A Risk-Adjusted Model for Ovarian Cancer Care and Disparities in Access to High-Performing Hospitals

Short-term survival analysis of a risk-adjusted model for ovarian cancer care

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the impact on short-term ovarian cancer survival associated with treatment at high-performing hospitals using the observed-to-expected ratio (O/E) for adherence to ovarian cancer treatment guidelines as a risk-adjusted measure of hospital quality care.

METHODS

This was a retrospective population-based study of stage I-IV invasive epithelial ovarian cancer reported to California Cancer Registry 1996-2017. A fit logistic regression model, risk-adjusted for patient and disease characteristics, was used to calculate O/E for each hospital stratified by hospital annual case volume. Cox proportional hazards model was used for survival analyses at 3, 6, 12, 24 months and stratified according to sociodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS

The study population included 35,725 subjects treated at 443 hospitals: Low-O/E - 26.4% of cases; Intermediate-O/E - 55.5% of cases; and High-O/E - 18.1% of cases. Overall median survival by hospital category was: High-O/E = 72.5 months (95% CI = 68.6-78.6 months), Intermediate-O/E = 68.6 months (95% CI = 65.9-71.6 months), Low-O/E = 47.0 months (95% CI = 44.2-49.2 months). Initial treatment at a High-O/E hospital (HR = 1.00) was a statistically significant and independent predictor of improved short-term survival compared to Low-O/E hospitals at 3 months (HR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.29-1.65), 6 months (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.22-1.50), 12 months (HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.17-1.38), and 24 months (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.11-1.27). Significant and independent associations between improved sort-term survival and High/O/E care were observed for Whites, Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders (A/PI), across SES strata, and among all payer categories.

CONCLUSION

Ovarian cancer care at a High-O/E hospital is an independent predictor of improved outcome and the survival advantage is disproportionately weighted toward the short-term time horizon following diagnosis.

Role of neighborhood context in ovarian cancer survival disparities: current research and future directions

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer-associated mortality among US women with survival disparities seen across race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, even after accounting for histology, stage, treatment, and other clinical factors. Neighborhood context can play an important role in ovarian cancer survival, and, to the extent to which minority racial and ethnic groups and populations of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be segregated into neighborhoods with lower quality social, built, and physical environment, these contextual factors may be a critical component of ovarian cancer survival disparities. Understanding factors associated with ovarian cancer outcome disparities will allow clinicians to identify patients at risk for worse outcomes and point to measures, such as social support programs or transportation aid, that can help to ameliorate such disparities. However, research on the impact of neighborhood contextual factors in ovarian cancer survival and in disparities in ovarian cancer survival is limited. This commentary focuses on the following neighborhood contextual domains: structural and institutional context, social context, physical context represented by environmental exposures, built environment, rurality, and healthcare access. The research conducted to date is presented and clinical implications and recommendations for future interventions and studies to address disparities in ovarian cancer outcomes are proposed.

Barriers of Care to Ovarian Cancer: A Scoping Review

Ovarian cancer is a leading cause of female cancer-related deaths, but patients continue to be diagnosed late. This subjects them to disease progression and possible death due to lack of early detection, despite earlier stage detection improving survival rates by significant percentages. Early detection and access to care are closely related. However, many barriers to high-quality care exist for patients and the majority of patients do not receive recommended care according to ovarian cancer treatment guidelines. In order to improve care for ovarian cancer patients and decrease healthcare disparities in accessing equitable care, it is important to acknowledge the current gaps in patient knowledge, healthcare availability, and physician practice. This scoping review explores the available evidence on ovarian cancer to identify these barriers to care in the effective treatment of ovarian cancer. Using both inclusion and exclusion criteria, results from the initial literature search were screened by the authors. After quality assessment and screening for relevance, 10 articles were included in the final review. The following themes emerged as barriers to care: hospital and physician-patient volumes, geographic distance from care facilities, patient and physician education, and demographic factors. Many patients were found to not receive guideline adherent care due to various barriers to care, whereas guideline adherent care was independently associated with factors such as patient proximity to a high-volume hospital, White race, and higher socioeconomic status. Several areas were identified as potential for increased patient and physician education, including treatment complications and patient resources. The evidence found that certain socioeconomic groups and racial minorities are often at higher risk for guideline non-adherent care. Additionally, the evidence showed a further need for physicians and healthcare providers to be provided with resources for post-cancer treatment, follow-up, and patient education. The findings of this review will provide health experts and patients with better insight into what barriers may exist so that guideline-adherent care can be better advocated for and met.

