Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer: do physicians agree about the importance of patient age and comorbidity?

Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Older Patients With Stage III Colorectal Cancer: A Real-World Analysis of Treatment Recommendations, Treatment Administered and Impact on Cancer Recurrence

BACKGROUND

A substantial proportion of patients with stage III colorectal cancer (CRC) are older than 70 years. Optimal adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) for older patients (OP) continues to be debated, with subgroup analyses of randomized trials not demonstrating a survival benefit from the addition of oxaliplatin to a fluoropyrimidine backbone.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed the multisite Australian ACCORD registry, which prospectively collects patient, tumor and treatment data along with long term clinical follow-up. We compared OP (≥70) with stage III CRC to younger patients ([YP] <70), including the proportion recommended AC and any reasons for not prescribing AC. AC administration, regimen choice, completion rates, and survival outcomes were also examined.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred twelve patients enrolled in the ACCORD registry from 2005 to 2018 were included. Median follow-up was 57.0 months. Compared to the 827 YP, the 685 OP were less likely to be offered AC (71.5% vs. 96.5%, P < .0001) and when offered, were more likely to decline treatment (15.1% vs. 2.8%, P < .0001). Ultimately, 60.0% of OP and 93.7% of YP received AC (P < .0001). OP were less likely to receive oxaliplatin (27.5% vs. 84.7%, P < .0001) and to complete AC (75.9% vs. 85.7%, P < .0001). The probability of remaining recurrence-free was significantly higher in OP who received AC compared to those not treated (HR 0.73, P = .04) but not significantly improved with the addition of oxaliplatin (HR 0.75, P = .18).

CONCLUSION

OP were less likely than YP to receive AC. Receipt of AC reduced recurrences in OP, supporting its use, although no significant benefit was observed from the addition of oxaliplatin.

Variations in the Type of Adjuvant Chemotherapy Among Stage III Colon Cancer Patients in England

PURPOSE

Treatment with any adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer has been shown to differ between population groups. Few studies, however, explore variations in the type of adjuvant chemotherapy received, none of which are from the UK. The aim of this study is to explore variation in the type of chemotherapy received by stage III colon cancer patients in England.

METHODS

Data from the national cancer registry was linked to the Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy database, which provides detailed information on treatment of malignant diseases from all NHS England chemotherapy providers. Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between those who received monotherapy (fluoropyrimidine) or combination chemotherapy (fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin) among stage III colon cancer patients between 2012 and 2017.

RESULTS

Of 8750 patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, 22.3% (n = 2359) received monotherapy and 60.4% (n = 6391) received combination therapy. The odds of receiving combination therapy decreased with age. Those from the most deprived group had half the odds (OR: 0.5, CI: 0.42, 0.59, p < 0.001) of receiving combination therapy compared to the least deprived group. Women were 14% less likely to get combined therapy (OR: 0.86, CI: 0.77, 0.95, p = 0.005). Those with the largest tumour size (T4) and those with more than three lymph nodes involved (N2) had 30% (OR: 1.30; CI: 1.07, 1.59; p = 0.008) and 50% (OR: 1.50; 1.34, 1.69; p < 0.001) higher odds of receiving combination therapy compared to T1 or T2 and N1, respectively.

CONCLUSION

There is variation in the type of chemotherapy received for stage III colon cancer patients by sociodemographic factors, despite clear clinical guidelines.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy Is Associated with Improved Survival for Stage III Colon Cancer When Initiated Beyond 8 Weeks

BACKGROUND

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) within 6-8 weeks of surgical resection for patients with stage III colon cancer. However, postoperative complications or prolonged surgical recovery may affect the receipt of AC. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of AC for patients with prolonged postoperative recovery.

METHODS

We queried the National Cancer Database (2010-2018) for patients with resected stage III colon cancer. Patients were categorized as having either normal or prolonged length of stay (PLOS: >7 days, 75th percentile). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression and logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with overall survival and receipt of AC.

RESULTS

Of the 113,387 patients included, 30,196 (26.6%) experienced PLOS. Of the 88,115 (77.7%) patients who received AC, 22,707 (25.8%) initiated AC more than 8 weeks after surgery. Patients with PLOS were less likely to receive AC (71.5% vs. 80.0%, OR: 0.72, 95%CI=0.70-0.75) and displayed inferior survival (75 vs. 116 months, HR: 1.39, 95%CI=1.36-1.43). Receipt of AC was also associated with patient factors such as high socioeconomic status, private insurance, and White race (p<0.05 for all). AC within and after 8 weeks of surgery was associated with improved survival for patients with both normal LOS and PLOS (normal LOS: <8 weeks HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.54-0.59, >8 weeks HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.65-0.71; PLOS: <8 weeks HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.48-0.54, >8 weeks HR: 0.63, 95% CI 0.60-0.67). AC was associated with significantly improved survival if initiated up to 15 weeks postoperatively (normal LOS: HR: 0.72, 95%CI=0.61-0.85; PLOS: HR: 0.75, 95%CI=0.62-0.90), and very few patients (<3.0%) initiated AC beyond this time.

CONCLUSION

Receipt of AC for stage III colon cancer may be affected by surgical complications or otherwise prolonged recovery. Timely and even delayed AC (>8 weeks) are both associated with improved overall survival. These findings highlight the importance of delivering guideline-based systemic therapies, even after complicated surgical recovery.

Variations in colorectal cancer pattern of care by age and comorbidity in South Australia

BACKGROUND

Advanced age is associated with decreased likelihood of colorectal cancer treatment. Here, we investigated the extent to which comorbidities are accountable for this lesser treatment.

METHODS

Using population-based datasets, the pattern of care among CRC cases in South Australia during 2004-2013 was investigated. Models were used to investigate associations of age with each treatment type, and differences in these associations were explored by comorbidity and cancer site.

RESULTS

The presence of comorbidity was associated with a significantly weaker relationship of age with surgery and chemotherapy. The association of age with surgery also varied for colon and rectal primary cancer sites. Individual comorbidity types varied in their associations with each treatment category. For example, dementia was associated with less chemotherapy provision, however, it was not significantly related to the likelihood of surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that the association of age with surgical treatment differed significantly by the CRC subsite. Comorbidity moderated the negative association of age with chemotherapy, and less so, with extent of surgery. Results were novel in indicating associations of multiple individual comorbidity types with CRC treatment modalities. The data suggest that different individual comorbidity types may have different effects on treatment and should be studied separately.

Geriatric assessment and the variance of treatment recommendations in geriatric patients with gastrointestinal cancer-a study in AIO oncologists

BACKGROUND

Geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended to detect vulnerabilities for elderly cancer patients. To assess whether results of GA actually influence the treatment recommendations, we conducted a case vignette-based study in medical oncologists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy oncologists gave their medical treatment recommendations for a maximum of 4 out of 10 gastrointestinal cancer patients in three steps: (i) based on tumor findings alone to simulate the guideline recommendation for a '50-year-old standard patient without comorbidities'; (ii) for the same situation in elderly patients (median age 77.5 years) according to the comorbidities, laboratory values and a short video simulating the clinical consultation; and (iii) after the results of a full GA including interpretation aid [Barthel Index, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), Geriatric 8 (G8), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE), Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA), Timed Get Up and Go (TGUG), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), stair climb test].

RESULTS

Data on 164 treatment recommendations were analyzed. The recommendations had a significantly higher variance for elderly patients than for 'standard' patients (944 versus 602, P < 0.0001) indicating a lower agreement between oncologists. Knowledge on GA had marginal influence on the treatment recommendation or its variance (944 versus 940, P = 0.92). There was no statistically significant influence of the working place or the years of experience in oncology on the variance of recommendations. The geriatric tools were rated approximately two times higher as being 'meaningful' (53%) and 'useful for the presented cases' (49%) than they were 'used in clinical practice' (19%). The most commonly used geriatric tool in patient care was the MNA (30%).

CONCLUSIONS

The higher variance of treatment recommendations indicates that it is less likely for elderly patients to get the optimal recommendation. Although the proposed therapeutic regimen varied higher in elderly patients and the oncologists rated the GA results as 'useful', the GA results did not influence the individual recommendations or its variance. Continuing education on GA and research on implementation into clinical practice are needed.

