected patient, tumor, treatment and hospital characteristics were complemented with data about DBR up to 2018. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors independently associated with postmastectomy DBR. Factors associated with time to DBR were identified through Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

Of all patients who underwent mastectomy (n = 1,415), 10.2% underwent DBR. DBR patients more often received autologous reconstruction compared to IBR patients (37.5% vs 6.2%, p < 0.001). Age below 50 years (age < 35 OR 15.55, age 35-49 OR 4.18) and neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy (OR 2.59 and OR 2.83, respectively) were significantly associated with DBR. Mean time to DBR was 2.4 years [range 1-6 years]. Time to DBR was significantly associated with age < 35 years (HR 2.22), and a high hospital volume (HR 1.87).

DISCUSSION

The use of DBR after mastectomy could not be fully explained by age below 50 years, chemotherapy, and hospital volume. Treatment with radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy increased time to DBR. More information about patient preferences is needed to understand the use and timing of reconstruction.

Impact of Second Opinions in Breast Cancer Diagnostics and Treatment: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer care is becoming increasingly complex, and patients with breast cancer are increasingly aware of the different treatment options, resulting in requests for second opinions (SOs). The current study investigates the impact of breast cancer SOs on final diagnosis and treatment in the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NCI) using a newly designed Breast Cancer Second Opinion (BCSO) classification system.

METHODS

Patients who visited the NCI for an SO between October 2015 and September 2016 were included. Demographics, diagnostics, and treatment proposals were compared between first and SO. Discrepancy was categorized using our BCSO classification system, categorizing SOs into (1) noncomparable, (2) identical, and (3) minor or (4) major discrepancy.

RESULTS

The majority of SOs (n = 591) were patient initiated (90.7%). A total of 121 patients underwent treatment prior to their SO, leaving 470 patients for assessment of discrepancies according to our BCSO classification system. More than 45% of these SOs resulted in at least one discrepancy, with comparable rates for physician- and patient-initiated SOs (42.5% vs. 45.6%, p = 0.708). Significantly more discrepancies were observed in patients with additional imaging (51.3% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.002) and biopsies (53.7% vs. 40.3%, p = 0.005). Almost 60% of all discrepancies were categorized as major (neoadjuvant systemic treatment instead of primary surgery, breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy, and proposing postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show substantial differences in diagnostic and treatment options in breast cancer patients visiting the Netherlands Cancer Institute for an SO, thereby emphasizing more consensus for the indications of these treatment modalities.

Nationwide population-based study of the impact of immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy on the timing of adjuvant chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy within 6-12 weeks after mastectomy is recommended by guidelines. The aim of this population-based study was to investigate whether immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy reduces the likelihood of timely initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

All patients with breast cancer who had undergone mastectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy between 2012 and 2016 in the Netherlands were identified. Time from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy was categorized as within 6 weeks or after more than 6 weeks, within 9 weeks or after more than 9 weeks, and within 12 weeks or after more than 12 weeks. The impact of IBR on the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for these three scenarios was estimated using propensity score matching to adjust for treatment by indication bias.

RESULTS

A total of 6300 patients had undergone primary mastectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy, of whom 1700 (27·0 per cent) had received IBR. Multivariable analysis revealed that IBR reduced the likelihood of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy within 6 weeks (odds ratio (OR) 0·76, 95 per cent c.i. 0·66 to 0·87) and 9 weeks (0·69, 0·54 to 0·87), but not within 12 weeks (OR 0·75, 0·48 to 1·17). Following propensity score matching, IBR only reduced the likelihood of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy within 6 weeks (OR 0·95, 0·90 to 0·99), but not within 9 weeks (OR 0·97, 0·95 to 1·00) or 12 weeks (OR 1·00, 0·99 to 1·01).

CONCLUSION

Postmastectomy IBR marginally reduced the likelihood of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy within 6 weeks, but not within 9 or 12 weeks. Thus, IBR is not contraindicated in patients who need adjuvant chemotherapy after mastectomy.