Failure to administer recommended chemotherapy: acceptable variation or cancer care quality blind spot?

Identifying Populations at Risk for Lung Cancer Mortality from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2001-2018) Using the 2021 USPSTF Screening Guidelines

Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States. To combat this predicament, early screening and critically assessing its risk factors remain crucial. The aim of this study was to identify the value of specific factors from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2001-2018, as they relate to lung cancer mortality in the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-eligible population. A total of 3545 adults who met USPSTF criteria were extracted from 81,595 NHANES participants. The LC Death Risk Assessment Tool was used to calculate the number of deaths per 1000 individuals. The Mann-Whitney U test and one-way ANOVA determined the statistical significance of the factors involved in LC mortality. Male sex, African and Hispanic ethnicity, lower education attainment, and secondhand exposure to cigarette smoke correlated with an increased risk of LC mortality. Additionally, the factor of emotional support from NHANES data was analyzed and did not show any benefit to reducing risk. By identifying individuals at high-risk, preventative measures can be maximized to produce the best possible outcome.

Influence of Health Insurance Types on Clinical Cancer Care Accessibility and Quality Using All of Us Database

Background and Objectives: Cancer, as the second leading cause of death in the United States, poses a huge healthcare burden. Barriers to access to advanced therapies influence the outcome of cancer treatment. In this study, we examined whether insurance types affect the quality of cancer clinical care. Materials and Methods: Data for 13,340 cancer patients with Purchased or Medicaid insurance from the All of Us database were collected for this study. The chi-squared test of proportions was employed to determine the significance of patient cohort characteristics and the accessibility of healthcare services between the Purchased and Medicaid insurance groups. Results: Cancer patients who are African American, with lower socioeconomic status, or with lower educational attainment are more likely to be insured by Medicaid. An analysis of the survey questions demonstrated the relationship between income and education level and insurance type, as Medicaid cancer patients were less likely to receive primary care and specialist physician access and more likely to request lower-cost medications. Conclusions: The inequities of the US healthcare system are observed for cancer patient care; access to physicians and medications is highly varied and dependent on insurance types. Socioeconomic factors further influence insurance types, generating a significant impact on the overall clinical care quality for cancer patients that eventually determines treatment outcomes and the quality of life.

Association Between Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities and Hospital Performance in Treatment and Outcomes for Patients with Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Disparities in colon cancer care and outcomes by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and insurance are well recognized; however, the extent to which inequalities are driven by patient factors versus variation in hospital performance remains unclear. We sought to compare disparities in care delivery and outcomes at low- and high-performing hospitals.

METHODS

We identified patients with stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma from the 2012-2017 National Cancer Database. Adequate lymphadenectomy and timely adjuvant chemotherapy administration defined hospital performance. Multilevel regression models evaluated disparities by race/ethnicity, SES, and insurance at the lowest- and highest-performance quartile hospitals.

RESULTS

Of 92,573 patients from 704 hospitals, 45,982 (49.7%) were treated at 404 low-performing hospitals and 46,591 (50.3%) were treated at 300 high-performing hospitals. Low-performing hospitals treated more non-Hispanic (NH) Black, Hispanic, low SES, and Medicaid patients (all p < 0.01). Among low-performing hospitals, patients with low versus high SES (odds ratio [OR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-0.92), and Medicare (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.96) and Medicaid (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.96) versus private insurance, had decreased odds of receiving high-quality care. At high-performing hospitals, NH Black versus NH White patients (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.95) had decreased odds of receiving high-quality care. Low SES, Medicare, Medicaid, and uninsured patients had worse overall survival at low- and high-performing hospitals (all p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Disparities in receipt of high-quality colon cancer care occurred by SES and insurance at low-performing hospitals, and by race at high-performing hospitals. However, survival disparities by SES and insurance exist irrespective of hospital performance. Future steps include improving low-performing hospitals and identifying mechanisms affecting survival disparities.

Quality indicators for systemic anticancer therapy services: a systematic review of metrics used to compare quality across healthcare facilities

PURPOSE

The number of systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) regimens has expanded rapidly over the last decade. There is a need to ensure quality of SACT delivery across cancer services and systems in different resource settings to reduce morbidity, mortality, and detrimental economic impact at individual and systems level. Existing literature on SACT focuses on treatment efficacy with few studies on quality or how SACT is delivered within routine care in comparison to radiation and surgical oncology.

METHODS

Systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched and handsearching was undertaken to identify literature on existing quality indicators (QIs) that detect meaningful variations in the quality of SACT delivery across different healthcare facilities, regions, or countries. Data extraction was undertaken by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

This review identified 63 distinct QIs from 15 papers. The majority were process QIs (n = 55, 87.3%) relating to appropriateness of treatment and guideline adherence (n = 28, 44.4%). There were few outcome QIs (n = 7, 11.1%) and only one structural QI (n = 1, 1.6%). Included studies solely focused on breast, colorectal, lung, and skin cancer. All but one studies were conducted in high-income countries.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review highlight a significant lack of research on SACT QIs particularly those appropriate for resource-constrained settings in low- and middle-income countries. This review should form the basis for future work in transforming performance measurement of SACT provision, through context-specific QI SACT development, validation, and implementation.

Benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for resected pathologic N1 non-small cell lung cancer is unrecognized: A subgroup analysis of the JBR10 trial

Adjuvant chemotherapy is underutilized in clinical practice, in part, because its anticipated survival benefit is limited. We evaluated the impact of AC on overall and recurrence-free survival among completely resected pN1 NSCLC patients enrolled in the North American Intergroup phase III (JBR10) trial. A post-hoc subgroup analysis of pN1 NSCLC patients was performed. Participants were randomized to cisplatin+vinorelbine (AC) (n = 118) or observation (n = 116) following complete resection. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoint was recurrence free survival (RFS). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to compare OS and RFS between the two treatment groups. Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with OS and RFS endpoints. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. AC patients had improved 5-year OS (AC 61.4% vs observation 41.0%, log-rank p = .008) and 5-year RFS (AC 56.2% vs observation 39.9%, log-rank p = .011) rates compared to observation. Cox regression analyses confirmed the OS (HR 0.583, 95% CI 0.402-0.846, p = .005) and RFS (HR 0.573, 95% CI 0.395-0.830, p = .003) benefit associated with AC. AC was associated with a lower risk (HR 0.648, 95% CI 0.435-0.965, p = .0326) and a lower cumulative incidence (Subdistribution Hazard Ratio [SHR], 0.67, 95% CI 0.449-0.999, p = .0498) of lung cancer deaths. In the JBR10 trial, treatment with AC conferred a significant OS and RFS advantage over observation for pN1 NSCLC patients. These data suggest that pN1 NSCLC patients may experience a disproportionately greater clinical benefit from AC than the 6% survival advantage estimated by the LACE meta-analysis.