Factors Influencing the Adjuvant Therapy Decision: Results of a Real-World Multicenter Data Analysis of 904 Melanoma Patients

Adjuvant treatment of melanoma patients with immune-checkpoint inhibition (ICI) and targeted therapy (TT) significantly improved recurrence-free survival. This study investigates the real-world situation of 904 patients from 13 German skin cancer centers with an indication for adjuvant treatment since the approval of adjuvant ICI and TT. From adjusted log-binomial regression models, we estimated relative risks for associations between various influence factors and treatment decisions (adjuvant therapy yes/no, TT vs. ICI in BRAF mutant patients). Of these patients, 76.9% (95% CI 74-80) opted for a systemic adjuvant treatment. The probability of starting an adjuvant treatment was 26% lower in patients >65 years (RR 0.74, 95% CI 68-80). The most common reasons against adjuvant treatment given by patients were age (29.4%, 95% CI 24-38), and fear of adverse events (21.1%, 95% CI 16-28) and impaired quality of life (11.9%, 95% CI 7-16). Of all BRAF-mutated patients who opted for adjuvant treatment, 52.9% (95% CI 47-59) decided for ICI. Treatment decision for TT or ICI was barely associated with age, gender and tumor stage, but with comorbidities and affiliated center. Shortly after their approval, adjuvant treatments have been well accepted by physicians and patients. Age plays a decisive role in the decision for adjuvant treatment, while pre-existing autoimmune disease and regional differences influence the choice between TT or ICI.

Perceptions of Surgical and Other Medical Specialties about Medical Oncologists: A Survey among Physicians in a Filipino Tertiary Hospital

Introduction There are unverified negative perceptions about medical oncologists. Identifying how they are perceived may provide guidance on how to strengthen the positive and correct the negative impressions.

Methods Questionnaires were distributed to 528 physicians. They were asked to answer a Likert scale of opposing descriptors.

Results Two hundred and fifty-nine of 528 physicians completed the questionnaire, yielding a 49% response rate. Medical oncologists were perceived to have a medical rather than social focus to their work, render holistic care, have a multifaceted role, communicate with many other professionals, work more effectively in a team, have deep relationships with patients, and care for their general well-being. They are considered to be the nonsporty, intellectual type, who do not consider themselves superior, but rather treat other physicians as colleagues. They are perceived to not only have the skills to deal with a psychiatric problem and a wide spectrum of patients, have a health education role, require a high level of intellectual skills, collaborate more with others, possess good interpersonal skills with an individual patient, but are also adept within a group. They are autonomous workers, but usually refer patients to other professionals as well. Lack of finances hinders referral to medical oncologists.

Conclusion Perceptions were generally positive in terms of breadth of professional outlook, degree of patient interaction, projected professional image, perception of own professional status, possession of skills for a wide professional scope of responsibility, level of rapport with patient and colleagues, and degree of professional interdependence. Mainly financial factors are the barriers to referral to medical oncologists.

Daily practice in guideline adherence to adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer and predictors of outcome

INTRODUCTION

Although guidelines recommend adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer patients, many patients do not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to identify reasons for guideline non-adherence and assess the effect on patient outcomes in a multicenter cohort of stage III colon cancer patients who received surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy or surgery alone.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgery between 2007 and 2017 were included. Reasons for non-adherence were determined. Propensity score analyses with inverse probability weighting were performed to adjust for confounding factors. Cox proportional hazards regression and risk stratified analyses were performed to assess the association of guideline adherence and other potential predictors with recurrence free survival (RFS).

RESULTS

Data of 575 patients were included of whom 61% received adjuvant chemotherapy. In 87 of 222 patients (39%) who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, no reason was documented. Only age was predictive for receiving chemotherapy. Patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy had longer RFS (HR 0.42, 95%CI 0.29-0.62, p < 0.001). High T- and N-stage were associated with poorer RFS HR 2.0 (95%CI 1.58-2.71, p < 0.001) and HR 2.19 (95%CI 1.60-2.99, p < 0.001) respectively. Risk groups were identified with distinct prognosis and treatment effect and a nomogram is presented to visualize individualized RFS differences.

CONCLUSION

This study shows considerable variation in guideline adherence to adjuvant chemotherapy and poor documentation on reasons for non-adherence. Optimizing adherence and gaining insight in reasons for non-adherence is advocated as this can lead to significant RFS benefit, especially in patients with high T-and N-stage tumors.

Oncologic Risk of Rectal Preservation Against Medical Advice After Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Comparative Cross-Sectional Study with Rectal Preservation as Supported by Surgeon

BACKGROUND

Rectal preservation against medical advice after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer may increase oncologic uncertainty. This study aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing rectal preservation as intended by the surgeon, and the outcomes of patients refusing rectal resection against medical advice.

METHODS

The study population consisted of patients in whom the rectum was preserved after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for clinical stage I-III mid or low rectal cancer between May 2003 and August 2017 (n = 2883); these patients were divided into those in whom rectal preservation was intended by their surgeon (intended rectal preservation, group A, n = 41) and those in whom the rectum was not resected against medical advice (unintended rectal preservation, group B, n = 101), defined as non-operative management or local excision.

RESULTS

The tumor distance, age, and performance status of patients were not significantly different between the groups, while the clinical T stage before chemoradiotherapy was lower in group A than in group B (P < 0.001). During the median follow-up period of 34 months (interquartile range 18.0-72.0 months), the 3-year overall survival in group B (59.7%) was worse than that in group A (90.1%; P < 0.001), and 80.2% of group B patients had residual or unknown disease status.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that unintended rectal preservation increases oncologic risk after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer regardless of short-term follow-up. Therefore, these findings could be shared with rectal cancer patients who choose to ignore medical advice after chemoradiotherapy to preserve their rectum.

Comorbidities, timing of treatments, and chemotherapy use influence outcomes in stage III colon cancer: A population-based European study

INTRODUCTION

For stage III colon cancer (CC), surgery followed by chemotherapy is the main curative approach, although optimum times between diagnosis and surgery, and surgery and chemotherapy, have not been established.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed a population-based sample of 1912 stage III CC cases diagnosed in eight European countries in 2009-2013 aiming to estimate: (i) odds of receiving postoperative chemotherapy, overall and within eight weeks of surgery; (ii) risks of death/relapse, according to treatment, Charlson Comorbidity Index, time from diagnosis to surgery for emergency and elective cases, and time from surgery to chemotherapy; and (iii) time-trends in chemotherapy use.

RESULTS

Overall, 97% of cases received surgery and 65% postoperative chemotherapy, with 71% of these receiving chemotherapy within eight weeks of surgery. Risks of death and relapse were higher for cases starting chemotherapy with delay, but better than for cases not given chemotherapy. Fewer patients with high comorbidities received chemotherapy than those with low (P < 0.001). Chemotherapy timing did not vary (P = 0.250) between high and low comorbidity cases. Electively-operated cases with low comorbidities received surgery more promptly than high comorbidity cases. Risks of death and relapse were lower for elective cases given surgery after four weeks than cases given surgery within a week. High comorbidities were always independently associated with poorer outcomes. Chemotherapy use increased over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicate that promptly-administered postoperative chemotherapy maximizes its benefit, and that careful assessment of comorbidities is important before treatment. The survival benefit associated with slightly delayed elective surgery deserves further investigation.

Determinants of Variation in the Use of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage III Colon Cancer in England

AIMS

Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) for stage III colon cancer is well-established. This study aimed to explore the determinants of ACT use and between-hospital variation within the English National Health Service (NHS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 11 932 patients (diagnosed 2014-2017) with pathological stage III colon cancer in the English NHS were identified from the National Bowel Cancer Audit. Records were linked to Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy and Hospital Episode Statistics databases. Multi-level logistic regression analyses were carried out to estimate independent factors for ACT use, including age, sex, deprivation, comorbidities, performance status, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, surgical urgency, surgical access, TNM staging, readmission and hospital-level factors (university teaching hospital, on-site chemotherapy and high-volume centre). A random intercept was modelled for each English NHS hospital (n = 142). Between-hospital variation was explored using funnel plot methodology. Fully adjusted random-intercept models were fitted separately in young (<70 years) and elderly (≥70 years) patients and intra-class correlation coefficients estimated.

