Treatment Facility Volume and Survival in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer

Overall Survival and Associations of Insurance Status Among Hispanic Men With High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Objectives Our objectives were to (1) determine the association between ethnicity and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) survival and (2) determine whether this association is modified by insurance status. Methods We performed a retrospective review of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004 to 2017 of non-Hispanic White (NHW), Hispanic White (HW), or Black men with high-risk PCa. A multivariate Cox regression model was built to test the association between overall survival (OS) and race/ethnicity, insurance status, and their interaction, controlling for various socioeconomic and disease-specific variables. Results A total of 94,708 men with high-risk PCa were included in the analysis. Both HW and Black men had lower socioeconomic status characteristics and lower rates of private insurance. Race/ethnicity was significantly associated with OS in the adjusted analysis. Only Medicare demonstrated significantly worse OS. NHW (covariate-adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.83, 95% CI: 1.45-2.32) and Black (aHR: 1.71, 05% CI: 1.34-2.19) men demonstrated significantly worse survival when compared to HW men. Subgroup analysis demonstrated significant differences occurring among HW men with private insurance/managed care when compared to those not insured, Medicaid, Medicare, and other government insurance types. Conclusion Despite socioeconomic and demographic disadvantages, HW men demonstrate improved OS compared to NHW men. Furthermore, HW men demonstrated improved OS compared to NHW men within nearly each insurance status type. This finding is likely the result of a complex multifactorial web and as such serves as an interesting hypothesis-generating study.

Characteristics of prostate cancer patients captured by facility-based versus geography-based cancer registries

PURPOSE

We determined differences in demographics, tumor factors, and treatment patterns of prostate cancer patients in a geographic-based cancer registry based on eligibility for a facility-based cancer registry system.

METHODS

We identified prostate cancer patients captured by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2018 to 2019. Our exposure was receipt of cancer care at a facility accredited by the American College of Surgeons' Commission on Cancer (CoC) providing eligibility for inclusion in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Outcomes included patient demographics, tumor factors (e.g., biopsy grade), and treatment with radical prostatectomy.

RESULTS

We identified 113,733 prostate cancer patients of whom 65,708 (57%) were NCDB-eligible with an analytic abstract, and 11,010 (10%) were NCDB-eligible without an analytic abstract. NCDB-eligible men were younger (67.0 vs. 68.1 years, P < 0.001), less likely to be Hispanic/Latino (8.7% vs. 13.2%, P < 0.001), and more likely in a county with median income over $75,000 (40.9% vs. 30.0%, P < 0.001). NCDB eligibility varied widely by registry, from 95.9% in Connecticut to 42.6% in Utah. NCDB-ineligible patients were more likely to have unknown stage (17.2% vs. 2.9% NCDB-eligible) and missing PSA (22.9% vs 9.3% NCDB-eligible). NCDB-eligible men were less likely to have Grade Group 1 cancer on biopsy (28.2% vs. 39.2%, P < 0.001). Treatment with prostatectomy was more common among NCDB-eligible patients for low-risk (19.6% vs. 8.8%, adjusted OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.72-6.66) and high-risk tumors (43.5% vs. 26.0%, adjusted OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.33-2.86).

CONCLUSION

Compared NCDB-ineligible patients, those eligible for inclusion in the NCDB have important differences in demographics, eligibility for active surveillance, and treatment patterns. Generalizations related to epidemiologic trends, practice patterns, and outcomes for this select population should be interpreted with caution.

Average treatment effect of facility hepatopancreatobiliary malignancy case volume on survival of patients with nonoperatively managed hepatobiliary malignancies

BACKGROUND

Surgical volume-outcome relationships have been described for a variety of procedures. There is scant literature on total institutional volume and outcomes in patients who are nonoperatively managed. We examined the average treatment effect of total hepatopancreatobiliary malignancy case volume on survival outcomes of patients with nonresected hepatobiliary malignancies.

METHODS

We identified patients with hepatopancreatobiliary malignancies [pancreatic adenocarcinoma, pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms, hepatocellular carcinoma, biliary tract cancers] within the National Cancer Database (2004-2018). We determined percentile thresholds based on the total annual hepatopancreatobiliary malignancy case volume. We then identified nonoperatively managed patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or biliary tract cancers. We used inverse probability-weighted Cox regression to estimate the effect of facility volume on overall survival.

RESULTS

We identified 710,988 patients with hepatopancreatobiliary malignancies. Total annual hepatopancreatobiliary malignancy case volume of 32, 71, and 177 cases/year corresponded to the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles. A total of 96,420 with hepatocellular carcinoma and 52,627 patients with biliary tract cancers were managed nonoperatively. In patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or biliary tract cancer, treatment at ≥25th, ≥50th, and ≥75th percentile facilities was associated with improved median, 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival compared with treatment at lower-percentile facilities. On inverse probability-weighted Cox analysis, treatment at higher-percentile facilities resulted in a lower hazard of death. Consistent findings were observed in patients with early or intermediate/advanced hepatocellular carcinoma or metastatic biliary tract cancers.