Healthcare Access Domains Mediate Racial Disparities in Ovarian Cancer Treatment Quality in a US Patient Cohort: A Structural Equation Modelling Analysis

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer survival disparities have persisted for decades, driven by lack of access to quality treatment. We conducted structural equation modeling (SEM) to define latent variables representing three healthcare access (HCA) domains: affordability, availability, and accessibility, and evaluated the direct and indirect associations between race and ovarian cancer treatment mediated through the HCA domains.

METHODS

Patients with ovarian cancer ages 65 years or older diagnosed between 2008 and 2015 were identified from the SEER-Medicare dataset. Generalized SEM was used to estimate latent variables representing HCA domains by race in relation to two measures of ovarian cancer-treatment quality: gynecologic oncology consultation and receipt of any ovarian cancer surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 8,987 patients with ovarian cancer were included in the analysis; 7% were Black. The affordability [Ω: 0.876; average variance extracted (AVE) = 0.689], availability (Ω: 0.848; AVE = 0.636), and accessibility (Ω: 0.798; AVE = 0.634) latent variables showed high composite reliability in SEM analysis. Black patients had lower affordability and availability, but higher accessibility compared with non-Black patients. In fully adjusted models, there was no direct effect observed between Black race to receipt of surgery [β: -0.044; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.264 to 0.149]; however, there was an inverse total effect (β: -0.243; 95% CI, -0.079 to -0.011) that was driven by HCA affordability (β: -0.025; 95% CI, -0.036 to -0.013), as well as pathways that included availability and consultation with a gynecologist oncologist.

CONCLUSIONS

Racial differences in ovarian cancer treatment appear to be driven by latent variables representing healthcare affordability, availability, and accessibility.

IMPACT

Strategies to mitigate disparities in multiple HCA domains will be transformative in advancing equity in cancer treatment.

Rural residence is related to shorter survival in epithelial ovarian cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Rural residence has been related to health disparities and greater mortality risk in cancer patients, including gynecologic cancer patients. Lower survival rates for rural cancer survivors have been attributed to limited access to specialized healthcare, including surgery. Here, we examined whether a rural/urban survival gap existed in ovarian cancer patients receiving surgery at tertiary-care facilities, and potential causes for this gap, including educational attainment.

METHODS

Rural and urban patients with high grade invasive ovarian cancer (n = 342) seeking treatment at two midwestern tertiary-care university hospitals were recruited pre-surgery and followed until death or censoring date. Rural/urban residence was categorized using the USDA Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. Stratified Cox proportional hazards regression analyses, with clinical site as strata, adjusting for clinical and demographic covariates, were used to examine the effect of rurality on survival.

RESULTS

Despite specialized surgical care, rural cancer survivors showed a higher likelihood of death compared to their urban counterparts, HR = 1.39 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.85) p = 0.026, adjusted for covariates. A rurality by education interaction was observed (p = 0.027), indicating significantly poorer survival in rural vs. urban patients among those with trade school/some college education, adjusted HR = 2.49 (95% CI: 1.44, 4.30), p = 0.001; there was no rurality survival disparity for the other 2 levels of education.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in ovarian cancer survival are impacted by rurality, which is moderated by educational attainment even in patients receiving initial care in tertiary settings. Clinicians should be aware of rurality and education as potential risk factors for adverse outcomes and develop approaches to address these possible risks.