RESULTS

60.7% of patients received ACT. Age was the strongest determinant. Compared with patients aged <60 years, those aged 60-64 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.93), 65-69 (aOR 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.54-0.74), 70-74 (aOR 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.62), 75-79 (aOR 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.27) and ≥80 years (aOR 0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.04-0.06) were significantly less likely to receive ACT. With adjustment for other factors, ACT use was more likely in patients with higher socioeconomic status, fewer comorbidities, better performance status, lower ASA grade, advanced disease, elective resections, laparoscopic procedures and no unplanned readmissions. Hospital-level factors were non-significant. The observed proportions of ACT administration in the young and elderly were 46-100% (80% of hospitals 74-90%) and 10-81% (80% of hospitals 33-65%), respectively. Risk adjustment did not reduce between-hospital variation. Despite adjustment, age accounted for 9.9% (7.2-13.4%) of between-hospital variation in the elderly compared with 2.7% (1.2-5.7%) in the young.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant between-hospital variation in ACT use for stage III colon cancer, especially for older patients. Advanced age alone seems to be a greater barrier to ACT use in some hospitals.

Correlation between mouse age and human age in anti-tumor research: Significance and method establishment

Age is closely related with the occurrence and development of tumors, and with treatment outcomes. To improve the accuracy and rigor of preclinical studies, and to enhance consistency between the preclinical research and the clinical reality, the age of experimental animals used in preclinical studies is important. The mouse genome is 99% identical to the human genome, and mice have similar patterns with respect to organs and systemic physiology. Thus, mice have been the most widely used animals in anti-tumor research. However, most mice used in such studies are 6 to 8 weeks old, ignoring the fact that different tumors may often occur in various periods, with a particular tendency to occur in later stages of life. The great difference in age limits the success rate of clinical transformation. Therefore, it is very important to choose mice of suitable age for preclinical studies and to correlate ages of human and mice. Only a few related studies have been reported and there is a lack of consistency in the findings. This review points out that age is one of the important factors in anti-tumor research, and establishes a new method for calculating the age correlation between humans and mice. The equations obtained from the method can help researchers conveniently determine suitable aged mouse for their research, which will improve the rigor of their experimental results. Furthermore, this method can be used beyond anti-tumor research, in studies on other diseases that use mouse as an animal model.

Community Oncologists' Decision-Making for Treatment of Older Patients With Cancer

Background: This study's objectives were to describe community oncologists' beliefs about and confidence with geriatric care and to determine whether geriatric-relevant information influences cancer treatment decisions. Methods: Community oncologists were recruited to participate in 2 multisite geriatric oncology trials. Participants shared their beliefs about and confidence in caring for older adults. They were also asked to make a first-line chemotherapy recommendation (combination vs single-agent vs no chemotherapy) for a hypothetical vignette of an older patient with advanced pancreatic cancer. Each oncologist received one randomly chosen vignette that varied on 3 variables: age (72/84 years), impaired function (yes/no), and cognitive impairment (yes/no). Other patient characteristics were held constant. Logistic regression models were used to identify associations between oncologist/vignette-patient characteristics and treatment decisions. Results: Oncologist response rate was 61% (n=305/498). Most oncologists agreed that "the care of older adults with cancer needs to be improved" (89%) and that "geriatrics training is essential" (72%). However, <25% were "very confident" in recognizing dementia or conducting a fall risk or functional assessment, and only 23% reported using the geriatric assessment in clinic. Each randomly varied patient characteristic was independently associated with the decision to treat: younger age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.01; 95% CI, 2.73-9.20), normal cognition (aOR, 5.42; 95% CI, 3.01-9.76), and being functionally intact (aOR, 3.85; 95% CI, 2.12-7.00). Accounting for all vignettes across all scenarios, 161 oncologists (52%) said they would offer chemotherapy. All variables were independently associated with prescribing single-agent over combination chemotherapy (older age: aOR, 3.22; 95% CI 1.43-7.25, impaired cognition: aOR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.36-7.20, impaired function: aOR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.12-5.72). Oncologists' characteristics were not associated with decisions about providing chemotherapy. Conclusion: Geriatric-relevant information, when available, strongly influences community oncologists' treatment decisions.

Factors Contributing To Geographic Variation In End-Of-Life Expenditures For Cancer Patients

Health care spending in the months before death varies across geographic areas but is not associated with outcomes. Using data from the prospective multiregional Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium (CanCORS) study, we assessed the extent to which such variation is explained by differences in patients' sociodemographic factors, clinical factors, and beliefs; physicians' beliefs; and the availability of services. Among 1,132 patients ages sixty-five and older who were diagnosed with lung or colorectal cancer in 2003-05, had advanced-stage cancer, died before 2013, and were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare, mean expenditures in the last month of life were $13,663. Physicians in higher-spending areas reported less knowledge about and comfort with treating dying patients and less positive attitudes about hospice, compared to those in lower-spending areas. Higher-spending areas also had more physicians and fewer primary care providers and hospices in proportion to their total population than lower-spending areas did. Availability of services and physicians' beliefs, but not patients' beliefs, were important in explaining geographic variations in end-of-life spending. Enhanced training to better equip physicians to care for patients at the end of life and strategic resource allocation may have potential for decreasing unwarranted variation in care.

Differences in primary care providers’ and oncologists’ views on communication and coordination of care during active treatment of patients with cancer and comorbidities

Introduction

Management of comorbid diseases in patients with cancer is often unclear. The purpose of our study was to identify differences and similarities between primary care providers and oncologists’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding coordination of care and comorbid disease management for patients undergoing active cancer treatment.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study using an anonymous self-administered survey which was available to approximately 600 providers in primary care and medical oncology practicing in both outpatient and inpatient settings from March to December 2014 at three academic hospitals in New York City (Mount Sinai Hospital, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, and Weill Cornell). Our survey instrument assessed physician knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs using a clinical vignette of a cancer patient undergoing active treatment. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the demographic and practice details of survey responses, and univariate analyses were used to assess differences in responses between primary care providers and oncologists.

Results

The survey was completed by 203 providers, including 127 primary care providers (62.5%), 32 medical oncologists (15.8%), 11 palliative care physicians (5.4%), and 33 nurse practitioners or physician assistants (16.3%). Medical oncologists admitted more uncertainty regarding who should manage preventive care as compared to primary care providers (34.4% vs. 16.5%, p = 0.02), whereas primary care providers were more concerned about duplicated care (22.8% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.03). Both primary care providers and medical oncologists agreed that diabetes should be actively managed during cancer treatment. More primary care providers felt less strict glycemic control was allowable (56.8% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.05) and that it is allowable for patients to miss some diabetes-related visits (80.6% vs. 56.3%, p = 0.01).

Discussion

Primary care providers and medical oncologists differ in their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding coordination of care and management of comorbid conditions in patients undergoing cancer treatment. These differences reflect systemic challenges to provision of care to cancer patients and the need for a model of care coordination.

Molecular Mechanisms and Bioavailability of Polyphenols in Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is the one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers among men over the age of 50. Several lines of evidence support the observation that polyphenols have preventive and therapeutic effects in prostate cancer. Moreover, prostate cancer is ideal for chemoprevention due to its long latency. We propose here an equilibrated lifestyle with a diet rich in polyphenols as prophylactic attempts to slow down the progression of localized prostate cancer or prevent the occurrence of the disease. In this review, we will first summarize the molecular mechanisms of polyphenols in prostate cancer with a focus on the antioxidant and pro-oxidant effects, androgen receptors (AR), key molecules involved in AR signaling and their transactivation pathways, cell cycle, apoptosis, angiogenesis, metastasis, genetic aspects, and epigenetic mechanisms. The relevance of the molecular mechanisms is discussed in light of current bioavailability data regarding the activity of polyphenols in prostate cancer. We also highlight strategies for improving the bioavailability of polyphenols. We hope that this review will lead to further research regarding the bioavailability and the role of polyphenols in prostate cancer prevention and treatment.

Do the Oncological and Surgical Outcomes of Young and Older Women Differ in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer?

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes between young and older women with colorectal cancer (CRC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 1815 women with CRC between 2010 and 2014. Participants were divided into a young group (under the age of 65 years) and an old group (65 years and older). The surgical and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Around 45.1% (N = 819) patients were the older group. The old group had a higher comorbidity rate and a lower proportion of receiving postoperative chemotherapy. The old group also had a significantly higher blood loss (190 ± 611 mL vs. 145 ± 200 mL, p = 0.027) and a higher rate of intraoperative transfusion (5.4% vs. 3.0%, p = 0.011). They were found to develop more complications after surgery (11.7% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.015). The overall survival (OS) of the old group was lower than that of the young group (5-year OS rates: 72.8% vs. 83.8%, p < 0.001; adjusted hazard ratio: 1.86, 95% confidence interval: 1.49-2.33). However, the cancer-specific survival (CSS) was not significantly different between the old and young groups (5-year CSS rates: 84.7% vs. 84.9%, p = 0.076).

