Safety-Net Burden Hospitals and Likelihood of Curative-Intent Surgery for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Impact of Safety-Net Hospital Status on Immediate Reconstruction Following Mastectomy: A Contemporary National Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) following mastectomy has been shown to improve quality of life and partially mitigate the adverse psychological impacts associated with the procedure. The present study examined hospital-based and patient-level disparities in utilization and outcomes of IBR following mastectomy.

METHODS

All female adult hospitalizations with a diagnosis of breast cancer undergoing mastectomy were identified in the 2016 to 2020 National Inpatient Sample. Safety-net hospitals (SNH) were defined as those in the top quartile of all Medicaid or self-pay admissions. Patients who underwent mastectomy at SNH comprised the SNH cohort (others: Non-SNH). Multivariable models were developed to examine the impact of SNH status and patient factors on rates of IBR.

RESULTS

Of an estimated 127,740 hospitalizations, 28,330 (22.2%) were treated at SNH. The proportion of patients receiving IBR increased from 46.7% in 2016 to 51.7% in 2020 (nptrend<.001). Compared to others, SNH were younger (57.9 ± 13.5 vs 58.3 ± 13.5 years) and less commonly White (45.6 vs 69.9%) (all P < .001). Additionally, SNH were more likely to receive unilateral mastectomy (67.1 vs 55.2%) but less frequently underwent IBR (37.7 vs 51.5%) (all P < .001). After adjustment, Black and Asian race, SNH, and bilateral mastectomy were associated with decreased odds of IBR. Increasing IBR hospital volume did not eliminate the observed racial disparity at non-SNH or SNH.

CONCLUSION

There are disparities in rates of IBR following mastectomy attributable to SNH status. Future work is needed to ensure all patients have access to reconstructive care irrespective of payer status or the hospital at which they receive care.

Utilization of minimally invasive colectomy at safety-net hospitals in the United States

BACKGROUND

Prior literature has reported inferior surgical outcomes and reduced access to minimally invasive procedures at safety-net hospitals. However, this relationship has not yet been elucidated for elective colectomy. We sought to characterize the association between safety-net hospitals and likelihood of minimally invasive resection, perioperative outcomes, and costs.

METHODS

All adult (≥18 years) hospitalization records entailing elective colectomy were identified in the 2016-2020 National Inpatient Sample. Centers in the top quartile of safety-net burden were considered safety-net hospitals (others: non-safety-net hospitals). Multivariable regression models were developed to assess the impact of safety-net hospitals status on key outcomes.

RESULTS

Of ∼532,640 patients, 95,570 (17.9%) were treated at safety-net hospitals. The safety-net hospitals cohort was younger and more often of Black race or Hispanic ethnicity. After adjustment, care at safety-net hospitals remained independently associated with reduced odds of minimally invasive surgery (adjusted odds ratio 0.92; 95% confidence interval 0.87-0.97). The interaction between safety-net hospital status and race was significant, such that Black race remained linked with lower odds of minimally invasive surgery at safety-net hospitals (reference: White race). Additionally, safety-net hospitals was associated with greater likelihood of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.34, confidence interval 1.04-1.74) and any perioperative complication (adjusted odds ratio 1.15, confidence interval 1.08-1.22), as well as increased length of stay (β+0.26 days, confidence interval 0.17-0.35) and costs (β+$2,510, confidence interval 2,020-3,000).

CONCLUSION

Care at safety-net hospitals was linked with lower odds of minimally invasive colectomy, as well as greater complications and costs. Black patients treated at safety-net hospitals demonstrated reduced likelihood of minimally invasive surgery, relative to White patients. Further investigation is needed to elucidate the root causes of these disparities in care.

