National Cancer Institute's Cancer Disparities Research Partnership Program: Experience and Lessons Learned

The National Cancer Institute's Cancer Disparities Research Partnership Program: a unique funding model 20 years later

The burden of cancer and access to effective treatment are not experienced equally by all in the United States. For underserved populations that often access the health-care system when their cancers are in advanced disease stages, radiation oncology services are essential. In 2001, the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Radiation Research Program created and implemented the Cancer Disparities Research Partnership Program (CDRP). CDRP was a pioneering funding model whose goal was to increase participation of medically underserved populations in NCI clinical trials. CDRP's Cooperative Agreement funding supported for awardees the planning, development, and conduct of radiation oncology clinical research in institutions not traditionally involved in NCI-sponsored research and cared for a disproportionate number of medically underserved, health-disparities populations. The awardee secured and provided support for mentorship from 1 of 2 NCI comprehensive cancer centers named in its application. Six CDRP awards were made over two 5-year funding periods ending in 2013, with the end-of-program accomplishments previously reported. With the current focus on addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion, the 6 principal investigators were surveyed, 5 of whom responded about the impact of CDRP on their institutions, communities, and personal career paths. The survey that was emailed included 10 questions on a 5-point Likert scale. It was not possible to collect patient data this long after completion of the program. This article provides a 20-year retrospective of the experiences and observations from those principal investigators that can inform those now planning, building, and implementing equity, diversity, and inclusion programs.

Evaluation of Access to Hospitals Most Ready to Achieve National Accreditation for Rectal Cancer Treatment

Importance

The American College of Surgeons National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) promotes multidisciplinary care to improve oncologic outcomes in rectal cancer. However, accreditation requirements may be difficult to achieve for the lowest-performing institutions. Thus, it is unknown whether the NAPRC will motivate care improvement in these settings or widen disparities.

Objectives

To characterize hospitals' readiness for accreditation and identify differences in the patients cared for in hospitals most and least prepared for accreditation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A total of 1315 American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer-accredited hospitals in the National Cancer Database from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2015, were sorted into 4 cohorts, organized by high vs low volume and adherence to process standards, and patient and hospital characteristics and oncologic outcomes were compared. The patients included those who underwent surgical resection with curative intent for rectal adenocarcinoma, mucinous adenocarcinoma, or signet ring cell carcinoma. Data analysis was performed from November 2017 to January 2018.

Exposures

Hospitals' readiness for accreditation, as determined by their annual resection volume and adherence to 5 available NAPRC process standards.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Hospital characteristics, patient sociodemographic characteristics, and 5-year survival by hospital.

Results

Among the 1315 included hospitals, 38 (2.9%) met proposed thresholds for all 5 NAPRC process standards and 220 (16.7%) met the threshold on 4 standards. High-volume hospitals (≥20 resections per year) tended to be academic institutions (67 of 104 [64.4%] vs 159 of 1211 [13.1%]; P = .001), whereas low-volume hospitals (<20 resections per year) tended to be comprehensive community cancer programs (530 of 1211 [43.8%] vs 28 of 104 [26.9%]; P = .001). Patients in low-volume hospitals were more likely to be older (11 429 of 28 076 [40.7%] vs 4339 of 12 148 [35.7%]; P < .001) and have public insurance (13 054 of 28 076 [46.5%] vs 4905 of 12 148 [40.4%]; P < .001). Low-adherence hospitals were more likely to care for black and Hispanic patients (1980 of 19 577 [17.2%] vs 3554 of 20 647 [10.1%]; P < .001). On multivariable Cox proportional hazards model regression, high-volume hospitals had better 5-year survival outcomes than low-volume hospitals (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P < .001), but there was no significant survival difference by hospital process standard adherence.

Conclusions and Relevance

Hospitals least likely to receive NAPRC accreditation tended to be community institutions with worse survival outcomes, serving patients at a lower socioeconomic position. To possibly avoid exacerbating disparities in access to high-quality rectal cancer care, the NAPRC study findings suggest enabling access for patients with socioeconomic disadvantage or engaging in quality improvement for hospitals not yet achieving accreditation benchmarks.

