Adherence of Primary Care Physicians to Evidence-Based Recommendations to Reduce Ovarian Cancer Mortality

Primary treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: how does the 'real world' practice?

Aims: This study evaluated primary treatment modalities in advanced ovarian cancer according to sociodemographic characteristics and characterized chemotherapy regimens used. Methods: This was a retrospective study of newly diagnosed advanced ovarian, tubal or peritoneal cancer patients at two hospitals from 2011 to 2016. Results: Of 175 women, 41% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 59% received primary cytoreductive surgery. Within the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group, 23% did not have a surgical consultation prior to initiating treatment. Women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy lived closer to an academic center and more frequently received carboplatin/paclitaxel every 3 weeks. Cytoreductive surgery patients more frequently received intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Conclusion: The authors identified disparities in age, insurance, distance from treatment center and chemotherapy choice in the primary treatment for ovarian cancer.

Tracing the potential of networks to improve community cancer care: an in-depth single case study

Background

Despite overall declines in cancer mortality in the USA over the past three decades, many patients in community settings fail to receive evidence-based cancer care. Networks that link academic medical centers (AMCs) and community providers may reduce disparities by creating access to specialized expertise and care, but research on network effectiveness is mixed. The objective of this study was to identify factors related to whether and how an exemplar AMC network served to provide advice and referral access in community settings.

Methods

An embedded in–depth single case study design was employed to study a network in the Midwest USA that connects a leading cancer specialty AMC with community practices. The embedded case units were a subset of 20 patients with young-onset colorectal cancer or risk-related conditions and the providers involved in their care. The electronic health record (EHR) was reviewed from January 1, 1990, to February 28, 2018. Social network analysis identified care, advice, and referral relationships. Within-case process tracing provided detailed accounts of whether and how the network provided access to expert, evidence-based care or advice in order to identify factors related to network effectiveness.

Results

The network created access to evidence-based advice or care in some but not all case units, and there was variability in whether and how community providers engaged the network, including the path for referrals to the AMC and the way in which advice about an evidence-based approach to care was communicated from AMC specialists to community providers. Factors related to instances when the network functioned as intended included opportunities for both rich and lean communication between community providers and specialists, coordinated referrals, and efficient and adequately utilized documentation systems.

Conclusions

Network existence alone is insufficient to open up access to evidence-based expertise or care for patients in community settings. In-depth understanding of how this network operated provides insight into factors that support or inhibit the potential of networks to minimize disparities in access to evidence-based community cancer care, including both personal and organizational factors.

Potential Strategies to Increase Gynecologic Oncologist Treatment for Ovarian Cancer

Evidence shows that treatment by gynecologic oncologists (GOs) increases overall survival among women with ovarian cancer. However, specific strategies for institutions and community-based public health programs to promote treatment by GOs are lacking. To address this, we conducted a literature review to identify evidence-based and promising system- and environmental-change strategies for increasing treatment by GOs, in effort to ensure that all women with ovarian cancer receive the standard of care. We searched for English-language literature published from 2008 to 2018. We used PubMed, PubMed Central, OVID, and EBSCO for peer-reviewed literature and Google and Google Scholar for gray literature related to increasing receipt of care by GOs among ovarian cancer patients. Numerous suggested and proposed strategies that have potential to increase treatment by GOs were discussed in several articles. We grouped these approaches into five strategic categories: increasing knowledge/awareness of role and importance of GOs, improving models of care, improving payment structures, improving/increasing insurance coverage for GO care, and expanding or enhancing the GO workforce. We identified several strategies with the potential for increasing GO care among ovarian cancer patients, although currently there is little evidence regarding their effectiveness across US populations. Public health programs and entities that measure delivery of quality health care may pilot the strategies in their populations. Certain strategies may work better in certain environments and a combination of strategies may be necessary for any one entity to increase GO ovarian cancer care. Findings, lessons learned, and recommendations from implementation projects would inform community and public health practice.

Rural disparities in surgical care from gynecologic oncologists among Midwestern ovarian cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Up to one-third of women with ovarian cancer in the United States do not receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist specialist despite guideline recommendations. We aim to investigate the impact of rurality on receiving surgical care from a specialist, referral to a specialist, and specialist surgery after referral, and the consequences of specialist care.

