Development of an Actionable Framework to Address Cancer Care Disparities in Medically Underserved Populations in the United States: Expert Roundtable Recommendations

Understanding mechanisms of racial disparities in breast cancer: an assessment of screening and regular care in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study

PURPOSE

Screening history influences stage at detection, but regular preventive care may also influence breast tumor diagnostic characteristics. Few studies have evaluated healthcare utilization (both screening and primary care) in racially diverse screening-eligible populations.

METHODS

This analysis included 2,058 women age 45-74 (49% Black) from the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, a population-based cohort of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2008 and 2013. Screening history (threshold 0.5 mammograms per year) and pre-diagnostic healthcare utilization (i.e. regular care, based on responses to "During the past ten years, who did you usually see when you were sick or needed advice about your health?") were assessed as binary exposures. The relationship between healthcare utilization and tumor characteristics were evaluated overall and race-stratified.

RESULTS

Among those lacking screening, Black participants had larger tumors (5 + cm) (frequency 19.6% vs 11.5%, relative frequency difference (RFD) = 8.1%, 95% CI 2.8-13.5), but race differences were attenuated among screening-adherent participants (10.2% vs 7.0%, RFD = 3.2%, 0.2-6.2). Similar trends were observed for tumor stage and mode of detection (mammogram vs lump). Among all participants, those lacking both screening and regular care had larger tumors (21% vs 8%, RR = 2.51, 1.76-3.56) and advanced (3B +) stage (19% vs 6%, RR = 3.15, 2.15-4.63) compared to the referent category (screening-adherent and regular care). Under-use of regular care and screening was more prevalent in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas of North Carolina.

CONCLUSIONS

Access to regular care is an important safeguard for earlier detection. Our data suggest that health equity interventions should prioritize both primary care and screening.

Survivorship Care for People Affected by Advanced or Metastatic Cancer: MASCC-ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations

PURPOSE

People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared with those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end of life. These Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer.

METHODS

A MASCC-ASCO expert panel was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process.

RESULTS

A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including eight people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low- to middle-resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥94.8% agreement for seven standards, (1) Person-Centered Care; (2) Coordinated and Integrated Care; (3) Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; (4) Evaluated and Communicated Care; (5) Accessible and Equitable Care; (6) Sustainable and Resourced Care; and (7) Research and Data-Driven Care, and ≥84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders (health care professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers). Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.Additional information is available at www.mascc.org, www.asco.org/standards and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer: MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations

PURPOSE

People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared to those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end-of-life. These MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer.

METHODS

An expert panel comprising MASCC and ASCO members was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting: (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process.

RESULTS

A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including 8 people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low-to-middle resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥ 94.8% agreement for seven standards (1. Person-Centred Care; 2. Coordinated and Integrated Care; 3. Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; 4. Evaluated and Communicated Care; 5. Accessible and Equitable Care; 6. Sustainable and Resourced Care; 7. Research and Data-Driven Care) and ≥ 84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards will support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders in cancer care (healthcare professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers. Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.

Evaluating Social Determinants of Health Related to Cancer Survivorship and Quality of Care

BACKGROUND

Social determinants of health posit that negative outcomes are influenced by individuals living in underserved and underresourced neighborhoods.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines a cancer diagnosis, race/ethnicity, age, geographic location (residence), education, and social economic status factors at disease onset and treatment.

METHODS

A multivariable PO regression analysis was run for quality of care at testing or diagnosis, and quality of care at treatment and the quality of received care compared with another person.

RESULTS

Participants are representative of the Southern Community Cohort Study (SCCS) of adults diagnosed with breast (n = 263), prostate (n = 195), lung (n = 46), colorectal (n = 105), or other cancers (n = 526). This study includes cancer survivors who completed the SCCS Baseline and Cancer Navigation Surveys in urban (73.13%) and rural (26.87%) areas. White participants reported a higher quality of received care for testing or diagnosis and care for treatment compared with Black participants. Participants with high school or equivalent education (odds ratio, 1.662; 95% confidence interval, 1.172-2.356; P = .0044) or some college or junior college education (odds ratio, 1.970; 95% confidence interval, 1.348-2.879; P = .0005) were more likely to report a better level of quality of received care for treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The SCCS represents individuals who are historically underrepresented in cancer research. The results of this study will have broad implications across diverse communities to reduce disparities and inform models of care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nurses are positioned to evaluate the quality of population health and design and lead interventions that will benefit underserved and underresourced communities.