Institutional Alliances to Reduce Cancer Disparities in Chicago

A partnership formed between Northeastern Illinois University (NEIU) and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University sought to address well-documented cancer health disparities in Chicago by developing a collaborative research, training, and educational infrastructure between a minority-serving institution and a National Cancer Institute designated comprehensive cancer center. With a critical examination of partnership documentation and outputs, we describe the partnership's community-engaged approaches, challenges, and lessons learned. Northeastern Illinois University and the Lurie Cancer Center engaged in a yearlong partnership-building phase, identified interdisciplinary research teams, formed a governance structure, and identified collective aims. Partnership outcomes included funded inter-institutional research projects, new curriculum, and an annual research trainee program. Significant challenges faced included uncertain fiscal climate, widespread turnover, and dissimilar institutional demands. Lessons learned from this minority serving institution and comprehensive cancer center partnership may be useful for bridging distinct academic communities in the pursuit of ameliorating health disparities.

The pervasive crisis of diminishing radiation therapy access for vulnerable populations in the United States, part 2: American Indian patients

INTRODUCTION

American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) patients with cancer disproportionally present with more advanced stages of disease and have the worst cancer-specific survival rates of any racial/ethnic group in the United States. The presence of disparities in radiation therapy (RT) access for AI/AN patients has rarely been examined.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

National Cancer Institute (NCI) initiatives toward addressing AI/AN disparities were examined. Additionally, an extensive PubMed literature search for studies investigating RT access disparities in AI/AN patients was performed.

RESULTS

Literature describing RT access disparities for the AI/AN patient population is sparse, revealing only 3 studies, each of which described initiatives from the Walking Forward program, the NCI Cancer Disparity Research Partnership initiative to address barriers to cancer screening among AI populations in the Northern Plains region (eg, geographic remoteness and mistrust of health care providers). This program has used patient navigation, community education, and access to clinical trials for more than 4000 AI/AN patients to combat high cancer mortality rates. Over the course of its 15-year existence, the program has resulted in patients presenting with earlier stages of disease and experiencing higher cure rates. Lung cancer, the most common cause of cancer-related mortality in AI/AN patients, is the most recent and ongoing focus of the program.

CONCLUSION

The amount of information regarding RT access in AI/AN patients is limited, with nearly all peer-reviewed published progress in this area being associated with the Walking Forward program. Further initiatives from this program will hopefully inspire similar initiatives throughout the country to reduce the barriers to optimized cancer care that these patients face. Given the similarities with cancer disparities of populations worldwide, the AI/AN experience should be included within the broad issue of a global shortage of cancer care among underserved populations.

The international cancer expert corps: a unique approach for sustainable cancer care in low and lower-middle income countries

The growing burden of non-communicable diseases including cancer in low- and lower-middle income countries (LMICs) and in geographic-access limited settings within resource-rich countries requires effective and sustainable solutions. The International Cancer Expert Corps (ICEC) is pioneering a novel global mentorship-partnership model to address workforce capability and capacity within cancer disparities regions built on the requirement for local investment in personnel and infrastructure. Radiation oncology will be a key component given its efficacy for cure even for the advanced stages of disease often encountered and for palliation. The goal for an ICEC Center within these health disparities settings is to develop and retain a high-quality sustainable workforce who can provide the best possible cancer care, conduct research, and become a regional center of excellence. The ICEC Center can also serve as a focal point for economic, social, and healthcare system improvement. ICEC is establishing teams of Experts with expertise to mentor in the broad range of subjects required to establish and sustain cancer care programs. The Hubs are cancer centers or other groups and professional societies in resource-rich settings that will comprise the global infrastructure coordinated by ICEC Central. A transformational tenet of ICEC is that altruistic, human-service activity should be an integral part of a healthcare career. To achieve a critical mass of mentors ICEC is working with three groups: academia, private practice, and senior mentors/retirees. While in-kind support will be important, ICEC seeks support for the career time dedicated to this activity through grants, government support, industry, and philanthropy. Providing care for people with cancer in LMICs has been a recalcitrant problem. The alarming increase in the global burden of cancer in LMICs underscores the urgency and makes this an opportune time fornovel and sustainable solutions to transform cancer care globally.