Treatment and Survival of Medicare Beneficiaries with Colorectal Cancer: A Comparative Analysis Between a Rural State Cancer Registry and National Data

The growing trend for no primary surgery in colorectal cancer

AIM

In colorectal cancer (CRC), surgery of the primary site is commonly curative. Our aim was to determine estimates of 'no surgery' for primary CRC while identifying common reasons for no surgery.

METHOD

We identified all patients with a diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma from the National Cancer Database between January 2004 and December 2016. Then, we identified patients who did not undergo surgery on the primary tumour and their demographic, tumour and institutional characteristics. Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate specific factors associated with overall survival as related to no surgery and recommendations against operative management.

RESULTS

A total of 1,208,878 patients with CRC were identified, 14.5% of whom had no surgery of the primary cancer. No surgery was more common in rectal cancer than in colon cancer. Despite a steady incidence of CRC diagnoses, the likelihood of no surgery grew by 170% over the study period. Metastatic disease was noted in 53.7% of the no surgery cohort. Nine per cent of the no surgery patient cohort received a recommendation against surgery despite the absence of metastatic disease, 7.5% refused surgery and only 2% underwent palliative surgery. On multivariable analysis, patients who were not recommended to have surgery were more likely to be older, uninsured, comorbid and receive care at a single hospital. The no surgery patients had significantly lower overall survival.

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of patients with CRC do not have surgery. Interventions aimed at expanding access and promoting second opinions at other cancer hospitals might reduce the growing rate of no surgery in CRC.

Racial/ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer treatment utilization and phase-specific costs, 2000-2014

BACKGROUND

Our study analyzed disparities in utilization and phase-specific costs of care among older colorectal cancer patients in the United States. We also estimated the phase-specific costs by cancer type, stage at diagnosis, and treatment modality.

METHODS

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database to identify patients aged 66 or older diagnosed with colon or rectal cancer between 2000-2013, with follow-up to death or December 31, 2014. We divided the patient's experience into separate phases of care: staging or surgery, initial, continuing, and terminal. We calculated total, cancer-attributable, and patient-liability costs. We fit logistic regression models to determine predictors of treatment receipt and fit linear regression models to determine relative costs. All costs are reported in 2019 US dollars.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 90,023 colon cancer patients and 25,581 rectal cancer patients. After controlling for patient and clinical characteristics, Non-Hispanic Blacks were less likely to receive treatment but were more likely to have higher cancer-attributable costs within different phases of care. Overall, in both the colon and rectal cancer cohorts, mean monthly cost estimates were highest in the terminal phase, next highest in the staging phase, decreased in the initial phase, and were lowest in the continuing phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Racial/ethnic disparities in treatment utilization and costs persist among colorectal cancer patients. Additionally, colorectal cancer costs are substantial and vary widely among stages and treatment modalities. This study provides information regarding cost and treatment disparities that can be used to guide clinical interventions and future resource allocation to reduce colorectal cancer burden.

Post-treatment surveillance testing of patients with colorectal cancer and the association with survival: protocol for a retrospective cohort study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database

INTRODUCTION

Although the colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality rate has significantly improved over the past several decades, many patients will have a recurrence following curative treatment. Despite this high risk of recurrence, adherence to CRC surveillance testing guidelines is poor which increases cancer-related morbidity and potentially, mortality. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with varying surveillance strategies have yielded conflicting evidence regarding the survival benefit associated with surveillance testing. However, due to differences in study protocols and limitations of sample size and length of follow-up, the RCT may not be the best study design to evaluate this relationship. An observational comparative effectiveness research study can overcome the sample size/follow-up limitations of RCT designs while assessing real-world variability in receipt of surveillance testing to provide much needed evidence on this important clinical issue. The gap in knowledge that this study will address concerns whether adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network CRC surveillance guidelines improves survival.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Patients with colon and rectal cancer aged 66-84 years, who have been diagnosed between 2002 and 2008 and have been included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, are eligible for this retrospective cohort study. To minimise bias, patients had to survive at least 12 months following the completion of treatment. Adherence to surveillance testing up to 5 years post-treatment will be assessed in each year of follow-up and overall. Binomial regression will be used to assess the association between patients' characteristics and adherence. Survival analysis will be conducted to assess the association between adherence and 5-year survival.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the National Cancer Institute and the Institutional Review Board of the University of Central Florida. The results of this study will be disseminated by publishing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, presentation at national/international scientific conferences and posting through social media.