CONCLUSIONS

Older women with CRC had poorer OS than young women with CRC, but had similar CSS. Therefore, the management of comorbidities along with cancer treatment may be important in older women with CRC.

Local ablation or radioembolization of colorectal cancer metastases: comorbidities or older age do not affect overall survival

Background

Local ablative techniques are emerging in patients with oligometastatic disease from colorectal carcinoma, commonly described as less invasive than surgical methods. This single arm cohort seeks to determine whether such methods are suitable in patients with comorbidities or higher age.

Methods

Two hundred sixty-six patients received radiofrequency ablation (RFA), CT-guided high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) or Y90-radioembolization (Y90-RE) during treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This cohort comprised of patients with heterogenous disease stages from single liver lesions to multiple organ systems involvement commonly following multiple chemotherapy lines. Data was reviewed retrospectively for patient demographics, previous therapies, initial or disease stages at first intervention, comorbidities and mortality. Comorbidity was measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and age-adjusted Charlson Index (CACI) excluding mCRC as the index disease. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression were used for statistical analysis.

Results

Overall median survival of 266 patients was 14 months. Age ≥ 70 years did not influence survival after local therapies. Similarly, CCI or CACI did not affect the patients prognoses in multivariate analyses. Moderate or severe renal insufficiency (n = 12; p = 0.005) was the only single comorbidity identified to negatively affect the outcome after local therapy.

Conclusion

Interventional procedures for mCRC may be performed safely even in elderly and comorbid patients. In severe renal insufficiency, the use of invasive techniques should be limited to selected cases.

The effect of comorbidities on outcomes in colorectal cancer survivors: a population-based cohort study

PURPOSE

To examine the prevalence of comorbidities and the association of these comorbidities with demographics, tumor characteristics, treatments received, overall survival, and causes of death in a population-based cohort of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.

METHODS

Adult patients with stage I-III CRC diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 were included. Comorbidities were captured using Charlson comorbidity index. Causes of death were categorized using International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision codes. Patients were categorized into five mutually exclusive comorbid groups (cardiovascular disease alone, diabetes alone, cardiovascular disease plus diabetes, other comorbidities, or no comorbidities). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival analyses, and Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

There were 12,265 patients. Mean follow-up was 3.8 years. Approximately one third of patients had a least one comorbidity, with cardiovascular disease and diabetes being most common. There were statistically significant differences across comorbid groups on treatments received and overall survival. Those with comorbidity had lower odds of treatment and greater risk of death than those with no comorbidity. Those with cardiovascular disease plus diabetes fared the worst for prognosis (median overall survival 3.3 [2.8-3.7] years; adjusted HR for death, 2.27, 95% CI 2.0-2.6, p < .001). Cardiovascular disease was the most common cause of non-CRC death.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC patients with comorbidity received curative intent treatment less frequently and experienced worse outcomes than patients with no comorbidity. Cardiovascular disease was the most common cause of non-cancer death.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Management of comorbidities, including healthy lifestyle coaching, at diagnosis and into survivorship is an important component of cancer care.

Breast cancer-specific survival by age: Worse outcomes for the oldest patients

BACKGROUND

Although breast cancer often is perceived to be indolent in older women, breast cancer outcomes in the oldest patients are variable. In the current study, the authors examined breast cancer-specific death by age, stage, and disease subtype in a large, population-based cohort.

METHODS

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, a total of 486,118 women diagnosed with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I to IV breast cancer between 2000 and 2012 were identified. Using a series of Fine and Gray regression models to account for competing risk, the authors examined the risk of breast cancer-specific death by age and stage (I-IV) for subcohorts with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HR-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, and triple-negative disease, adjusting for demographic and clinical variables.

RESULTS

Overall, 18% of women were aged 65 to 74 years, 13% were aged 75 to 84 years, and 4% were aged ≥85 years. Regardless of stage of disease within the HR-positive and HR-negative cohorts, patients aged ≥75 years (vs those aged 55-64 years) experienced a higher adjusted hazard of breast cancer-specific death, which was particularly evident for those with early-stage, HR-positive disease (hazard ratio for those aged 75-84 years, 1.88 [95% confidence interval, 1.68-2.09] and hazard ratio for those aged ≥85 years, 3.59 [95% confidence interval, 3.12-4.13] [both for stage I disease]). In the cohorts with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive and triple-negative disease, women aged ≥70 years had a consistently higher risk of breast cancer-specific death across disease stages (vs those aged 51-60 years), with the exception of stage IV triple-negative disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Older patients experience worse breast cancer outcomes, regardless of disease subtype and stage. With an increasing number of older patients anticipated to develop breast cancer in the future, addressing disparities for older patients must emerge as a clinical and research priority. Cancer 2018;124:2184-91. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Clinical decision making in cancer care: a review of current and future roles of patient age

Background

Patient age is among the most controversial patient characteristics in clinical decision making. In personalized cancer medicine it is important to understand how individual characteristics do affect practice and how to appropriately incorporate such factors into decision making. Some argue that using age in decision making is unethical, and how patient age should guide cancer care is unsettled. This article provides an overview of the use of age in clinical decision making and discusses how age can be relevant in the context of personalized medicine.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review, searching Pubmed for English references published between 1985 and May 2017. References concerning cancer, with patients above the age of 18 and that discussed age in relation to diagnostic or treatment decisions were included. References that were non-medical or concerning patients below the age of 18, and references that were case reports, ongoing studies or opinion pieces were excluded. Additional references were collected through snowballing and from selected reports, guidelines and articles.

Results

Three hundred and forty-seven relevant references were identified. Patient age can have many and diverse roles in clinical decision making: Contextual roles linked to access (age influences how fast patients are referred to specialized care) and incidence (association between increasing age and increasing incidence rates for cancer); patient-relevant roles linked to physiology (age-related changes in drug metabolism) and comorbidity (association between increasing age and increasing number of comorbidities); and roles related to interventions, such as treatment (older patients receive substandard care) and outcome (survival varies by age).

Conclusions

Patient age is integrated into cancer care decision making in a range of ways that makes it difficult to claim age-neutrality. Acknowledging this and being more transparent about the use of age in decision making are likely to promote better clinical decisions, irrespective of one’s normative viewpoint. This overview also provides a starting point for future discussions on the appropriate role of age in cancer care decision making, which we see as crucial for harnessing the full potential of personalized medicine.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4456-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effect of Comorbidities in Stage II/III Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated With Surgery and Neoadjuvant/Adjuvant Chemotherapy: A Single-Center, Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Comorbidity has a detrimental effect on cancer survival, however, it is difficult to disentangle its direct effect from its influence on treatment choice. In this study we assessed the effect of comorbidity on survival in patients who received standard treatment for resected stage II and III colorectal cancer (CRC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 230 CRC patients, 68 rectal (29.6%) and 162 colon cancer (70.4%) treated with surgical resection and neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy from December 2002 to December 2009 at Humanitas Cancer Center were retrospectively reviewed. The key independent variable was the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score, measured as a continuous variable. The differences between groups for categorical data were tested using the χ² test. Actuarial survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 113 (range, 8.2-145.0) months. Median age was 63 (range, 37-78) years. In univariate analysis CCI score was significantly associated with poorer disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.52-1.80; P < .001), and overall survival (OS; HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.41-1.71; P < .001). Factors associated with poorer outcome also included (stage III vs. stage II, P < .029) and age (age >70 vs. ≤70 years, P < .001). After adjusting for these factors, a significant negative prognostic role of CCI score was still observed (adjusted HR for OS, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.43-1.76; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Among CRC patients who underwent surgical resection and chemotherapy, a higher CCI score was associated with poorer outcome and might predict long-term survival.

Competing nomograms help in the selection of elderly patients with colon cancer for adjuvant chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The extent to which ≥ 70 year patients with colon cancer benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in the presence of competing risks remains controversial.