Impact of safety-net hospital burden on achievement of textbook oncologic outcomes following resection in for stage I-IV colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Textbook oncologic outcome (TOO) is a benchmark for high-quality surgical cancer care but has not been studied at safety-net hospitals (SNH). The study sought to understand how SNH burden affects TOO achievement in colorectal cancer.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for colorectal cancer patients who underwent resection for stage I-III plus stage IV with liver-only metastases (2010-2019). TOO was defined as R0 resection, AJCC-compliant lymphadenectomy (>12 nodes), no prolonged LOS, no 30-day mortality/readmission, and receipt of stage-appropriate adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Of 487,195 patients, 66.7% achieved TOO. Lower achievement was explained by adequate lymphadenectomy (87.3%), non-prolonged LOS (76.3%), and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III (60.3%) and IV (54.1%). Treatment at high burden hospitals (HBH, >10% Medicaid/uninsured) was a predictor of non-TOO (Stage I/II: OR 0.83, III: OR 0.86, IV: OR 0.83; all p < 0.001). Achieving TOO was associated with decreased mortality (Stage I/II: HR 0.49, III: HR 0.48, IV: HR 0.57; all p < 0.001), and HBH treatment was a predictor of mortality (Stage I/II: HR 1.09, III: HR 1.05, IV: HR 1.07; all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment at higher SNH burden hospitals was associated with less frequent TOO achievement and increased mortality. Quality improvement targets include receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy and avoidance of prolonged LOS.

Survival among lung cancer patients: comparison of the U.S. military health system and the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) program by health insurance status

PURPOSE

The U.S. military health system (MHS) provides beneficiaries with universal health care while health care access varies in the U.S. general population by insurance status/type. We divided the patients from the U.S. general population by insurance status/type and compared them to the MHS patients in survival.

METHODS

The MHS patients were identified from the Department of Defense's Automated Central Tumor Registry (ACTUR). Patients from the U.S. general population were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was conducted to compare different insurance status/type in SEER to ACTUR in overall survival.

RESULTS

Compared to ACTUR patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), SEER patients showed significant worse survival. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were 1.08 [95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.03-1.13], 1.22 (95% CI = 1.16-1.28), 1.40 (95% CI = 1.33-1.47), 1.50 (95% CI = 1.41-1.59), for insured, insured/no specifics, Medicaid, and uninsured patients, respectively. The pattern was consistently observed in subgroup analysis by race, gender, age, or tumor stage. Results were similar for small cell lung cancer (SCLC), although they were only borderline significant in some subgroups.

CONCLUSION

The survival advantage of patients receiving care from a universal health care system over the patients from the general population was not restricted to uninsured or Medicaid as expected, but was present cross all insurance types, including patients with private insurance. Our findings highlight the survival benefits of universal health care system to lung cancer patients.

Barriers and facilitators to surgical access in underinsured and immigrant populations

BACKGROUND

Marginalized communities are at risk of receiving inequitable access to surgical care. We aimed to examine the barriers and facilitators to access to surgery in underinsured and immigrant populations.

METHODS

A systematic review of disparities in access to surgical care was performed between January 1, 2000-March 2, 2022. Methodological quality was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A convergent integrated approach was used to code common themes between studies.

RESULTS

Of 1315 publications, a total of 66 studies were included for systematic review. Eight studies specifically discussed immigrant patient populations. Barriers and facilitators to surgical access were categorized by patient and health systems related factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Established facilitators to improve surgical access are centered on patient-level factors while interventions to address systems-related barriers are limited and may be an area for further investigation. Research focused on access to surgery in immigrant populations remains sparse.

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.

Mitigating disparities in breast cancer treatment at an academic safety-net hospital

PURPOSE

Among women with non-metastatic breast cancer, marked disparities in stage at presentation, receipt of guideline-concordant treatment and stage-specific survival have been shown in national cohorts based on race, ethnicity, insurance and language. Little is published on the performance of safety-net hospitals to achieve equitable care. We evaluate differences in treatment and survival by race, ethnicity, language and insurance status among women with non-metastatic invasive breast cancer at a single, urban academic safety-net hospital.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of patients with invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer, diagnosed and treated between 2009 and 2014 at an urban, academic safety-net hospital. Demographic, tumor and treatment characteristics were obtained. Stage at presentation, stage-specific overall survival, and receipt of guideline-concordant surgical and adjuvant therapies were analyzed. Chi-square analysis and ANOVA were used for statistical analysis. Unadjusted survival analysis was conducted by Kaplan-Meier method using log-rank test; adjusted 5 year survival analysis was completed stratified by early and late stage, using flexible parametric survival models incorporating age, race, primary language and insurance status.