METHODS

We utilized a retrospective cohort created through an extension of standard cancer surveillance in three Midwestern states. Multivariable adjusted logistic regression was utilized to assess gynecologic oncologist treatment of women 18-89 years old, who were diagnosed with primary, histologically confirmed, malignant ovarian cancer in 2010-2012 in Kansas, Missouri and Iowa by rurality.

RESULTS

Rural women were significantly less likely to receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist specialist (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.58) and referral to a specialist (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.59) compared to urban women. There was no significant difference in specialist surgery after a referral (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.26-1.20). Rural women treated surgically by a gynecologic oncologist versus non-specialist were more likely to receive cytoreduction and more complete tumor removal to ≤1 cm.

CONCLUSION

There is a large rural-urban difference in receipt of ovarian cancer surgery from a gynecologic oncologist specialist (versus a non-specialist). Disparities in referral rates contribute to the rural-urban difference. Further research will help define the causes of referral disparities, as well as promising strategies to address them.

Patient and Provider Perspectives on Barriers to Accessing Gynecologic Oncologists for Ovarian Cancer Surgical Care

Objective:

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend that patients with ovarian cancer receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist. However, 15%–30% of patients with ovarian cancer do not receive surgical care from this specialist. The reasons for this remain unknown. We aim at assessing the barriers and attitudes perceived by patients with ovarian cancer who did not receive their primary surgery from a gynecologic oncologist and by diagnosing providers in an exploratory qualitative study.

Materials and Methods:

Patients and providers were sampled through the Iowa Cancer Registry. Participants were interviewed by telephone about barriers that patients face receiving surgical care from a specialist. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was completed by two team members.

Findings:

Providers (n = 10, 13% participation rate) identified many system-level barriers, including poor provider-to-provider communication, long time-to-surgery wait times, and a limited number of gynecologic oncologists working in their referral range. Patients (n = 16, 38% participation rate) denied system-level barriers; however, no patients reported receiving a referral to a gynecologic oncologist. This, in and of itself, constitutes a system-level barrier. Providers identified many barriers that their patients face, whereas patients failed to identify these barriers and denied facing them. Patients described the shock that they experienced after diagnosis and its limitations on their decision-making process. Both providers and patients agreed that the providers were influential in determining care decisions.

Discussion:

There is a divergence in the perceptions of barriers to care between providers and patients. Open discussions are needed about options and clinical guidelines for surgical ovarian cancer care. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate mechanisms to improve provider-to-patient discussions about surgical recommendations.

Disparities in ovarian cancer survival in the United States (2001-2009): Findings from the CONCORD-2 study

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States. This study reports ovarian cancer survival by state, race, and stage at diagnosis using data from the CONCORD-2 study, the largest and most geographically comprehensive, population-based survival study to date.

METHODS

Data from women diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 2001 and 2009 from 37 states, covering 80% of the US population, were used in all analyses. Survival was estimated up to 5 years and was age standardized and adjusted for background mortality (net survival) using state-specific and race-specific life tables.

RESULTS

Among the 172,849 ovarian cancers diagnosed between 2001 and 2009, more than one-half were diagnosed at distant stage. Five-year net survival was 39.6% between 2001 and 2003 and 41% between 2004 and 2009. Black women had consistently worse survival compared with white women (29.6% from 2001-2003 and 31.1% from 2004-2009), despite similar stage distributions. Stage-specific survival for all races combined between 2004 and 2009 was 86.4% for localized stage, 60.9% for regional stage, and 27.4% for distant stage.

CONCLUSIONS

The current data demonstrate a large and persistent disparity in ovarian cancer survival among black women compared with white women in most states. Clinical and public health efforts that ensure all women who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer receive appropriate, guidelines-based treatment may help to decrease these disparities. Future research that focuses on the development of new methods or modalities to detect ovarian cancer at early stages, when survival is relatively high, will likely improve overall US ovarian cancer survival. Cancer 2017;123:5138-59. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.