Patient and Caregiver Considerations and Priorities When Selecting Hospitals for Complex Cancer Care

Assessment of a collaborative treatment model for trimodal management of esophageal cancer

Background

Patients with esophageal cancer often receive care in a collaborative (multi-institutional) treatment model as opposed to a single institutional model. The effect of a collaborative model on the quality of trimodality therapy and survival is unknown.

Methods

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between 2012-2017. Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy and surgery at a single institution were compared to those that received collaborative treatment across multiple institutions. Outcomes included adherence to guideline recommended multiagent chemotherapy, receipt of 41.4-50.4 Gy of radiation, R0 resection, pathologic complete response (pCR), and 5-year survival. Sociodemographics, comorbidities, and tumor characteristics were assessed in bivariate and multivariable analysis.

Results

Among 8,396 patients identified, 39% received treatment at a single institution, while 61% received collaborative treatment. Median travel distance to the site of esophagectomy was two times greater for patients receiving collaborative treatment (30 vs. 15 miles; P<0.001). Patients in the collaborative cohort were less likely to receive guideline-recommended multiagent chemotherapy (85% vs. 96%; P<0.001) and 41.4-50.4 Gy of radiation (89% vs. 91%; P=0.01). R0 resection rates were similar (94.4% vs. 93.7%; P=0.17). Patients who received collaborative treatment had an increased rate of pCR (24% vs. 22%; P=0.02). Overall, 90-day and 5-year survival were 92.9% and 42.6% respectively and did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Conclusions

Collaborative trimodality treatment of esophageal cancer is a common and reasonable practice model, which may alleviate patient travel burden with only a modest impact on the quality of CRT, pCR, 90-day survival, and 5-year survival.

Profile of the Postoperative Care Provided for Patients With Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancers by Family and Unpaid Caregivers

PURPOSE

Patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers may experience significant reduction in their quality of life and often rely on family and unpaid caregivers for assistance after surgery. However, as caregivers are not systematically identified, little is known about the nature, difficulty, and personal demands of assistance they provide. We aim to assess the frequency and difficulty of specific assistance caregivers provide and identify potential interventions that could alleviate the caregiving demands.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multi-institutional study of caregivers accompanying patients with periampullary and pancreatic cancer at their 1-month postpancreatectomy office visit. An instrument that drew heavily on the National Study of Caregiving was administered to caregivers.

RESULTS

Of 240 caregivers, more than half (58.3%) of caregivers were the patients' spouse, a quarter (25.8%) were daughters or sons, 12.9% other relatives, and 2.9% nonrelatives. Caregivers least frequently provided assistance with transportation (14.6% every day) and most frequently provided assistance with housework (65.0% every day, P = .003) and diet (56.5% every day, P = .004). Caregivers reported the least difficulty helping patients with exercise (1.5% somewhat difficult). Caregivers reported significantly more difficulty with assisting with housework (14.5% somewhat difficult, P < .001) and diet (14.9% somewhat difficult, P < .001). Caregivers identified the immediate postpancreatectomy and early discharge periods as the most stressful phases. They also reported having received very little information about available services that could have supported their efforts.

CONCLUSION

Caregivers of patients with periampullary or pancreatic cancer provide considerable assistance in the postoperative period and many reported difficulty in assisting with housework and diet. Work is needed to better prepare and support caregivers to better enable them to adequately care for patients with pancreas and periampullary cancer.

Patterns of Care and Outcomes of Rectal Cancer Patients from the Iowa Cancer Registry: Role of Hospital Volume and Tumor Location

BACKGROUND

Centralization of rectal cancer surgery has been associated with high-quality oncologic care. However, several patient, disease and system-related factors can impact where patients receive care. We hypothesized that patients with low rectal tumors would undergo treatment at high-volume centers and would be more likely to receive guideline-based multidisciplinary treatment.

METHODS

Adults who underwent proctectomy for stage II/III rectal cancer were included from the Iowa Cancer Registry and supplemented with tumor location data. Multinomial logistic regression was employed to analyze factors associated with receiving care in high-volume hospital, while logistic regression for those associated with ≥ 12 lymph node yield, pre-operative chemoradiation and sphincter-preserving surgery.

RESULTS

Of 414 patients, 38%, 39%, and 22% had low, mid, and high rectal cancers, respectively. Thirty-two percent were > 65 years, 38% female, and 68% had stage III tumors. Older age and rural residence, but not tumor location, were associated with surgical treatment in low-volume hospitals. Higher tumor location, high-volume, and NCI-designated hospitals had higher nodal yield (≥ 12). Hospital-volume was not associated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation rates or circumferential resection margin status. Sphincter-sparing surgery was independently associated with high tumor location, female sex, and stage III cancer, but not hospital volume.