RESULTS

520 women with stage 1-3 invasive breast cancer were identified. Median age was 58.5 years, 56.1% were non-white, 31.7% were non-English-speaking, 16.4% were Hispanic, and 50.1% were Medicaid/uninsured patients. There were no statistically significant differences in stage at presentation between age group, race, ethnicity, language or insurance. The rate of breast conserving surgery (BCS) among stage 1-2 patients did not vary by race, insurance or language. Among patients indicated for adjuvant therapies, the rates of recommendation and completion of therapy did not vary by race, ethnicity, insurance or language. Unadjusted survival at 5 years was 93.7% for stage 1-2 and 73.5% for stage 3. Adjusting for age, race, insurance status and primary language, overall survival at 5 years was 93.8% (95% CI 86.3-97.2%) for stage 1-2 and 83.4% (95% CI 35.5-96.9%) for stage 3 disease. Independently, for patients with early- and late-stage disease, age, race, language and insurance were not associated with survival at 5-years.

CONCLUSION

Among patients diagnosed and treated at an academic safety-net hospital, there were no differences in the stage at presentation or receipt of guideline-concordant treatment by race, ethnicity, insurance or language. Overall survival did not vary by race, insurance or language. Additional research is needed to assess how hospitals and healthcare systems mitigate breast cancer disparities.

Frailty Index is Associated with Treatment Decisions for Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer at a High-Burden Safety-Net Hospital

BACKGROUND

Lobectomy remains the cornerstone of care for stage I NSCLC while sublobar resection and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are reserved for patients with smaller tumors and/or poor operative risk. Herein, we investigate the effect of patient frailty on treatment modality for stage I NSCLC at a safety-net hospital.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of stage I NSCLC patients between 2006 and 2015. Demographics, patient characteristics, and treatment rates were compared to a National Cancer Database cohort of stage 1 NSCLC patients. Patient frailty was assessed using the MSK-FI.

RESULTS

In our cohort of 304 patients, significantly fewer patient were treated via lobectomy compared to national rates (P < .001). Advanced age (P = .02), lower FEV1 (P < .001) and DLCO (P < .001), not socioeconomic factors, were associated with higher utilization of non-lobectomy (sublobar resection or SBRT). Patients with lower MSK-FI were more likely to receive any surgical treatment (P = .01) and lobectomy (P = .03). Lower MSK-FI was an independent predictor for use of lobectomy over other modalities (OR 0.75, P = .04). MSK-FI (OR 0.64, P = .02), and FEV1 (OR 1.03, P < .001) were independently associated with use of SBRT over any surgery.

CONCLUSION

Our safety-net hospital performed fewer lobectomies and lung resections compared to national rates. Patient frailty and clinical factors were associated with use of SBRT or sublobar resection suggesting that the increased illness burden of a safety-net population may drive the lower use of lobectomy. The MSK-FI may help physicians stratify patient risk to guide stage I NSCLC management.

Access to definitive treatment and survival for intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer at hospital systems serving health disparity populations

INTRODUCTION

Although socioeconomic and racial disparities in prostate cancer (CaP) have been attributed to patient-level and physician-level factors, there is growing interest in investigating the role of the facility of care in driving cancer disparities. We sought to examine the receipt of guideline-concordant definitive treatment, time to treatment initiation (TTI), and overall survival (OS) for men with CaP receiving care at hospital systems serving health disparity populations (HSDPs).

METHODS

We retrospective analyzed the National Cancer Database (2004-2016). We identified men with intermediate-risk or high-risk CaP eligible for definitive treatment. The primary outcomes were receipt of definitive treatment and TTI within 90 days of diagnosis. The secondary outcome was OS. We defined HSDPs as minority-serving hospitals-facilities in the highest decile of proportion of non-Hispanic Black (NHB) or Hispanic cancer patients-and/or high-burden safety-net hospitals-facilities in the highest quartile of proportion of underinsured patients. We used mixed-effect models with facility-level random intercept to compare outcomes between HSDPs and non-HSDPs among the entire cohort and among men who received definitive treatment.

