Association of area-level mortgage denial and guideline-concordant non-small-cell lung cancer care and outcomes in the United States

BACKGROUND

Racial and socioeconomic disparities in receipt of care for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are well described. However, no previous studies have evaluated the association between mortgage denial rates and receipt of timely and guideline-concordant care for NSCLC and patient outcomes.

METHODS

We identified individuals ≥18 years diagnosed with NSCLC between 2014 and 2019 from the National Cancer Database. Using the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act database, we calculated the proportion of denied home loans to total loans at the zip-code level and categorized them into quintiles. Our outcomes included receipt of guideline-concordant care based on clinical and pathologic stage at diagnosis and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, time from surgery to chemotherapy initiation, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Of the 629,288 individuals diagnosed with NSCLC (median age 69; IQR 61-76 years, 49.1% female), 47.8% did not receive guideline-concordant care. Residing in areas with higher mortgage denial rates and lower income was associated with worse guideline-concordant care overall (aRR = 1.28; 95% CI = 1.25-1.32) and for each cancer treatment modality, worse receipt of timely chemotherapy (aHR = 1.14; 95% CI = 1.11-1.17) and worse overall survival (aHR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.19-1.22), compared with residing in areas with the lowest mortgage denial rate and highest income.

CONCLUSIONS

Area-level mortgage denial rate was associated with worse receipt of timely and guideline-concordant NSCLC care and survival. This highlights the critical need to understand and address systemic practices, such as mortgage denial, that limit access to resources and are associated with worse access to quality cancer care and outcomes.

Differential Effects of Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Insurance on Disease-Specific Survival in Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline adherence improves cancer outcomes. In rectal cancer, guideline adherence is distributed differently by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and insurance.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the independent effects of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and insurance status on rectal cancer survival after accounting for differences in guideline adherence.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted using the California Cancer Registry.

PATIENTS

This study included patients aged 18 to 79 years diagnosed with rectal adenocarcinoma between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2017, with follow-up through November 30, 2018. Investigators determined whether patients received guideline-adherent care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

ORs and 95% CIs were used for logistic regression to analyze patients receiving guideline-adherent care. Disease-specific survival analysis was calculated using Cox regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 30,118 patients were examined. Factors associated with higher odds of guideline adherence included Asian and Hispanic race/ethnicity, managed care insurance, and high socioeconomic status. Asians (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88; p < 0.001) and Hispanics (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.99; p = 0.0279) had better disease-specific survival in the nonadherent group. Race/ethnicity were not factors associated with disease-specific survival in the guideline adherent group. Medicaid disease-specific survival was worse in both the nonadherent group (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.40-1.73; p < 0.0001) and the guideline-adherent group (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.08-1.30; p = 0.0005). Disease-specific survival of the lowest socioeconomic status was worse in both the nonadherent group (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.27-1.59) and the guideline-adherent group (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.08-1.34).

LIMITATIONS

Limitations included unmeasured confounders and the retrospective nature of the review.

CONCLUSIONS

Race, socioeconomic status, and insurance are associated with guideline adherence in rectal cancer. Race/ethnicity was not associated with differences in disease-specific survival in the guideline-adherent group. Medicaid and lowest socioeconomic status had worse disease-specific survival in both the guideline nonadherent group and the guideline-adherent group. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B954 .

EFECTOS DIFERENCIALES DE LA RAZA, EL NIVEL SOCIOECONMICO COBERTURA SOBRE LA SUPERVIVENCIA ESPECFICA DE LA ENFERMEDAD EN EL CNCER DE RECTO