METHODS

18,937 patients ≥ 70 years with high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancer were retrospectively reviewed from SEER database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for potential baseline confounding. The nomograms were developed based on the competing model to describe the individual probability of colon cancer-specific death (CCSD) and non-CCSD. The subpopulation treatment-effect pattern plot (STEPP) was used to estimate the treatment-effect heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In the high-risk stage II subgroup, compared to the non-recipients, the hazard ratios (HR) of overall mortality for recipients were 0.83 (P = 0.001). The subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) of CCSD for receipts was 1.22 (P = 0.021). The SHR of non-CCSD was 0.63 (P < 0.001). In the stage III subgroup, compared to non-recipients, the HR of the overall mortality for the recipients was 0.62 (P < 0.001). The SHR of CCSD was 0.77 (P < 0.001). The SHR of non-CCSD was 0.58 (P < 0.001). The chemotherapy efficacy differed significantly by risk score of non-CCSD (non-CCSD-RS) (P < 0.001). Recipients with high non-CCSD-RS had a rate of CCSD comparative to that of non-recipients (SHR 0.90, P = 0.150) in the stage III subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

A survival analysis based on the overall mortality did not correctly interpret the effect of chemotherapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy did not provide an additional benefit to patients with high-risk stage II or patients with stage III at high risk of non-cancer death.

Administration of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients with Stage III colon cancer: an observational study

AIM

According to established guidelines, patients with Stage III colon cancer should receive adjuvant chemotherapy. However, a significant proportion do not. This study assessed factors associated with the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy and causes of death.

METHODS

Patients with Stage III colon cancer who underwent surgery between 2000 and 2009 were selected from two hospitals in the Netherlands. Patient characteristics including comorbidities and treatment preferences, tumour characteristics and follow-up were extracted from the medical records. The patient and tumour characteristics of patients who did receive chemotherapy were compared with those who did not using chi-squared analysis. Differences between the groups in causes of death were recorded together with the duration of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 348 patients were included. The median age was 73 years (range 33-93). Over half of the patients received adjuvant chemotherapy (50.6%). Patients who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy were significantly older (P < 0.001), had more comorbidities (P < 0.001) and were more often living alone (P < 0.001). Patients who received no adjuvant chemotherapy had a reduced overall survival, and the cause of death was more often attributed to other causes (60%) than colon cancer (40%). For patients who received chemotherapy, the cause of death was usually attributed to colon cancer (71%).

CONCLUSION

Patients who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy had a worse overall survival and the majority died due to other causes than colon cancer. In our aging society it will become even more important to develop tools to estimate remaining life expectancy in order to improve the selection of older patients for adjuvant treatments.

Factors influencing treatment selection and survival in advanced lung cancer

PURPOSE

Despite numerous breakthrough therapies, inoperable lung cancer still places a heavy burden on patients who might not be candidates for chemotherapy. To identify potential candidates for the newly emerging immunotherapy-based treatment paradigms, we explored the clinical and biologic factors affecting treatment decisions.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients diagnosed at our university-affiliated cancer centre between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2013. Patient demographics, systemic treatment, and survival were examined.

RESULTS

During the 3-year study period, 683 patients fitting the inclusion criteria were identified. First-line therapy was administered in 49.5% of patients; only 22.4% received further lines of therapy. The main reasons for withholding therapy were poor performance status [ps (43.2%)], rapidly deteriorating ps (31.9%), patient refusal of therapy (20.9%), and associated comorbidities (4%). Older age, the presence of brain metastasis at diagnosis, and non-small-cell histology were also associated with therapeutic restraint. Oncology referrals were infrequent in patients who did not receive therapy (32.2%). Older patients and those with a poor ps experienced superior survival when treatment was administered (hazard ratio: 0.25; 95% confidence interval: 0.16 to 0.38; and hazard ratio: 0.44; 95% confidence interval: 0.23 to 0.87 respectively; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced lung cancer still poses a therapeutic challenge, with a high proportion of patients being deemed unfit for therapy. This issue cannot be resolved until appropriate measures are taken to ensure the inclusion of older patients and those with a relatively poor ps in large clinical trials. Immunotherapy might be interesting in this setting, given that it appears to be more tolerable. Another consequential undertaking would be the deployment of strategies to reduce wait times during the diagnostic process for patients with a high index of suspicion for lung cancer.

Oncologists' perspectives on post-cancer treatment communication and care coordination with primary care physicians

Post-treatment cancer care is often fragmented and of suboptimal quality. We explored factors that may affect cancer survivors' post-treatment care coordination, including oncologists' use of electronic technologies such as e-mail and integrated electronic health records (EHRs) to communicate with primary care physicians (PCPs). We used data from a survey (357 respondents; participation rate 52.9%) conducted in 2012-2013 among medical oncologists caring for patients in a large US study of cancer care delivery and outcomes. Oncologists reported their frequency and mode of communication with PCPs, and role in providing post-treatment care. Seventy-five per cent said that they directly communicated with PCPs about post-treatment status and care recommendations for all/most patients. Among those directly communicating with PCPs, 70% always/usually used written correspondence, while 36% always/usually used integrated EHRs; telephone and e-mail were less used. Eighty per cent reported co-managing with PCPs at least one post-treatment general medical care need. In multivariate-adjusted analyses, neither communication mode nor intensity were associated with co-managing survivors' care. Oncologists' reliance on written correspondence to communicate with PCPs may be a barrier to care coordination. We discuss new research directions for enhancing communication and care coordination between oncologists and PCPs, and to better meet the needs of cancer survivors post-treatment.

Rising Incidence of Colorectal Cancer Among Young Hispanics in Texas

GOALS

To investigate trends in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and survival among Hispanics in Texas.

BACKGROUND

The incidence of CRC is rising among young adults in the United States. Given Texas' large Hispanic population, investigating CRC trends in Texas may provide valuable insight into the future of CRC epidemiology in an ever-diversifying US population.

STUDY

Data from the Texas Cancer Registry (1995 to 2010) were used to calculate age-adjusted CRC rates based on the 2000 US standard population. Annual percentage change (APC) and 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates were reported by age, race/ethnicity, stage, and anatomic location.

RESULTS

Of 123,083 CRC cases, 11% occurred in individuals below 50 years old, 26% of whom were Hispanic. Incidence was highest among African Americans (AAs; 76.3/100,000), followed by non-Hispanic whites (NHWs; 60.2/100,000) and Hispanics (50.8/100,000). Although overall CRC incidence declined between 1995 and 2010 (APC, -1.8%; P<0.01), trends differed by age and race/ethnicity. Among individuals 50 years and above, the rate of decline was statistically significant among NHWs (APC, -2.4%; P<0.01) and AAs (APC, -1.3%; P<0.01) but not among Hispanics (APC, -0.6%; P=0.13). In persons aged 20 to 39 years, CRC incidence rose significantly among Hispanics (APC, 2.6%; P<0.01) and NHWs (APC, 2.4%; P<0.01), but not AAs (APC, 0.3%; P=0.75). CSS rates among Hispanics and NHWs were comparable across most age groups and cancer stages, whereas CSS rates among AAs were generally inferior to those observed among NHWs and Hispanics.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CRC incidence has declined in Texas, it is rising among young Hispanics and NHWs while declining more slowly among older Hispanics than among older NHWs and AAs.

Decision-making in geriatric oncology: systemic treatment considerations for older adults with colon cancer

Colon cancer is common and can be considered a disease of older adults with more than half of cases diagnosed in patients aged over 70 years. Decision-making about treatment with chemotherapy for older adults may be complicated by age-related physiological changes, impaired functional status, limited social supports, concerns regarding the occurrence of and ability to tolerate treatment toxicity, and the presence of comorbidities. This is compounded by a lack of high quality evidence guiding cancer treatment decisions for older adults. Areas covered: This narrative review evaluates the evidence for adjuvant and palliative systemic therapy in older adults with colon cancer. The value of an adequate assessment prior to making a treatment decision is addressed, with emphasis on the geriatric assessment. Guidance in making a treatment decision is provided. Expert commentary: Treatment decisions should consider goals of care, a patient's treatment preferences, and weigh up relative benefits and harms.