RESULTS

We included 968 non-HSDPs (72.2%) and 373 HSDPs (27.8%) facilities. Treatment at HSDPs was associated with lower adjusted odds of receipt of definitive treatment (aOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.57-0.71; P < 0.001), lower odds of TTI within 90 days of diagnosis (aOR 0.74; 95% CI 0.68-0.79; P < 0.001), and worse OS (aHR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02-1.09; P = .003) when accounting for covariates. However, no difference was found in OS if patients received definitive treatment (aHR 1.03; 95% CI 0.99-1.07; P = 0.1). NHB men at HSDPs had worse outcomes than NHB men treated at non-HSDPs as well as NHW men treated at HSDPs.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated at HSDPs were less likely to receive timely definitive treatment and had worse OS, independent of their race. NHB men have worse outcomes than NHW at HSDPs. Thus, NHB men with CaP are doubly disadvantaged since they are more likely to be treated at hospitals with worse outcomes and have worse outcomes than other patients at those same institutions.

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.

Offering lung resection to current smokers: An opportunity for more equitable care

OBJECTIVE

Minority patients with lung cancer are less likely to undergo surgical resection and experience worse survival than non-Hispanic White patients. Currently, 40% of thoracic surgeons require smoking cessation before surgery, which may disproportionately affect minority patients. Our objective was to assess the risk of smoking status on postoperative morbidity and mortality among patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained institutional database was queried for all patients who underwent surgical resection of a primary lung malignancy between 2006 and 2020. Operative mortality, major morbidity, and a composite of morbidity and mortality were compared between current smokers and prior smokers.

RESULTS

A total of 601 patients underwent resection, and 236 (39.3%) were current smokers. Current smokers were more likely to be younger (P < .01), to have a greater pack-years history (P = .03), and to have worse pulmonary function test results (P < .01). Pretreatment stage, surgical approach, and extent of resection were similar between groups. There was no difference in operative mortality (0.9% vs 1.9%, P = .49), major morbidity (12.7% vs 9.3%, P = .19), or composite major morbidity and mortality between groups (13.1% vs 9.3%, P = .14). After adjusting for pulmonary function status, current smoking status was not associated with mortality or major morbidity on multivariable logistic regression (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-3.03, P = .24).

CONCLUSIONS

Current smokers experienced similar rates of mortality and major morbidity as prior smokers. In the context of continued racial and ethnic disparities in lung cancer survival, in particular decreased resection rates among minorities, smoking cessation requirements should not delay or prevent operative intervention for lung cancer.

Institutional-Level Differences in Quality and Outcomes of Lung Cancer Resections in the United States

BACKGROUND

Institutional-level disparities in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) survival may be driven by reversible differences in care-delivery processes. We quantified the impact of differences in readily identifiable quality metrics on long-term survival disparities in resected NSCLC.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How do reversible differences in oncologic quality of care contribute to institutional-level disparities in early-stage NSCLC survival?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients in the National Cancer Data Base who underwent NSCLC resection from 2004 through 2015 within institutions categorized as Community, Comprehensive Community, Integrated Network, Academic, and National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Cancer Programs. We estimated percentages and adjusted ORs for six potentially avoidable poor-quality markers: incomplete resection, nonexamination of lymph nodes, nonanatomic resection, non-evidence-based use of adjuvant chemotherapy, non-evidence-based use of adjuvant radiation therapy, and 60-day postoperative mortality. By sequentially eliminating patients with poor-quality markers and calculating adjusted hazard ratios, we quantified their overall survival impact.