CONCLUSIONS

Low tumor location was not associated with care in high-volume hospitals. High-volume and NCI-designated hospitals had higher nodal yields, but not significantly higher neoadjuvant chemoradiation, negative circumferential margin, or sphincter preservation rates. Therefore, providing educational/quality improvement support in lower volume centers may be more pragmatic than attempting to centralize rectal cancer care among high-volume centers.

Impact of Cancer Care Regionalization on Patient Volume

BACKGROUND

Cancer centers are regionalizing care to expand patient access, but the effects on patient volume are unknown. This study aimed to compare patient volumes before and after the establishment of head and neck regional care centers (HNRCCs).

METHODS

This study analyzed 35,394 unique new patient visits at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) before and after the creation of HNRCCs. Univariate regression estimated the rate of increase in new patient appointments. Geospatial analysis evaluated patient origin and distribution.

RESULTS

The mean new patients per year in 2006-2011 versus 2012-2017 was 2735 ± 156 patients versus 3155 ± 207 patients, including 464 ± 78 patients at HNRCCs, reflecting a 38.4 % increase in overall patient volumes. The rate of increase in new patient appointments did not differ significantly before and after HNRCCs (121.9 vs 95.8 patients/year; P = 0.519). The patients from counties near HNRCCs, showed a 210.8 % increase in appointments overall, 33.8 % of which were at an HNRCC. At the main campus exclusively, the shift in regional patients to HNRCCs coincided with a lower rate of increase in patients from the MDACC service area (33.7 vs. 11.0 patients/year; P = 0.035), but the trend was toward a greater increase in out-of-state patients (25.7 vs. 40.3 patients/year; P = 0.299).

CONCLUSIONS

The creation of HNRCCs coincided with stable increases in new patient volume, and a sizeable minority of patients sought care at regional centers. Regional patients shifted to the HNRCCs, and out-of-state patient volume increased at the main campus, optimizing access for both local and out-of-state patients.

National Economic Conditions May Impact the Financial Barriers to Travel for Cancer Operations

Background

Better cancer-related outcomes are associated with physicians and hospitals with higher case volume. This serves as an incentive to refer patients requiring complex cancer operations to large referral centers, which may require increased travel for patients. However, barriers exist for patients to travel for cancer care, some of which may be aggravated or alleviated by factors relating to the health of the national economy. This impact may be reflected in variability of travel distances for cancer operations over time particularly for complex operation such as pancreatectomy and esophagectomy compared with less complex resections such as those for breast cancer or melanoma.

Methods

We obtained the estimated travel distance for patients undergoing operations for cancer of the pancreas, esophagus, skin (melanoma), and breast from the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2017 and correlated them with economic factors obtained from public sources. We then examined the impact of unemployment rates, gas prices, and inflation on travel distances regarding disadvantaged groups. Correlations were measured by the (rank-based, nonparametric) Spearman's correlation coefficient, and the corresponding P value is obtained by the asymptotic distribution of the coefficient. A P value of 0.05 equates to an absolute correlation value of 0.532. To adjust for multiple tests, a more restrictive P value of 0.01 was also assessed, which equates to correlation coefficients of absolute value greater than 0.661.

Results

There were 4,222,380 cases in the dataset, of which 1,781,056 remained after exclusion. The economic factors that were associated most strongly with the distance patients traveled for all cancer operation types were the labor force participation rate, personal savings, consumer price index, and changes in gasoline prices. Inflation and rising gasoline prices were often inversely related with travel distance in lower-income and less well-educated regions and African American patients.

Conclusions

Several macroeconomic factors correlate with the travel distance for operations, suggesting that the economic health of the nation may aggravate or alleviate the financial barriers to travel for cancer operations. Financially disadvantaged groups may be particularly vulnerable to changes in gasoline prices and inflation. Organizations serving these populations may need to increase patient support services during times of economic hardship to avoid the exacerbation of health care disparities.

Association of Lymph Node Sampling and Clinical Volume in Lobectomy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Sampling of ≥10 lymph nodes during lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was a previous surveillance metric and potential quality metric of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. We sought to determine guideline adherence and its relationship to hospital lobectomy volume within The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database.

METHODS

Participant centers providing elective lobectomy for NSCLC within The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database (2012-2019) were divided into tertiles according to annual volume. Average hospital nodal harvest of ≥10 nodes per lobectomy defined the primary outcome. Univariable analysis compared average patient and operative characteristics between the participant centers. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine independent factors associated with average clinical center nodal harvest of ≥10 nodes.