Aspirin, platelets, and cancer: The point of view of the internist

Growing evidence suggests the beneficial effect of aspirin against some types of cancer, particularly of the gastrointestinal tract, and it has been provided for an effect both in cancer prevention as well as in survival improvement of cancer patients. Aspirin benefits increase with duration of treatment, especially after 10years of treatment. The inhibition of platelet activation at sites of gastrointestinal mucosal lesions could be the primary mechanism of action of low-dose aspirin. Indeed, the formation of tumor cell-induced platelet aggregates may favor immune evasion, by releasing angiogenic and growth factors, and also by promoting cancer cell dissemination. Moreover, platelets may contribute to aberrant COX-2 expression in colon carcinoma cells, thereby contributing to downregulation of oncosuppressor genes and upregulation of oncogenes, such as cyclin B1. Platelet adhesion to cancer cells leads also to an increased expression of genes involved in the EMT, such as the EMT-inducing transcription factors ZEB1 and TWIST1 and the mesenchymal marker vimentin. The aspirin-mediated inactivation of platelets may restore antitumor reactivity by blocking the release of paracrine lipid and protein mediators that induce COX-2 expression in adjacent nucleated cells at sites of mucosal injury. Thus, recent findings suggest interesting perspectives on "old" aspirin and NSAID treatment and/or "new" specific drugs to target the "evil" interactions between platelets and cancer for chemoprevention.

The impact of comorbidity on cancer and its treatment

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Comorbidity is common among cancer patients and, with an aging population, is becoming more so. Comorbidity potentially affects the development, stage at diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of people with cancer. Despite the intimate relationship between comorbidity and cancer, there is limited consensus on how to record, interpret, or manage comorbidity in the context of cancer, with the result that patients who have comorbidity are less likely to receive treatment with curative intent. Evidence in this area is lacking because of the frequent exclusion of patients with comorbidity from randomized controlled trials. There is evidence that some patients with comorbidity have potentially curative treatment unnecessarily modified, compromising optimal care. Patients with comorbidity have poorer survival, poorer quality of life, and higher health care costs. Strategies to address these issues include improving the evidence base for patients with comorbidity, further development of clinical tools to assist decision making, improved integration and coordination of care, and skill development for clinicians. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:337-350. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Why adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer was not given: Reasons for non-recommendation by clinicians or patient refusal

Aim

The aim of our study was to evaluate stage III colon cancer patients discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting to identify reasons for clinicians not recommending adjuvant chemotherapy and reasons for patients declining recommended chemotherapy.

Methods

A retrospective, single institution Australian study was conducted on all surgically managed stage III colon cancer patients diagnosed at the regional cancer centre at Toowoomba Hospital between July 2010 and December 2014. Reasons why adjuvant chemotherapy was not recommended by the multidisciplinary team or following referral to a medical oncologist and patients’ reasons for refusing chemotherapy despite medical oncology recommendation were determined.

Results

One hundred and nine patients were suitable for evaluation. Overall, 72 (66.1%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was not recommended in 25 (23.4%) of patients, with the majority (68%) having more than one cited reason. Multiple comorbidities and advanced age were the most common reasons for non-recommendation ( p < 0.01). Age alone was not a reason for not recommending chemotherapy. Twelve (11%) patients declined offered chemotherapy. The reasons for refusal were not detailed in the majority of patient charts (63.6%). Travel distance was not a factor in accepting or refusing chemotherapy.

Conclusion

Discussion at a multidisciplinary team meeting facilitates the identification of patients unsuitable for adjuvant treatment. The reasons for declining offered chemotherapy need to be assessed fully to ensure that patients’ treatment preferences are balanced against the proven benefits of chemotherapy. Attendance at a regional cancer centre provides the opportunity for high standard care in the management of stage III colon cancer.

Variations in Oncologist Recommendations for Chemotherapy for Stage IV Lung Cancer: What Is the Role of Performance Status?

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy prolongs survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. However, few studies have included patients with poor performance status. This study examined rates of oncologists' recommendations for chemotherapy by patient performance status and symptoms and how physician characteristics influence chemotherapy recommendations.

METHODS

We surveyed medical oncologists involved in the care of a population-based cohort of patients with lung cancer from the CanCORS (Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance) study. Physicians were queried about their likelihood to recommend chemotherapy to patients with stage IV lung cancer with varying performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 [good] v 3 [poor]) and presence or absence of tumor-related pain. Repeated measures logistic regression was used to estimate the independent associations of patients' performance status and symptoms and physicians' demographic and practice characteristics with chemotherapy recommendations.

RESULTS

Nearly all physicians (adjusted rate, 97% to 99%) recommended chemotherapy for patients with good performance status, and approximately half (adjusted rate, 38% to 53%) recommended chemotherapy for patients with poor performance status (P < .001). Compared with patient factors, physician and practice characteristics were less strongly associated with chemotherapy recommendations in adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

Strong consensus among oncologists exists for chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and good performance status. However, the relatively high rate of chemotherapy recommendations for patients with poor performance status despite the unfavorable risk-benefit profile highlights the need for ongoing work to define high-value care in oncology and to implement and evaluate strategies to align incentives for such care.

The effect of comorbidity on the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and type of regimen for curatively resected stage III colon cancer patients

Postsurgical chemotherapy is guideline-recommended therapy for stage III colon cancer patients. Factors associated with patients not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy were identified in numerous studies; comorbidity was recognized as an important factor besides patient's age. We assessed the association between comorbidity and the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and type of chemotherapy regimen. Stage III colon cancer patients who underwent surgical resection were obtained from ten Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-NPCR Specialized Registries which participated in the Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) project. Comorbidity was classified into no comorbidity recorded, Charlson, non-Charlson comorbidities, number, and severity of Charlson comorbidity. Pearson chi-square test and multivariable logistic regression were employed. Of 3180 resected stage III colon cancer patients, 64% received adjuvant chemotherapy. After adjusting for patient's demographic and tumor characteristics, there were no significant differences in receipt of chemotherapy between Charlson and non-Charlson comorbidity. However, patients who had two or more Charlson comorbidities or had moderate to severe disease were significantly less likely to have chemotherapy (ORs 0.69 [95% CI, 0.51-0.92] and 0.62 [95% CI, 0.42-0.91], respectively) when compared with those with non-Charlson comorbidity. In addition, those with moderate or severe comorbidities were more likely to receive single chemotherapy agent (P < 0.0001). Capecitabine and FOLFOX were the most common single- and multi-agent regimens regardless of type of comorbidity grouping. Both the number and severity of comorbidity were significantly associated with receipt of guideline-recommended chemotherapy and type of agent in stage III resected colon cancer patients. Better personalized care based on individual patient's condition ought to be recognized.

Decision-making by surgeons about referral for adjuvant therapy for patients with non-small-cell lung, breast or colorectal cancer: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Because surgeons are the main gatekeepers to oncology services, understanding how they make decisions related to referral for adjuvant therapies is important to optimize referral rates and use of oncology services for patients with potentially curable disease. We examined decision-making by surgeons related to referral to oncology services for patients having undergone curative-intent surgery for non-small-cell lung, breast or colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study, whose design was guided by the principles of grounded theory. Semi-structured interviews were held with 29 surgeons who performed non-small-cell lung, breast or colorectal cancer surgery in the province of Nova Scotia. Data were collected and analyzed concurrently. Analysis involved an inductive, grounded approach using constant comparative analysis. Data collection and analysis continued until theoretical saturation was reached.

RESULTS

Seven factors influenced the surgeons' decision-making related to referral to oncology services: indications and contraindications for therapy; patients' beliefs and preferences; a belief that oncologists are the experts; knowledge of local standards of care; consultation with oncology colleagues; navigating patient logistics (e.g., lodging, caregiving responsibilities, insurance coverage); and system resources and capacity.

INTERPRETATION

Our study's findings provide a novel understanding of how surgeons make decisions about oncology referral and point to potential areas for intervention to promote referral to oncology services for patients for whom adjuvant therapy is recommended.

Tumor board participation among physicians caring for patients with lung or colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Multidisciplinary tumor board meetings are common in cancer care, but limited evidence is available about their benefits. We assessed the associations of tumor board participation and structure with care delivery and patient outcomes.

METHODS

As part of the CanCORS study, we surveyed 1,601 oncologists and surgeons about participation in tumor boards and specific tumor board features. Among 4,620 patients with lung or colorectal cancer diagnosed from 2003 to 2005 and seen by 1,198 of these physicians, we assessed associations of tumor board participation with patient survival, clinical trial enrollment, guideline-recommended care, and patient-reported quality, adjusting for patient and physician characteristics.