RESULTS

Of 169,775 patients, 7%, 46%, 10%, 24%, and 12% underwent surgery at Community, Comprehensive Community, Integrated Network, Academic, and NCI-Designated Cancer Programs, with 5-year overall survival rates of 52%, 56%, 58%, 60% and 66%, respectively. After the sequential elimination process, using NCI-Designated Cancer Centers as a reference, the adjusted hazard ratio for 5-year overall survival changed from 1.47 (95% CI, 1.41-1.53), 1.29 (95% CI, 1.25-1.33), 1.18 (95% CI, 1.14-1.23), and 1.20 (95% CI, 1.16-1.24) for Community, Comprehensive Community, Integrated Networks, and Academic Cancer Programs to 1.35 (95% CI, 1.28-1.42), 1.22 (95% CI, 1.17-1.26), 1.16 (95% CI, 1.11-1.22), and 1.17 (95% CI, 1.12-1.21), respectively (P < .001 for all comparisons with NCI-designated programs). Differences in quality of surgical resection and postoperative care accounted for 11% to 26% of the interinstitutional survival disparities.

INTERPRETATION

Targeting six readily identified poor-quality markers narrowed, but did not eliminate, institutional survival disparities. The greatest impact was in community programs. Residual factors driving persistent institution-level long-term NSCLC survival disparities must be characterized to eliminate them.

Overcoming disparities: Multidisciplinary breast cancer care at a public safety net hospital

PURPOSE

Public safety net hospitals (SNH) serve a disparate patient population; however, little is known about long-term oncologic outcomes of patients receiving care at these facilities. This study is the first to examine overall survival (OS) and the initiation of treatment in breast cancer patients treated at a SNH.

METHODS

Patients presenting to a SNH with stage I-IV breast cancer from 2005 to 2017 were identified from the local tumor registry. The hospital has a weekly breast tumor board and a multidisciplinary approach to breast cancer care. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to identify patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics associated with OS. Factors with a p < 0.1 were included in the Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

2709 breast cancer patients were evaluated from 2005 to 2017. The patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatments received were analyzed. Five-year OS was 78.4% (93.9%, 87.4%, 70.9%, and 23.5% for stages I, II, III, and IV, respectively). On multivariable analysis, higher stage, age > 70 years, higher grade, and non-Hispanic ethnicity were associated with worse OS. Patients receiving surgery (HR = 0.33, p < 0.0001), chemotherapy (HR = 0.71, p = 0.006), and endocrine therapy (HR = 0.61, p < 0.0001) had better OS compared to those who did not receive these treatments.

CONCLUSION

Despite serving a vulnerable minority population that is largely poor, uninsured, and presenting with more advanced disease, OS at our SNH approaches national averages. This novel finding indicates that in the setting of multidisciplinary cancer care and with appropriate initiation of treatment, SNHs can overcome socioeconomic barriers to achieve equitable outcomes in breast cancer care.

County-Level Variations in Receipt of Surgery for Early-Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the United States

BACKGROUND

Although counties are the smallest geographic level for comprehensive health-care delivery analysis, little is known about county-level variations in receipt of curative-intent surgery for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and factors contributing to such variations in the United States.

METHODS

A total of 179,189 patients aged ≥ 35 years who were diagnosed with stage I to II NSCLC between 2007 and 2014 in 2,263 counties were identified from 39 states, the District of Columbia, and Detroit population-based cancer registries; the data were compiled by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. The percentage of patients who underwent surgery was calculated for each county with ≥ 20 cases. Adjusted risk ratios were generated by using generalized estimating equation models with modified Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Receipt of surgery for early-stage NSCLC during 2007 to 2014 according to county ranged from 12.8% to 48.6% in the lowest decile of counties, to 74.3% to 91.7% in the highest decile of counties. There were pockets of low surgery receipt rate counties within each state. For example, there was a 25% absolute difference between the lowest and highest surgery receipt rate counties in Massachusetts. Counties in the lowest quartile for receipt of surgery were those with a high proportion of non-Hispanic black subjects, high poverty and uninsured rates, low surgeon-to-population ratio, and nonmetropolitan status.

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of curative-intent surgery for early-stage NSCLC varied substantially across counties in the United States, with pockets of low receipt counties in each state. Low surgery receipt counties were characterized by unfavorable area-level socioeconomic and health-care delivery factors.