Disparity in treatment patterns among Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: an analysis of patient and contextual factors

This study characterizes the patterns and timing of CLL treatment and, to our knowledge, is the first to identify social vulnerability factors associated with CLL treatment receipt in the Medicare population. A total of 3508 Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with CLL from 2017 to 2019 were identified. We reported the proportion of individuals who received CLL treatment and the time until the first CLL treatment receipt after the first observed claim with a CLL diagnosis. Logistic regression and time-to-event models provided adjusted odds ratios and hazard ratios associated with baseline individual-level and county-level factors. Sixteen percent of individuals received CLL treatment, and the median follow-up time was 540 d. The median time to receipt of CLL treatment was 61 d. Older age and residence in a county ranked high in social vulnerability (as defined by minority status and language) were negatively associated with treatment receipt and time to treatment receipt.

Inequity in Cancer and Cancer Care Delivery in the United States

Inequity exists along the continuum of cancer and cancer care delivery in the United States. Marginalized populations have later stage cancer at diagnosis, decreased likelihood of receiving cancer-directed care, and worse outcomes from treatment. These inequities are driven by historical, structural, systemic, interpersonal, and internalized factors that influence cancer across the pathologic and clinical continuum. To ensure equity in cancer care, interventions are needed at the level of policy, care delivery, interpersonal communication, diversity within the clinical workforce, and clinical trial accessibility and design.

Advancing More Equitable Care Through the Development of a Health Equity Report Card

The root causes of racial disparities in access to optimal cancer care and related cancer outcomes are complex, multifactorial, and not rooted in biology. Contributing factors to racial disparities in care delivery include implicit and explicit bias, lack of representation of people of color in the oncology care and research workforce, and homogenous research participants that are not representative of the larger community. Systemic and structural barriers include policies leading to lack of insurance and underinsurance, costs of cancer treatment and associated ancillary costs of care, disparate access to clinical trials, and social determinants of health, including exposure to environmental hazards, access to housing, childcare, and economic injustices. To address these issues, ACS CAN, NCCN, and NMQF convened the Elevating Cancer Equity (ECE) initiative. The ECE Working Group developed the Health Equity Report Card (HERC). In this manuscript, we describe the process taken by the ECE Working Group to develop the HERC recommendations, the strategies employed by NCCN to develop an implementation plan and scoring methodology for the HERC, and next steps to pilot the HERC tool in practice settings.

Are There Racial or Socioeconomic Disparities in Ambulatory Outcome or Survival After Oncologic Spine Surgery for Metastatic Cancer? Results From a Medically Underserved Center

BACKGROUND

Disparities among patients with cancer are well documented. Recent studies suggest these disparities also affect patients undergoing metastatic spinal tumor surgery. However, it is unclear whether social factors are associated with ambulatory outcomes or overall survival.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In patients undergoing metastatic spinal tumor surgery, (1) Are race, Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) score, or insurance status associated with a lower likelihood of postoperative ambulation? (2) Are race, SVI score, or insurance status associated with shorter overall survival?

METHODS

Between April 2012 and June 2021, we surgically treated 148 patients for metastatic cord compression or spinal mechanical instability because of cancer. Inclusion criteria were patients with complete demographic, social, oncologic, and follow-up data and patients who were followed until death or for at least 3 months postoperatively. Based on these criteria, 12% (18 of 148) were excluded because they had incomplete data and another 7% (11 of 148) were excluded because they were lost before the minimum study follow-up interval, leaving 80% (119) for analysis. Collected social data included self-reported race (White, Black, Hispanic or Latino, or other), SVI score, and primary insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, or private). The median age of the group was 62 years (interquartile range [IQR] 53 to 70 years), and 58% of patients were men (69 of 119). The race distribution was 45% Black (54 of 119), 32% Hispanic or Latino (38 of 119), 16% White (19 of 119), and 7% other (eight of 119). The median SVI score was 89.8 (IQR 73.8 to 98.5), and 74% of patients (88) were categorized as having high vulnerability. The insurance distribution was as follows: Medicare: 43%, Medicaid: 36%, and private insurance: 21%. The primary outcome variable was complete inability to ambulate postoperatively and the secondary outcome was median overall survival. Exploratory data analysis, univariate and multivariate logistic regression, and univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