RESULTS

Median annual lobectomy volume was 6.2, 19.9, and 42.7 for low-, medium-, and high-volume participant centers. Among 305 centers and 43 597 patients, 5.6% of lobectomies occurred in low-volume centers, 24.0% in medium-volume centers, and 70.4% in high-volume centers. Average rates of ≥10 nodes per lobectomy were excised in 44.0% of low-volume centers, 70.6% of medium-volume centers, and 75.2% of high-volume centers (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, average nodal excision of ≥10 nodes was strongly associated with medium-volume (odds ratio, 2.94; CI, 1.57-5.50, P < .01) and high-volume (odds ratio, 3.82; CI, 1.95-7.46; P < .001) participant centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Although higher center volume and increased nodal harvest are associated, 25% of high-volume centers average a rate of <10 lymph nodes per lobectomy for NSCLC. Low nodal yield may underestimate stage, with implications for adjuvant therapy and long-term survival.

Assessment of Caregivers' Burden When Caring for Patients With Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancer

BACKGROUND

Family and other unpaid caregivers play an active role in the recovery of individuals with pancreatic and periampullary cancer after pancreatectomy. However, little is known about caregivers' experiences and how to better support them.

METHODS

Caregivers accompanying patients to 1-month postpancreatectomy visits at 3 hospitals completed an electronic survey between November 2018 and February 2020. We examine measures of absenteeism and work productivity loss among the subset of caregivers who reported working for pay and comparatively assess caregiver experiences by employment status. All analyses were performed as 2-sided tests.

RESULTS

Of 265 caregivers approached for study participation, 240 (90.6%) enrolled. Caregivers were primarily female (70.8% female, 29.2% male) and spouses (58.3%) or adult children (25.8%) of patients, with a median age of 60 years. Of the 240 caregivers included in the study, 107 (44.6%) worked for pay. Nearly half (44.4%) of working caregivers reported being absent from work because of caregiving amounting to a 14% loss in work hours. While at work, 58.9% of working caregivers reported increased work difficulty as a result of caregiving. Taken together, an estimated 59.7% loss in work productivity was experienced because of caregiving in the month following pancreatectomy. After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, working (vs nonworking) caregivers reported increased financial (odds ratio [OR] = 2.32; P = .04) and emotional (OR = 1.93; P = .04) difficulties and daily activity restrictions (OR = 1.85; P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

Working caregivers of patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer experience negative impacts on work and productivity, and caregiving-related financial and emotional difficulties may be amplified. This study highlights the need for workplace policies to support unpaid cancer caregiving.

A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats: Impact of Combined Volume of Complex Cancer Operations on Surgical Outcomes in a Low-Volume Setting

BACKGROUND

Centralization for complex cancer surgery may not always be feasible owing to socioeconomic disparities, geographic constraints, or patient preference. The present study investigates how the combined volume of complex cancer operations impacts postoperative outcomes at hospitals that are low-volume for a specific high-risk cancer operation.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients who underwent pneumonectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, or proctectomy were identified from the National Cancer Database (2004-2017). For every operation, 3 separate cohorts were created: low-volume hospitals (LVH) for both the individual cancer operation and the total number of those complex operations, mixed-volume hospital (MVH) with low volume for the individual cancer operation but high volume for total number of complex operations, and high-volume hospitals (HVH) for each specific operation.

RESULTS

LVH was significantly (all p ≤ 0.01) predictive for 30-day mortality compared with HVH across all operations: pneumonectomy (9.5% vs 7.9%), esophagectomy (5.6% vs 3.2%), gastrectomy (6.8% vs 3.6%), hepatectomy (5.9% vs 3.2%), pancreatectomy (4.7% vs 2.3%), and proctectomy (2.4% vs 1.3%). Patients who underwent surgery at MVH and HVH demonstrated similar 30-day mortality: esophagectomy (3.2 vs 3.2%; p = 0.993), gastrectomy (3.2% vs 3.6%; p = 0.637), hepatectomy (3.8% vs 3.2%; p = 0.233), pancreatectomy (2.8% vs 2.3%; p = 0.293), and proctectomy (1.2% vs 1.3%; p = 0.843). Patients who underwent pneumonectomy at MVH demonstrated lower 30-day mortality compared with HVH (5.4% vs 7.9%; p = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent complex operations at MVH had similar postoperative outcomes to those at HVH. MVH provide a model for the centralization of complex cancer surgery for patients who do not receive their care at HVH.