ANTECEDENTES: El cumplimiento de las guías de la National Comprehensive Cancer Network mejora los resultados del cáncer. En el cáncer de recto, el cumplimiento de las guías se distribuye de manera diferente según la raza/origen étnico, nivel socioeconómico y el cobertura médica.OBJETIVO: Determinar los efectos independientes de la raza/origen étnico, el nivel socioeconómico y el estado de cobertura médica en la supervivencia del cáncer de recto después de tener en cuenta las diferencias en el cumplimiento de las guías.DISEÑO: Este fue un estudio retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO: El estudio se realizó utilizando el Registro de Cáncer de California.PACIENTES: Pacientes de 18 a 79 años diagnosticados con adenocarcinoma rectal entre el 1 de enero de 2004 y el 31 de diciembre de 2017 con seguimiento hasta el 30 de noviembre de 2018. Los investigadores determinaron si los pacientes recibieron atención siguiendo las guías.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Se utilizaron razones de probabilidad e intervalos de confianza del 95 % para la regresión logística para analizar a los pacientes que recibían atención con adherencia a las guías. El análisis de supervivencia específico de la enfermedad se calculó utilizando modelos de regresión de Cox.RESULTADOS: Se analizaron un total de 30.118 pacientes. Los factores asociados con mayores probabilidades de cumplimiento de las guías incluyeron raza/etnicidad asiática e hispana, seguro de atención administrada y nivel socioeconómico alto. Los asiáticos e hispanos tuvieron una mejor supervivencia específica de la enfermedad en el grupo no adherente HR 0,80 (95 % CI 0,72 - 0,88, p < 0,001) y HR 0,91 (95 % CI 0,83 - 0,99, p = 0,0279). La raza o el origen étnico no fueron factores asociados con la supervivencia específica de la enfermedad en el grupo que cumplió con las guías. La supervivencia específica de la enfermedad de Medicaid fue peor tanto en el grupo no adherente HR 1,56 (IC del 95 % 1,40 - 1,73, p < 0,0001) como en el grupo adherente a las guías HR 1,18 (IC del 95 % 1,08 - 1,30, p = 0,0005). La supervivencia específica de la enfermedad del nivel socioeconómico más bajo fue peor tanto en el grupo no adherente HR 1,42 (IC del 95 %: 1,27 a 1,59) como en el grupo adherente a las guías HR 1,20 (IC del 95 %: 1,08 a 1,34).LIMITACIONES: Las limitaciones incluyeron factores de confusión no medidos y la naturaleza retrospectiva de la revisión.CONCLUSIONES: La raza, el nivel socioeconómico y cobertura médica están asociados con la adherencia a las guías en el cáncer de recto. La raza/etnicidad no se asoció con diferencias en la supervivencia específica de la enfermedad en el grupo que cumplió con las guías. Medicaid y el nivel socioeconómico más bajo tuvieron peor supervivencia específica de la enfermedad tanto en el grupo que no cumplió con las guías como en los grupos que cumplieron. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B954 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Sociodemographic disparities in targeted therapy in ovarian cancer in a national sample

Background

The treatment landscape for ovarian cancer has changed in recent years with the introduction of targeted therapies to treat patients with advanced disease. We investigated patient demographic and clinical factors associated with use of targeted therapies as a part of the first-line treatment for ovarian cancer.

Methods

This study included patients diagnosed with stage I-IV ovarian cancer between 2012 and 2019 from the National Cancer Database. Information on demographic and clinical characteristics were collected and described using frequency and percent across receipt of targeted therapy. Logistic regression was used to compute the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) associating patient demographic and clinical factors with receipt of targeted therapy.

Results

Among 99,286 ovarian cancer patients (mean age 62 years), 4.1% received targeted therapy. The rate of targeted therapy receipt across racial and ethnic groups over the study period was fairly similar; however, non-Hispanic Black women were less likely to receive targeted therapy than their non-Hispanic White counterparts (OR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.76-1.00). Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to receive targeted therapy than those who received adjuvant chemotherapy (OR=1.26; 95% CI: 1.15-1.38). Moreover, among patients who received targeted therapy, 28% received neoadjuvant targeted therapy, with non-Hispanic Black women being most likely to receive neoadjuvant targeted therapy (34%) compared with other racial and ethnic groups.

Conclusions

We observed differences in receipt of targeted therapy by factors such as age at diagnosis, stage, and comorbidities present at diagnosis, as well as factors related to healthcare access-including neighborhood education level and health insurance status. Approximately 28% of patients received targeted therapy in the neoadjuvant setting, which could negatively impact treatment outcomes and survival due to the increased risk of complications associated with targeted therapies that may delay or prevent surgery. These results warrant further evaluation in a cohort of patients with more comprehensive treatment information.

Neighborhood deprivation, racial segregation and associations with cancer risk and outcomes across the cancer-control continuum