Persistence of racial disparities in early-stage lung cancer treatment

OBJECTIVE

Although the incidence of lung cancer has decreased over the past decades, disparities in survival and treatment modalities have been observed for black and white patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer, despite the fact that surgical resection has been established as the standard of care. Possible contributors to these disparities are stage at diagnosis, comorbidities, socioeconomic factors, and patient preference. This study examines racial disparities in treatment, adjusting for clinicodemographic factors.

METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare dataset was queried to identify patients diagnosed with primary stage I non-small cell lung cancer between 1992 and 2009. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to assess the association between race and treatment modalities within 1 year of diagnosis, adjusted for clinical and demographic factors. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were performed to evaluate disparities in survival, accounting for mode of treatment.

RESULTS

We identified 22,724 patients; 21,230 (93.4%) white and 1494 (6.6%) black. Black patients were less likely to receive treatment (odds ratio [OR]_adj, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.73) and less likely to receive surgery only when treated (OR_adj, 0.70, 95% CI, 0.61-0.79). Although univariate survival for black patients was worse, when accounting for treatment mode, there was no difference in survival (hazard ratio_adj, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.04 for all patients, hazard ratio_adj, 0.98; 95% CI: 0.90-1.06 for treated patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment disparities persist, even when adjusting for clinical and demographic factors. However, when black patients receive similar treatment, survival is comparable with white patients.

Lung Cancer Screening in the Community Setting: Challenges for Adoption

Secondary prevention of lung cancer by screening a high-risk population with low-dose CT (LDCT) of the chest has been shown to save lives. Our Institution offered a free screening program in 2013. The program was promoted through flyers, radio programs, face-to-face information sessions, and a multidisciplinary lung symposium. A lung navigator confirmed the eligibility of patients according to National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) criteria. Data were, prospectively, collected over a 12-month period using Lung-RADs (Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System). After one year, an online survey was sent out to all primary care and referring physicians in the network. One hundred and sixty-nine patients were found to be eligible for screening. Sixty-five per cent were black, 44 per cent white, 9 per cent Hispanic, and 6 per cent were Asian. Sixty per cent patients were referred by their physician. Thirty-one were Lung-RADs 1 (18.3%), 116 were Lung-RADs 2 (68.6%), 16 were Lung-RADs 3 (9.5%), and six were Lung-RADs 4 (3.6%). At the end of the study period, the survey showed that 100 per cent of the providers were aware of the screening program but 15 per cent never referred a patient. Time constraints and requirement for precertification were cited as potential barriers to referral. Twenty-six per cent of providers were unaware that LDCT was recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on par with colonoscopy and mammography. The NLST showed that screening with LDCT could reduce lung cancer mortality by 20 per cent. Significant concerns exist about the generalizability of these results and the applicability of screening programs in the community.

Survival among Lung Cancer Patients in the U.S. Military Health System: A Comparison with the SEER Population

Background: The U.S. military health system (MHS) provides universal health care access to its beneficiaries. However, whether the universal access has translated into improved patient outcome is unknown. This study compared survival of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in the MHS with that in the U.S. general population.Methods: The MHS data were obtained from The Department of Defense's (DoD) Automated Central Tumor Registry (ACTUR), and the U.S. population data were drawn from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. The study subjects were NSCLC patients diagnosed between January 1, 1987, and December 31, 2012, in ACTUR and a sample of SEER patients who were matched to the ACTUR patients on age group, sex, race, and year of diagnosis group with a matching ratio of 1:4. Patients were followed through December 31, 2013.Results: A total of 16,257 NSCLC patients were identified from ACTUR and 65,028 matched patients from SEER. Compared with SEER patients, ACTUR patients had significantly better overall survival (log-rank P < 0.001). The better overall survival among the ACTUR patients remained after adjustment for potential confounders (HR = 0.78, 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.81). The survival advantage of the ACTUR patients was present regardless of cancer stage, grade, age group, sex, or race.Conclusions: The MHS's universal care and lung cancer care programs may have translated into improved survival among NSCLC patients.Impact: This study supports improved survival outcome among NSCLC patients with universal care access. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(6); 673-9. ©2018 AACR.