After controlling for race, SVI score, insurance status, primary cancer, and modified Bauer score, the only factor independently associated with postoperative nonambulation was preoperative nonambulatory status (odds ratio 59.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.2 to 266.1]; p < 0.001). After controlling for variables such as performance status, BMI, primary cancer, modified Bauer score, and insurance status, factors independently associated with survival included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (hazard ratio [HR] 1.4 [95% CI 1.1 to 2.0]; p = 0.03), prostate cancer (HR 0.4 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.9]; p = 0.03), and hematologic cancer (HR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.8]; p = 0.02). Race, SVI score, and insurance status were not associated with overall survival.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we found no difference in ambulatory outcome for patients based on their race, SVI score, or insurance status. Likewise, no differences in postoperative survival were found. These findings suggest that despite differences in presentation or short-term outcome reported in other investigations, the social factors we explored were not associated with the likelihood of a patient being nonambulatory postoperatively or shorter survival after spinal tumor surgery. Research studies that analyze race as a covariate of interest should take care to explore metrics of socioeconomic deprivation (such as the SVI score) to avoid drawing misleading conclusions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Clinical Multiteam System Composition and Complexity Among Newly Diagnosed Early-Stage Breast, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions: A SEER-Medicare Analysis

PURPOSE

Sixty percent of adults have multiple chronic conditions at cancer diagnosis. These patients may require a multidisciplinary clinical team-of-teams, or a multiteam system (MTS), of high-complexity involving multiple specialists and primary care, who, ideally, coordinate clinical responsibilities, share information, and align clinical decisions to ensure comprehensive care needs are managed. However, insights examining MTS composition and complexity among individuals with cancer and comorbidities at diagnosis using US population-level data are limited.

METHODS

Using SEER-Medicare data (2006-2016), we identified newly diagnosed patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer who had a codiagnosis of cardiopulmonary disease and/or diabetes (n = 75,201). Zaccaro's theory-based classification of MTSs was used to categorize clinical MTS complexity in the 4 months following cancer diagnosis: high-complexity (≥ 4 clinicians from ≥ 2 specialties) and low-complexity (1-3 clinicians from 1-2 specialties). We describe the proportions of patients with different MTS compositions and quantify the incidence of high-complexity MTS care by patient groups.

RESULTS

The most common MTS composition was oncology with primary care (37%). Half (50.3%) received high-complexity MTS care. The incidence of high-complexity MTS care for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients with cancer was 6.7% (95% CI, -8.0 to -5.3) and 4.7% (95% CI, -6.3 to -3.0) lower than non-Hispanic White patients with cancer; 13.1% (95% CI, -14.1 to -12.2) lower for rural residents compared with urban; 10.4% (95% CI, -11.2 to -9.5) lower for dual Medicaid-Medicare beneficiaries compared with Medicare-only; and 16.6% (95% CI, -17.5 to -15.8) lower for colorectal compared with breast cancer.

CONCLUSION

Incidence differences of high-complexity MTS care were observed among cancer patients with multiple chronic conditions from underserved populations. The results highlight the need to further understand the effects of and mechanisms through which care team composition, complexity, and functioning affect care quality and outcomes.

Team-Based Care for Cancer Survivors With Comorbidities: A Systematic Review

Coordination of quality care for the growing population of cancer survivors with comorbidities remains poorly understood, especially among health disparity populations who are more likely to have comorbidities at the time of cancer diagnosis. This systematic review synthesized the literature from 2000 to 2022 on team-based care for cancer survivors with comorbidities and assessed team-based care conceptualization, teamwork processes, and outcomes. Six databases were searched for original articles on adults with cancer and comorbidity, which defined care team composition and comparison group, and assessed clinical or teamwork processes or outcomes. We identified 1,821 articles of which 13 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies occurred during active cancer treatment and nine focused on depression management. Four studies focused on Hispanic or Black cancer survivors and one recruited rural residents. The conceptualization of team-based care varied across articles. Teamwork processes were not explicitly measured, but teamwork concepts such as communication and mental models were mentioned. Despite team-based care being a cornerstone of quality cancer care, studies that simultaneously assessed care delivery and outcomes for cancer and comorbidities were largely absent. Improving care coordination will be key to addressing disparities and promoting health equity for cancer survivors with comorbidities.

Bias reported by family caregivers in support received when assisting patients with cancer-related decision-making

BACKGROUND

Family caregivers play an increasing role in cancer treatment decision-making. We examined bias reported by family caregivers in the support they and their patient received from their healthcare team when making these decisions, including associations with distress.