The racial/ethnic disparities in cancer incidence and outcome are partially due to the inequities in neighborhood advantage. Mounting evidences supported a link between neighborhood deprivation and cancer outcomes including higher mortality. In this review, we discuss some of the findings related to work on area-level neighborhood variables and cancer outcomes, and the potential biological and built/natural environmental mechanisms that might explain this link. Studies have also shown that residents of deprived neighborhoods or of racially or economically segregated neighborhoods have worse health outcomes than residents of more affluent neighborhoods and/or less racially or economically segregated neighborhoods, even after adjusting for the individual-level socioeconomic status. To date, little research has been conducted investigating the biological mediators that may play roles in the associations of neighborhood deprivation and segregation with cancer outcomes. The psychophysiological stress induced by neighborhood disadvantage among people living in these neighborhoods could be a potential underlying biological mechanism. We examined a number of chronic stress-related pathways that may potentially mediate the relationship between area-level neighborhood factors and cancer outcomes, including higher allostatic load, stress hormones, altered epigenome and telomere maintenance and biological aging. In conclusion, the extant evidence supports the notion that neighborhood deprivation and racial segregation have unfavorable impacts on cancer. Understanding how neighborhood factors influence the biological stress response has the potential to inform where and what types of resources are needed within the community to improve cancer outcomes and reduce disparities. More studies are warranted to directly assess the role of biological and social mechanisms in mediating the relationship between neighborhood factors and cancer outcomes.

Factor Analysis of Health Care Access With Ovarian Cancer Surgery and Gynecologic Oncologist Consultation

IMPORTANCE

Poor health care access (HCA) is associated with racial and ethnic disparities in ovarian cancer (OC) survival.

OBJECTIVE

To generate composite scores representing health care affordability, availability, and accessibility via factor analysis and to evaluate the association between each score and key indicators of guideline-adherent care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used data from patients with OC diagnosed between 2008 and 2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare database. The SEER Medicare database uses cancer registry data and linked Medicare claims from 12 US states. Included patients were Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White individuals aged 65 years or older diagnosed from 2008 to 2015 with first or second primary OC of any histologic type (International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition [ICD-O-3] code C569). Data were analyzed from June 2020 to June 2022.

EXPOSURES

The SEER-Medicare data set was linked with publicly available data sets to obtain 35 variables representing health care affordability, availability, and accessibility. A composite score was created for each dimension using confirmatory factor analysis followed by a promax (oblique) rotation on multiple component variables.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were consultation with a gynecologic oncologist for OC and receipt of OC-related surgery in the 2 months prior to or 6 months after diagnosis.

RESULTS

The cohort included 8987 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 76.8 (7.3) years and 612 Black patients (6.8%), 553 Hispanic patients (6.2%), and 7822 White patients (87.0%). Black patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.91) and Hispanic patients (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.99) were less likely to consult a gynecologic oncologist compared with White patients, and Black patients were less likely to receive surgery after adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94). HCA availability and affordability were each associated with gynecologic oncologist consultation (availability: aOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24; affordability: aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.07-1.20), while affordability was associated with receipt of OC surgery (aOR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.15). In models mutually adjusted for availability, affordability, and accessibility, Black patients remained less likely to consult a gynecologic oncologist (aOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97) and receive surgery (aOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White patients with OC, HCA affordability and availability were significantly associated with receiving surgery and consulting a gynecologic oncologist. However, these dimensions did not fully explain racial and ethnic disparities.

Medicaid Expansions: Probing Medicaid’s Filling of the Cancer Genetic Testing and Screening Space

Cancer is the third largest source of spending for Medicaid in the United States. A working group of the American Public Health Association Genomics Forum Policy Committee reviewed 133/149 pieces of literature addressing the impact of Medicaid expansion on cancer screening and genetic testing in underserved groups and the general population. Breast and colorectal cancer screening rates improved during very early Medicaid expansion but displayed mixed improvement thereafter. Breast cancer screening rates have remained steady for Latina Medicaid enrollees; colorectal cancer screening rates have improved for African Americans. Urban areas have benefited more than rural. State programs increasingly cover BRCA1/2 and Lynch syndrome genetic testing, though testing remains underutilized in racial and ethnic groups. While increased federal matching could incentivize more states to engage in Medicaid expansion, steps need to be taken to ensure that they have an adequate distribution of resources to increase screening and testing utilization.

The Ethical Imperative of Equity in Oncology: Lessons Learned From 2020 and a Path Forward

The COVID-19 pandemic and the simultaneous increased focus on structural racism and racial/ethnic disparities across the United States have shed light on glaring inequities in U.S. health care, both in oncology and more generally. In this article, we describe how, through the lens of fundamental ethical principles, an ethical imperative exists for the oncology community to overcome these inequities in cancer care, research, and the oncology workforce. We first explain why this is an ethical imperative, centering the discussion on lessons learned during 2020. We continue by describing ongoing equity-focused efforts by ASCO and other related professional medical organizations. We end with a call to action-all members of the oncology community have an ethical responsibility to take steps to address inequities in their clinical and academic work-and with guidance to practicing oncologists looking to optimize equity in their research and clinical practice.