Variations in Receipt of Curative-Intent Surgery for Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) by State

BACKGROUND

Previous studies reported racial and socioeconomic disparities in receipt of curative-intent surgery for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the United States. We examined variation in receipt of surgery and whether the racial disparity varies by state.

METHODS

Patients in whom stage I or II NSCLC was diagnosed from 2007 to 2011 were identified from 38 state and the District of Columbia population-based cancer registries compiled by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Percentage of patients receiving curative-intent surgery was calculated for each registry. Adjusted risk ratios were generated by using modified Poisson regression to control for sociodemographic (e.g., age, sex, race, insurance) and clinical (e.g., grade, stage) factors. Non-Hispanic (NH) whites and Massachusetts were used as references for comparisons because they had the lowest uninsured rates.

RESULTS

In all registries combined, 66.4% of patients with early-stage NSCLC (73,475 of 110,711) received curative-intent surgery. Receipt of curative-intent surgery for early-stage NSCLC varied substantially by state, ranging from 52.2% to 56.1% in Wyoming, Louisiana, and New Mexico to 75.2% to 77.2% in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Utah. In a multivariable analysis, the likelihood of receiving curative-intent surgery was significantly lower in all but nine states/registries compared with Massachusetts, ranging from 7% lower in California to 25% lower in Wyoming. Receipt of curative-intent surgery for early-stage NSCLC was lower for NH blacks than for NH whites in every state, although statistically significant in Florida and Texas.

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of curative-intent surgery for early-stage NSCLC varies substantially across states in the United States, with northeastern states generally showing the highest rates. Further, receipt of treatment appeared to be lower in NH blacks than in NH whites in every state, although statistically significant in Florida and Texas.

Improving lung cancer outcomes by improving the quality of surgical care

Surgical resection remains the most important curative treatment modality for non-small cell lung cancer, but variations in short- and long-term surgical outcomes jeopardize the benefit of surgery for certain patients, operated on by certain types of surgeons, at certain types of institutions. We discuss current understanding of surgical quality measures, and their role in promoting understanding of the causes of outcome disparities after lung cancer surgery. We also discuss the use of minimally invasive surgical resection approaches to expand the playing field for surgery in lung cancer care, and end with a discussion of the future role of surgery in a world of alternative treatment possibilities.

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for primary care providers

This review provides an update on lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and its implications for primary care providers. One of the unique features of lung cancer screening is the potential complexity in patient management if an LDCT scan reveals a small pulmonary nodule. Additional tests, consultation with multiple specialists, and follow-up evaluations may be needed to evaluate whether lung cancer is present. Primary care providers should know the resources available in their communities for lung cancer screening with LDCT and smoking cessation, and the key points to be addressed in informed and shared decision-making discussions with patients.

Racial disparities in surgical resection and survival among elderly patients with poor prognosis cancer

BACKGROUND

Reports indicate that black patients have lower survival after the diagnosis of a poor prognosis cancer, compared with white patients. We explored the extent to which this disparity is attributable to the underuse of surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program and Medicare database, we identified 57,364 patients, ages 65 years and older, with a new diagnosis of nonmetastatic liver, lung, pancreatic, and esophageal cancer, from 2000 to 2005. We evaluated racial differences in resection rates after adjustment for patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics using hierarchical logistic regression. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess racial differences in survival after adjusting for patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics, and receipt of surgery.

RESULTS

Compared with white patients, black patients were less likely to undergo surgery for liver (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29-0.83), lung (aOR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69), pancreas (aOR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41-0.70), and esophagus cancers (aOR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.99). Hospitals varied in their surgery rates among patients with potentially resectable disease. However, resection rates were consistently lower for black patients, regardless of the resection rate of the treating hospital. Although there were no racial differences in overall survival with liver and esophageal cancer, black patients experienced poorer survival for lung (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.10) and pancreas cancer (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.30). In both instances, there were no residual racial disparities in overall survival after adjusting for use of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Black patients are less likely to undergo surgery after diagnosis of a poor prognosis cancer. Our findings suggest that surgery is an important predictor of overall mortality, and that efforts to reduce racial disparities will require stakeholders to gain a better understanding of why elderly black patients are less likely to get to the operating room.