CONCLUSION

Patients with nonoperatively managed hepatocellular carcinoma or biliary tract cancer who receive treatment at higher-volume facilities have improved survival outcomes. These data suggest regionalization of care for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or biliary tract cancer to high-volume centers may improve survival.

Trends and disparities in the utilization of systemic chemotherapy in patients with metastatic hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers

BACKGROUND

We described trends and disparities in utilization of systemic chemotherapy in metastatic hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) cancers.

METHODS

We queried the National Cancer Database for metastatic HPB cancers [hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), biliary tract cancers (BTC), pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC)]. We used multivariable analysis to examine the factors associated with utilization of systemic chemotherapy. We utilized marginal structural logistic models to estimate the effect of health insurance, facility type, or facility volume on utilization of systemic chemotherapy.

RESULTS

We identified 162,283 patients with metastatic HPB cancers: 23,923 (14.7%) had HCC, 26,766 (16.5%) had BTC, and 111,594 (68.8%) had PDAC. A total of 37.2% patients with HCC, 55.6% with BTC, and 56.4% with PDAC received chemotherapy. Age ≥70 years and Charlson-Deyo score ≥2 were associated with lower likelihood of receiving chemotherapy across all cancers. Patients with private health insurance had higher receipt of chemotherapy. Receiving treatment at academic facilities had no effect on the receipt of chemotherapy. Treatment of patients with HCC or PDAC at high-volume facilities resulted in higher receipt of chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of patients with metastatic HPB cancers do not receive systemic chemotherapy. Several disparities in administration of chemotherapy for metastatic HPB cancers exist.

Palliative Therapies in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Does Medicaid Expansion Make a Difference?

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of medicaid expansion (ME) on receipt of palliative therapies in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A difference-in-differences (DID) approach was used to analyze patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer identified from the National Cancer Database diagnosed during two time periods: pre-expansion (2010-2012) and post-expansion (2014-2016). Patients diagnosed while residing in ME states were compared with those in non-ME states. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of receipt of palliative therapies.

RESULTS

Of 87,738 patients overall, 7483(18.1%) received palliative therapies in the pre-expansion, while 10,211(21.5%) received palliative therapies in the post-expansion period. In the pre-expansion period, treatment at a high-volume facility (HVF) (odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.18) and non-west geographic location were predictive of increased palliative therapies. In the post-expansion period, treatment at an HVF (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.16), geographic location, and living in an ME state at the time of diagnosis (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.22) were predictive of increased palliative therapies. Older age, highest quartile median income (zip-code based), and treatment at a nonacademic facility were independently associated with decreased palliative therapies in both periods. DID analysis demonstrated that patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer living in ME states had increased receipt of palliative therapies relative to those in non-ME states (DID = 2.68, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall utilization of palliative therapies in metastatic pancreatic cancer is low. Multiple sociodemographic disparities exist in the receipt of palliative therapies. ME is associated with increased receipt of palliative therapies in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Associations of Healthcare Affordability, Availability, and Accessibility with Quality Treatment Metrics in Patients with Ovarian Cancer

BACKGROUND

Differential access to quality care is associated with racial disparities in ovarian cancer survival. Few studies have examined the association of multiple healthcare access (HCA) dimensions with racial disparities in quality treatment metrics, that is, primary debulking surgery performed by a gynecologic oncologist and initiation of guideline-recommended systemic therapy.

METHODS

We analyzed data for patients with ovarian cancer diagnosed from 2008 to 2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. We defined HCA dimensions as affordability, availability, and accessibility. Modified Poisson regressions with sandwich error estimation were used to estimate the relative risk (RR) for quality treatment.

RESULTS

The study cohort was 7% NH-Black, 6% Hispanic, and 87% NH-White. Overall, 29% of patients received surgery and 68% initiated systemic therapy. After adjusting for clinical variables, NH-Black patients were less likely to receive surgery [RR, 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.98]; the observed association was attenuated after adjusting for healthcare affordability, accessibility, and availability (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.08). Dual enrollment in Medicaid and Medicare compared with Medicare only was associated with lower likelihood of receiving surgery (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97) and systemic therapy (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.97). Receiving treatment at a facility in the highest quartile of ovarian cancer surgical volume was associated with higher likelihood of surgery (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Racial differences were observed in ovarian cancer treatment quality and were partly explained by multiple HCA dimensions.

IMPACT

Strategies to mitigate racial disparities in ovarian cancer treatment quality must focus on multiple HCA dimensions. Additional dimensions, acceptability and accommodation, may also be key to addressing disparities.