RESULTS

Weekly physician tumor board participation (v participation less often or never) was not associated with patient survival, although in exploratory subgroup analyses, weekly participation was associated with lower mortality for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer and stage IV colorectal cancer. Patients treated by the 54% of physicians participating in tumor boards weekly (v less often or never) were more likely to enroll onto clinical trials (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.2). Patients with stage I to II non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose physicians participated in tumor boards weekly were more likely to undergo curative-intent surgery (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.3 to 6.8), although those with stage I to II NSCLC whose physicians' meetings reviewed > one cancer site were less likely to undergo curative-intent surgery (OR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.4).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with lung or colorectal cancer, frequent physician tumor board engagement was associated with patient clinical trial participation and higher rates of curative-intent surgery for stage I to II NSCLC but not with overall survival.

Consideration of comorbidity in treatment decision making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Comorbidity is very common among patients with cancer. Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) are increasingly the context within which cancer treatment decisions are made internationally. Little is known about how comorbidity is considered, or impacts decisions, in MDTs.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate previous evidence on consideration, and impact, of comorbidity in cancer MDT treatment decision making. Twenty-one original studies were included.

RESULTS

Lack of information on comorbidity in MDTs impedes the ability of MDT members to make treatment recommendations, and for those recommendations to be implemented among patients with comorbidity. Where treatment is different from that recommended due to comorbidity, it is more conservative, despite evidence that such treatment may be tolerated and effective. MDT members are likely to be unaware of the extent to which issues such as comorbidity are ignored.

CONCLUSIONS

MDTs should systematically consider treatment of patients with comorbidity. Further research is needed to assist clinicians to undertake MDT decision making that appropriately addresses comorbidity. If this were to occur, it would likely contribute to improved outcomes for cancer patients with comorbidities.

A retrospective cohort study of patients with stomach and liver cancers: the impact of comorbidity and ethnicity on cancer care and outcomes

Background

Comorbidity has an adverse impact on cancer survival partly through its negative impact on receipt of curative treatment. Comorbidity is unevenly distributed within populations, with some ethnic and socioeconomic groups having considerably higher burden. The aim of this study was to investigate the inter-relationships between comorbidity, ethnicity, receipt of treatment, and cancer survival among patients with stomach and liver cancer in New Zealand.

Methods

Using the New Zealand Cancer Registry, Māori patients diagnosed with stomach and liver cancers were identified (n = 269), and compared with a randomly selected group of non-Māori patients (n = 255). Clinical and outcome data were collected from medical records, and the administrative hospitalisation and mortality databases. Logistic and Cox regression modelling with multivariable adjustment were used to examine the impacts of ethnicity and comorbidity on receipt of treatment, and the impact of these variables on all-cause and cancer specific survival.

Results

More than 70% of patients had died by two years post-diagnosis. As comorbidity burden increased among those with Stage I-III disease, the likelihood that the patient would receive curative surgery decreased (e.g. C3 Index score 6 vs 0, adjusted OR: 0.32, 95% CI 0.13-0.78) and risk of mortality increased (e.g. C3 Index score 6 vs 0, adjusted all-cause HR: 1.44, 95% CI 0.93-2.23). Receipt of curative surgery reduced this excess mortality, in some cases substantially; but the extent to which this occurred varied by level of comorbidity. Māori patients had somewhat higher levels of comorbidity (34% in highest comorbidity category compared with 23% for non-Māori) and poorer survival that was not explained by age, sex, site, stage, comorbidity or receipt of curative surgery (adjusted cancer-specific HR: 1.36, 95% CI 0.97-1.90; adjusted all-cause HR: 1.33, 95% CI 0.97-1.82). Access to healthcare factors accounted for 25-36% of this survival difference.

Conclusions

Patients with comorbidity were substantially less likely to receive curative surgery and more likely to die than those without comorbidity. Receipt of curative surgery markedly reduced their excess mortality. Despite no discernible difference in likelihood of curative treatment receipt, Māori remained more likely to die than non-Māori even after adjusting for confounding and mediating variables.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2407-14-821) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Physician-reported barriers to referring cancer patients to specialists: prevalence, factors, and association with career satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Quality care for patients with cancer often requires access to specialty providers, but little is known about barriers to referring cancer patients for specialized care. Referral barriers may also lessen physician career satisfaction. The study was aimed at determining what factors are associated with these barriers and whether greater barriers are associated with low career satisfaction.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study examined 1562 primary care physicians (PCPs) and 2144 specialists responding to the multiregional Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium physician survey. The prevalence of physician-reported barriers to referring cancer patients for more specialized care (restricted provider networks, preauthorization requirements, patient inability to pay, lack of surgical subspecialists, and excessive patient travel time) was assessed. The 5 items were averaged to calculate a barrier score. A multivariate linear regression was used to determine physician and practice setting characteristics associated with the barrier score, and a multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the association of the barrier score with physician career satisfaction.

RESULTS

Three in 5 physicians reported always, usually, or sometimes encountering any barrier to cancer patient specialty referrals. In adjusted analyses of PCPs and specialists, international medical graduates, physicians practicing in solo or government-owned practices, and physicians with <90% of their patients in managed care plans had higher barrier scores than others (P < .05). High barrier scores were associated with lower physician career satisfaction among PCPs and specialists (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Many physicians experience barriers to specialty referral for cancer patients. Uniform systems for providing and tracking timely referrals may enhance care and promote physician career satisfaction.

Physicians' beliefs about the benefits and risks of adjuvant therapies for stage II and stage III colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant therapy plays a major role in treating colorectal cancer, and physicians' views of its effectiveness influence treatment decisions. We assessed physicians' views of the relative benefits and risks of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for stages II and III colon and rectal cancers.

METHODS

The Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium surveyed a geographically dispersed population of medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons in the United States about the benefits and risks of adjuvant therapies for colorectal cancer. We used logistic regression to assess the association of physician and practice characteristics with beliefs about adjuvant therapies.

RESULTS

Among 1,296 respondents, > 90% believed the benefits of adjuvant therapies for stage III colorectal cancer outweigh the risks. Only 21.9%, 50%, and 50.4% believed in the net benefit of chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer, chemotherapy for stage II rectal cancer, and radiation for stage II rectal cancer, respectively. Younger physicians were less likely than others to perceive adjuvant therapy for stage II colorectal cancer as beneficial. Medical oncologists were more likely than surgeons and radiation oncologists to endorse the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation for stage II rectal cancer, but less likely for stage II colon cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians largely agreed that the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer, as well as chemotherapy, and radiation for stage III rectal cancer, outweigh the risks, consistent with strong evidence, but were divided over the net benefit of adjuvant therapies for stage II colorectal cancer, where evidence is inconsistent.

Factors associated with use of preoperative chemoradiation therapy for rectal cancer in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium

PURPOSE

Preoperative (preop) chemoradiation therapy (CRT) improves local control and reduces toxicity more than postoperative (postop) CRT for the treatment of stages II/III rectal cancer, but studies suggest that many patients still receive postop CRT. We examined patient beliefs and clinical and provider characteristics associated with receipt of recommended therapy.

METHODS

We identified stages II/III rectal cancer patients who had primary site resection and CRT among subjects in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium, a population-based and health system-based prospective cohort of newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients from 2003 to 2005. Patient surveys and abstracted medical records were used to construct variables and determine sequence of CRT and surgery. Logistic regression was used to model the association between predictors and receipt of preop CRT.

RESULTS

Of the 201 patients, 66% received preop and 34% received postop CRT. Those visiting a medical oncologist and/or radiation oncologist before a surgeon had a 96% (95% confidence interval, 92%-100%) predicted probability of receiving preop CRT, compared with 48% (95% confidence interval, 41%-55%) for those visiting a surgeon first. Among those visiting a surgeon first, documentation of recommended staging procedures was associated with receiving preop CRT.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequence of provider visits and documentation of recommended staging procedures were important predictors of receiving preop CRT. Initial multidisciplinary evaluation led to better adherence to CRT guidelines. Further evaluation of provider characteristics, referral patterns, and related health system processes should be undertaken to inform targeted interventions to reduce variation from recommended care.

The impact of comorbidity on cancer survival: a review

Background

A number of studies have shown poorer survival among cancer patients with comorbidity. Several mechanisms may underlie this finding. In this review we summarize the current literature on the association between patient comorbidity and cancer prognosis. Prognostic factors examined include tumor biology, diagnosis, treatment, clinical quality, and adherence.

Methods

All English-language articles published during 2002–2012 on the association between comorbidity and survival among patients with colon cancer, breast cancer, and lung cancer were identified from PubMed, MEDLINE and Embase. Titles and abstracts were reviewed to identify eligible studies and their main results were then extracted.