METHODS

Analysis of 2021 national survey data of family caregivers of patients with cancer (N = 2703). Bias experienced in decision support was assessed with the item: "Have you felt that the support you and the person with cancer have received for making cancer-related decisions by your doctor or healthcare team has been negatively affected by any of the following?" Check-all-that-apply response options included: age, race, language, education, political affiliation, body weight, insurance type or lack of insurance, income, religion, sexual orientation, and gender/sex. Chi-square and regression analyses assessed associations between bias and caregiver distress (GAD-2, PHQ-2).

RESULTS

Of 2703 caregiver respondents, 47.4% (n = 1281) reported experiencing ≥1 bias(es) when receiving decision support for making cancer-related decisions. Bias was more prevalent among younger caregivers, males, transwomen/men or gender non-conforming caregivers, racial/ethnic minorities, and those providing care over a longer time period. The odds of having high anxiety (GAD-2 scores ≥ 3) were 2.1 times higher for caregivers experiencing one type of bias (adjusted OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.6-2.8) and 4.2 times higher for caregivers experiencing ≥2 biases (adjusted OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 3.4-5.3) compared to none. Similar results were found for high depression scores (PHQ-2 scores ≥ 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly half of caregivers involved in their care recipients' cancer-related decisions report bias in decision support received from the healthcare team. Experiencing bias was strongly associated with high psychological distress.

Improving Equity in Cancer Care in the Face of a Public Health Emergency

ABSTRACT

Cancer health disparities have been well documented among different populations in the United States for decades. While the cause of these disparities is multifactorial, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the structural barriers to health and health care and the gaps in public health infrastructure within the United States. The most long-standing inequities are rooted in discriminatory practices, current and historical, which have excluded and disenfranchised many of the most vulnerable populations in the nation. These systemic barriers are themselves a public health crisis, resulting in increased mortality rates in communities of color from both COVID-19 and cancer. While implementing programs to temporarily improve cancer equity locally or regionally is laudable, it is imperative to develop a public health strategy focused on alleviating the root causes of health inequities to improve the health and well-being of every citizen and ensure readiness for the next public health emergency.

Increasing Participation of Women in Cardiovascular Trials: JACC Council Perspectives

Although some progress has been made in the last 3 decades to increase the number of women in clinical cardiology trials, review of recent cardiovascular literature demonstrates that women and underrepresented minority women are still underrepresented in most clinical cardiology trials. This is especially notable in trials of patients with coronary artery disease, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and arrhythmia studies, especially those involving devices and procedures. Despite the call from National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, Institute of Medicine, and various professional societies, the gap remains. This paper seeks to identify the barriers for low enrollment and retention from patient, clinician, research team, study design, and system perspectives, and offers recommendations to improve recruitment and retention in the current era.

Evaluation of the Novel 4R Oncology Care Planning Model in Breast Cancer: Impact on Patient Self-Management and Care Delivery in Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Centers

PURPOSE

Optimal cancer care requires patient self-management and coordinated timing and sequence of interdependent care. These are challenging, especially in safety-net settings treating underserved populations. We evaluated the 4R Oncology model (4R) of patient-facing care planning for impact on self-management and delivery of interdependent care at safety-net and non-safety-net institutions.

METHODS

Ten institutions (five safety-net and five non-safety-net) evaluated the 4R intervention from 2017 to 2020 with patients with stage 0-III breast cancer. Data on self-management and care delivery were collected via surveys and compared between the intervention cohort and the historical cohort (diagnosed before 4R launch). 4R usefulness was assessed within the intervention cohort.

RESULTS

Survey response rate was 63% (422/670) in intervention and 47% (466/992) in historical cohort. 4R usefulness was reported by 79.9% of patients receiving 4R and was higher for patients in safety-net than in non-safety-net centers (87.6%, 74.2%, P = .001). The intervention cohort measured significantly higher than historical cohort in five of seven self-management metrics, including clarity of care timing and sequence (71.3%, 55%, P < .001) and ability to manage care (78.9%, 72.1%, P = .02). Referrals to interdependent care were significantly higher in the intervention than in the historical cohort along all six metrics, including primary care consult (33.9%, 27.7%, P = .045) and flu vaccination (38.6%, 27.9%, P = .001). Referral completions were significantly higher in four of six metrics. For safety-net patients, improvements in most self-management and care delivery metrics were similar or higher than for non-safety-net patients, even after controlling for all other variables.

CONCLUSION

4R Oncology was useful to patients and significantly improved self-management and delivery of interdependent care, but gaps remain. Model enhancements and further evaluations are needed for broad adoption. Patients in safety-net settings benefited from 4R at similar or higher rates than non-safety-net patients, indicating that 4R may reduce care disparities.