Association of lymph node yield with overall survival in patients with pathologically node negative prostate cancer

We investigated the association between lymph node yield (LNY) with overall survival (OS) and post-radical prostatectomy (RP) secondary treatments among men with pathologically node negative (pN0) prostate cancer. We reviewed the National Cancer Database for men with Gleason Grade Group 2 or higher prostate cancer treated with RP and had pathologically node-negative disease. LNY was modeled as a continuous and categorical variable grouped by quartiles of LNY. Secondary treatment was defined as the use of radiation or systemic therapy post-RP. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models were used to test for an association of LNY with OS and secondary treatments, respectively. We identified 89,416 men with pN0 prostate cancer treated with RP from 2010-2015. LNY was associated with improved OS when modeled as a categorical and continuous variable. The third (6-9 nodes) and fourth (≥10 nodes) quartiles of LNY were associated with improved OS (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.96, P = 0.006 and HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.98, P= 0.017, respectively) when compared with the lowest quartile of LNY (≤3 nodes) and the hazard of death decreased by 1% for each benign lymph node removed (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98-0.99, P= 0.022). Additionally, categorical and continuous LNY was associated with significantly less use of post-RP secondary treatments. Removal of additional negative lymph nodes was associated with improved OS and less secondary treatments in patients with pN0 prostate cancer. These data suggest that removing a higher quantity of lymph nodes provides more accurate staging and prognosis.

Collaborative Review: Factors Influencing Treatment Decisions for Patients with a Localized Solid Renal Mass

CONTEXT

With the addition of active surveillance and thermal ablation (TA) to the urologist's established repertoire of partial (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN) as first-line management options for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC), appropriate treatment decision-making has become increasingly nuanced.

OBJECTIVE

To critically review the treatment options for localized, nonrecurrent RCC; to highlight the patient, renal function, tumor, and provider factors that influence treatment decisions; and to provide a framework to conceptualize that decision-making process.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A collaborative critical review of the medical literature was conducted.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identify three key decision points when managing localized RCC: (1) decision for surveillance versus treatment, (2) decision regarding treatment modality (TA, PN, or RN), and (3) decision on surgical approach (open vs minimally invasive). In evaluating factors that influence these treatment decisions, we elaborate on patient, renal function, tumor, and provider factors that either directly or indirectly impact each decision point. As current nomograms, based on preselected patient datasets, perform poorly in prospective settings, these tools should be used with caution. Patient decision aids are an underutilized tool in decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Localized RCC requires highly nuanced treatment decision-making, balancing patient- and tumor-specific clinical variables against indirect structural influences to provide optimal patient care.

PATIENT SUMMARY

With expanding treatment options for localized kidney cancer, treatment decision is highly nuanced and requires shared decision-making. Patient decision aids may be helpful in the treatment discussion.

Relationship between treatment center case volume and survival for localized Ewing sarcoma: The role of radiotherapy timing

In the treatment of localized Ewing sarcoma (EWS), delays in local therapy are known to adversely impact overall survival (OS). However, the role of treatment center volume in EWS outcomes, and the interaction between center volume and local therapy timing with definitive radiotherapy, remains unknown. Using the National Cancer Database, we demonstrate that treatment at the lowest EWS volume centers is associated with reduced OS, explained partly by higher rates of delayed local therapy. Treatment at the highest volume centers results in improved OS, but appears independent of radiotherapy timing. Future efforts to improve care for EWS patients across treatment centers are imperative.

Risk Assessment and Considerations for Proper Management of Elderly Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Treatment decisions for elderly men with prostate cancer are complicated by the intersection of competing risks of cancer, potential complications of treatment, and individual patients' comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of data guiding the assessment of elderly prostate cancer patients that addresses the risk from cancer and treatment, and to discuss a patient-centered approach to incorporating these factors into decision making.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Evidence was gathered via a systematic review of the current literature. The search strategy used the terms prostate cancer, elderly, geriatric, >75 yr of age, risk assessment, and treatment in several combinations, and was limited to phase ≥ II clinical trials published between January 2008 and November 2018. Additional supporting literature for the discussion was pulled by hand search.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The benefits of treatment identified for systemic therapies commonly used to treat men with prostate in general extend to elderly patients. Evidence supports a multifaceted assessment of the risks of cancer and aging, and an understanding of the side effects of treatment to optimally guide therapeutic decision making for elderly patients. There is little evidence defining a geriatric risk stratification system specific to prostate cancer, and recommendations are predominantly based on adapted geriatric oncology approaches and expert consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

The care of elderly men with prostate cancer should incorporate a review of cancer risk, an assessment of aging, and an understanding of the effects of treatment to provide the patient with thorough and personalized guidance for treatment decisions. Future studies of elderly men with prostate cancer can define and validate ideal risk stratification methods as well as management approaches that may be distinct from those for younger populations.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Treatment decisions for elderly men with prostate cancer require consideration of the risk posed by the cancer coupled with an understanding of the patient's general health status.