Results

Our search yielded more than 2,500 articles related to comorbidity and cancer, but few investigated the prognostic impact of comorbidity as a primary aim. Most studies found that cancer patients with comorbidity had poorer survival than those without comorbidity, with 5-year mortality hazard ratios ranging from 1.1 to 5.8. Few studies examined the influence of specific chronic conditions. In general, comorbidity does not appear to be associated with more aggressive types of cancer or other differences in tumor biology. Presence of specific severe comorbidities or psychiatric disorders were found to be associated with delayed cancer diagnosis in some studies, while chronic diseases requiring regular medical visits were associated with earlier cancer detection in others. Another finding was that patients with comorbidity do not receive standard cancer treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy as often as patients without comorbidity, and their chance of completing a course of cancer treatment is lower. Postoperative complications and mortality are higher in patients with comorbidity. It is unclear from the literature whether the apparent undertreatment reflects appropriate consideration of greater toxicity risk, poorer clinical quality, patient preferences, or poor adherence among patients with comorbidity.

Conclusion

Despite increasing recognition of the importance of comorbid illnesses among cancer patients, major challenges remain. Both treatment effectiveness and compliance appear compromised among cancer patients with comorbidity. Data on clinical quality is limited.

Utilization of bevacizumab in US elderly patients with colorectal cancer receiving chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Bevacizumab, the first FDA-approved anti-angiogenesis agent, has been used for metastatic colorectal cancer since 2004. This study evaluated the utilization of bevacizumab among elderly metastatic colorectal cancer patients in the United States.

METHODS

Using Surveillance and Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, this retrospective cohort study consisted of individuals aged 65 years or older with a colorectal cancer diagnosis between 2005 and 2009, who received chemotherapy any time through 2010. This included patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer and patients who progressed from initially diagnosed earlier-stage disease. We ascertained comorbid conditions using ICD-9 codes and conducted logistic regression to identify patients' characteristics associated with bevacizumab use.

RESULTS

A total of 8645 patients were identified (mean age 74 years; 52% male); 57% of patients received bevacizumab with initially diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer and 44% of patients with treated progressive or recurrent disease. After adjusting for other covariates, we found that patients aged ≥80 years were less likely to receive bevacizumab compared with those aged 65-69 years (odds ratio (OR), 0.64 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.73)), or if they had evidence of comorbid cardiomyopathy/congestive heart failure (OR, 0.82 (CI: 0.70-0.95)) or arrhythmic disorder (OR, 0.85 (CI: 0.75-0.96)). Adoption of bevacizumab into practice was rapid following its approval, and the use increased from 36% to 40% from 2005 to 2010 (p = 0.013). There were significant regional variations in bevacizumab use.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite rapid uptake since its original approval, there appears to be low use of bevacizumab in elderly metastatic colorectal cancer patients in the United States. Regional variations and the strong effects of age and comorbidity suggest lack of consensus among oncologists regarding benefits and risks of bevacizumab in elderly patients.

Improving the outcome of colorectal cancer: the European Registration of Cancer Care (EURECCA) project

SUMMARY Colorectal cancer is one of the most common types of cancers. Although there have been several improvements in screening, staging and treatment in recent decades, differences in the quality of care between European countries remain. Quality control on surgery, radiotherapy and pathology have been introduced in trials, followed by incorporation into general care. Another option is an audit structure in which hospitals and clinicians can also improve their results by learning from their own outcome statistics and those from colleagues treating a similar patient group. Although all these audit structures have achieved excellent results, differences in outcomes between European countries remain. To reduce the differences between the countries, an international, multidisciplinary, outcome-based quality improvement program has been initiated – European Registration of Cancer Care. One of the next steps will be to use the European Registration of Cancer Care data set to perform research on subgroups, such as elderly patients and patients with comorbidities, which are often excluded from trials.

Barriers to breast and colorectal cancer survivorship care: perceptions of primary care physicians and medical oncologists in the United States

PURPOSE

High-quality, well-coordinated cancer survivorship care is needed yet barriers remain owing to fragmentation in the United States health care system. This article is a nationwide survey of barriers perceived by primary care physicians (PCPs) and medical oncologists (MOs) regarding breast and colorectal cancer survivorship care beyond 5 years after treatment.

METHODS

The Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors was mailed out in 2009 to a nationally-representative sample (n = 3,596) of US PCPs and MOs. Ten physician-perceived cancer survivorship care barriers/concerns were compared between the two provider types. Using weighted multinomial logistic regression, we modeled each barrier, adjusting for physician demographics, reimbursement, training, and practice characteristics.

RESULTS

We received responses from 2,202 physicians (1,072 PCPs; 1,130 MOs; 65.1% cooperation rate). In adjusted patient-related barriers models, MOs were more likely than PCPs to report patient language barriers (odds ratio, [OR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.42), insurance restrictions impeding test/treatment use (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.96), and patients requesting more aggressive testing (OR, 4.08; 95% CI, 2.73 to 6.10). In adjusted physician-related barriers models, PCPs were more likely to report inadequate training (OR, 3.06; 95% CI, 2.03 to 4.61) and ordering additional tests/treatments because of malpractice concerns (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.93). MOs were more likely to report uncertainty regarding general preventive care responsibility (often/always: OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.13 to 3.43; sometimes: OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.60 to 2.93).

CONCLUSION

MOs and PCPs perceive different cancer follow-up care barriers/concerns to be problematic. Resolving inadequate training, malpractice-driven test ordering, and preventive-care responsibility concerns may require continuing education, explicit guidelines, and survivorship care plans. Reviewing care plans with survivors may also reduce patients' requests for unnecessary testing.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: age differences in factors influencing patients' treatment decisions

PURPOSE

Older colorectal cancer patients are significantly less likely than younger patients to receive guideline-recommended adjuvant chemotherapy. Previous research has indicated that patient refusal of treatment is a contributing factor. This study aimed to identify potential barriers to adjuvant chemotherapy use in older patients by examining the associations between patient age, factors influencing chemotherapy treatment decisions, and preferences for information and decision-making involvement.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty-eight patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer in Sydney, Australia, within the previous 24 months completed a self-administered survey.

RESULTS

Fear of dying, health status, age, quality of life, and understanding treatment procedures and effects were significantly more important to older patients (aged ≥65 years) than younger patients in deciding whether to accept chemotherapy (all P < 0.05). Reducing the risk of cancer returning and physician trust were important factors for all patients. Practical barriers such as traveling for treatment and cost were rated lowest. Older patients preferred less information and involvement in treatment decision making than younger patients. However, 60% of the older group wanted detailed information about chemotherapy, and 83% wanted some involvement in decision making. Those preferring less information and involvement still rated many factors as important in their decision making, including understanding treatment procedures and effects.

CONCLUSION

A range of factors appears to influence patients' chemotherapy decision making, including, but not limited to, survival benefits and treatment toxicity. For older patients, balancing the risks and benefits of treatment may be made more complex by the impact of emotional motivators, greater health concerns, and conflicts between their need for understanding and their information and decision-making preferences. Through greater understanding of perceived barriers to treatment and unique motivators for treatment choice, physicians may be better able to support older patients to make informed decisions about their care.

Medical oncologists' perceptions of financial incentives in cancer care

PURPOSE

The cost of cancer care continues to increase at an unprecedented rate. Concerns have been raised about financial incentives associated with the chemotherapy concession in oncology practices and their impact on treatment recommendations.

METHODS

The objective of this study was to measure the physician-reported effects of prescribing chemotherapy or growth factors or making referrals to other cancer specialists, hospice, or hospital admissions on medical oncologists' income. US medical oncologists involved in the care of a population-based cohort of patients with lung or colorectal cancer from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study were surveyed regarding their perceptions of the impact of prescribing practices or referrals on their income.

RESULTS

Although most oncologists reported that their incomes would be unaffected, compared with salaried oncologists, physicians in fee-for-service practice, and those paid a salary with productivity incentives were more likely to report that their income would increase from administering chemotherapy (odds ratios [ORs], 7.05 and 7.52, respectively; both P < .001) or administering growth factors (ORs, 5.60 and 6.03, respectively; both P < .001).

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of oncologists who are not paid a fixed salary report that their incomes increase when they administer chemotherapy and growth factors. Further research is needed to understand the impact of these financial incentives on both the quality and cost of care.