Looking at cancer health disparities in gynecologic oncology in 2020

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the most recent evidence on gynecologic cancer disparities and to describe studies investigating the social determinants of health and receipt of evidence-based care and potential interventions to address inequities in care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Significant disparities in disease-specific survival by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and payer status have persisted in women with gynecologic cancers. Compared with white women, black women have an increased likelihood of disease-specific mortality for endometrial cancer and are less likely to receive guideline-adherent care for ovarian cancer. The Covid-19 pandemic has brought significant attention to the structural barriers that contribute to persistent health disparities and how community-based partnerships with a focus on policy interventions are needed for equitable gynecologic cancer outcomes.

SUMMARY

In this review, we discuss structural barriers contributing to racial inequities, the role of Medicaid payer status and receipt of quality cancer care, gender, and racial workforce diversity, and community-based partnerships to create evidence-based interventions to address disparities.

Joint IARC/NCI International Cancer Seminar Series Report: expert consensus on future directions for ovarian carcinoma research

Recently, ovarian cancer research has evolved considerably because of the emerging recognition that rather than a single disease, ovarian carcinomas comprise several different histotypes that vary by etiologic origin, risk factors, molecular profiles, therapeutic approaches and clinical outcome. Despite significant progress in our understanding of the etiologic heterogeneity of ovarian cancer, as well as important clinical advances, it remains the eighth most frequently diagnosed cancer in women worldwide and the most fatal gynecologic cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer and the United States National Cancer Institute jointly convened an expert panel on ovarian carcinoma to develop consensus research priorities based on evolving scientific discoveries. Expertise ranged from etiology, prevention, early detection, pathology, model systems, molecular characterization and treatment/clinical management. This report summarizes the current state of knowledge and highlights expert consensus on future directions to continue advancing etiologic, epidemiologic and prognostic research on ovarian carcinoma.

Use of comorbidity indices in patients with any cancer, breast cancer, and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive breast cancer: A systematic review

Objective

To identify comorbidity indices that have been validated in cancer populations, with a focus on breast cancer and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer.

Study design and setting

A systematic review of the literature on the use of comorbidity indices in any cancer, breast cancer, and HER2+ breast cancer using Ovid and PubMed.

Results

The final data set comprised 252 articles (252 any cancer, 39 breast cancer, 7 HER2+ breast cancer). The most common cancers assessed were hematologic and breast, and the most common comorbidity index used was the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) or a CCI derivative. Most validity testing of comorbidity indices used predictive validity based on survival outcomes. Hazard ratios for survival outcomes generally found that a higher comorbidity burden (measured by CCI) increased mortality risk in patients with breast cancer. All breast-cancer studies that validated comorbidity indices used CCI-based indices. Only one article validated a comorbidity index in HER2+ breast cancer.

Conclusion

CCI-based indices are the most appropriate indices to use in the general breast-cancer population. There is insufficient validation of any comorbidity index in HER2+ breast cancer to provide a recommendation, indicating a future need to validate these instruments in this population.

Ovarian cancer in California: Guideline adherence, survival, and the impact of geographic location, 1996-2014

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that geographic location may independently contribute to ovarian cancer survival. We aimed to investigate how the association between residential location and ovarian cancer-specific survival in California varies by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status.

METHODS

Additive Cox proportional hazard models were used to predict hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between geographic location throughout California and survival among 29,844 women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 1996 and 2014. We conducted permutation tests to determine a global P-value for significance of location. Adjusted analyses considered distance traveled for care, distance to closest high-quality-of-care hospital, and receipt of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline care. Models were also stratified by stage, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

RESULTS

Location was significant in unadjusted models (P = 0.009 among all stages) but not in adjusted models (P = 0.20). HRs ranged from 0.81 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.93) in Southern Central Valley to 1.41 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.73) in Northern California but were attenuated after adjustment (maximum HR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.27). Better survival was generally observed for patients traveling longer distances for care. Associations between survival and proximity to closest high-quality-of-care hospitals were null except for women of lowest socioeconomic status living furthest away (HR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, geographic variations observed in ovarian cancer-specific survival were due to important predictors such as receiving guideline-adherent care. Improving access to expert care and ensuring receipt of guideline-adherent treatment should be priorities in optimizing ovarian cancer survival.