Effect of gynecologic oncologist availability on ovarian cancer mortality

Screening log: Challenges in community patient recruitment for gynecologic oncology clinical trials

Background

Clinical trial participation can improve overall survival and mitigate healthcare disparities for gynecologic cancer patients in low-volume community centers. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a centrally regulated but administratively decentralized electronic screening log system to identify eligible patients across a large catchment area for a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer center's open clinical trials.

Methods

Electronic screening log data collected between 2014 and 2021 from ten community partner sites in a single NCI-designated cancer center's catchment area were reviewed retrospectively. Clinical factors assessed included cancer site, primary versus recurrent disease status, and histology. Identification efficiency (the ratio of patients screened identified with an available trial) was calculated. Identification inefficiencies (failures to identify patients with a potentially relevant trial) were assessed, and etiologies were characterized.

Results

Across ten community partner sites, 492 gynecologic cancer patients were screened for seven open clinical trials during the study period. This included 170 (34.5 %) ovarian cancer patients, 156 (31.7 %) endometrial cancer patients, and 119 (24.2 %) cervical cancer patients. Over 40 % had advanced stage disease, and 10.6 % had recurrent disease. Only three patients were identified as having a relevant open trial; none ultimately enrolled due to not meeting trial eligibility criteria. An additional 2-52 patients were retrospectively found to have a relevant trial available despite not being identified as such within the electronic screening log system. Up to 14.4 % of patients had one or more missing minimum data elements that hindered full evaluation of clinical trial availability. Re-screening patients when new trials open may identify 12-15 additional patients per recurrent disease trial.

Conclusions

An electronic screening log system can increase awareness of gynecologic oncology clinical trials at a NCI-designated cancer center's community partner sites. However, it is inadequate as a single intervention to increase clinical trial enrollment. Providing adequate support staff, documenting clinical factors consistently, re-screening patients at relevant intervals, and coordinating with central study personnel may increase its utility.

Prevalence and indicators of cure of Italian women with vulvar squamous cell carcinoma: A population-based study

OBJECTIVE

Five-year net survival and conditional survival from vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC) patients in Italy have shown no progress during the past three decades. This study aims to estimate the complete prevalence and multiple indicators of cure.

METHODS

Observed prevalence was estimated using 31 Italian cancer registries covering 47 % of Italian women. A subset of 22 cancer registries was used to estimate model-based long-term survival and indicators of cure, i.e., complete prevalence, cure fraction (CF), time to cure (TTC), proportion of 'already cured' patients, and cure prevalence.

RESULTS

In 2018, VSCC patients alive in Italy (complete prevalence) were 6620 or 22 per 100,000 women. The cure fraction (the proportion of newly diagnosed patients who will not die of VSCC) did not change between 2000 and 2010 both for all patients (32 %) and in each age group. The time to cure (5-year conditional net survival >95 %) was 11 years for patients aged ≥44 years, but excess mortality remained for >15 years in the other age groups. This led to a negligible (5 %) proportion of 'already cured' patients (living longer than time to cure). The proportion of patients alive <2 years (21 %) was the same as that of patients surviving ≥15 years. The cure prevalence (patients who will not die of VSCC) was 64 %. A considerable proportion of patients will not be cured even among those who survived ≥5 years.

CONCLUSION

There is an urgent need to reshape the current vulvar care model in Italy.

Association between a network-based physician linchpin score and cancer patient mortality: a SEER-Medicare analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer frequently require multidisciplinary teams for optimal cancer outcomes. Network analysis can capture relationships among cancer specialists, and we developed a novel physician linchpin score to characterize "linchpin" physicians whose peers have fewer ties to other physicians of the same oncologic specialty. Our study examined whether being treated by a linchpin physician was associated with worse survival.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data for patients diagnosed with stage I to III non-small cell lung cancer or colorectal cancer (CRC) in 2016-2017. We assembled patient-sharing networks and calculated linchpin scores for medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons. Physicians were considered linchpins if their linchpin score was within the top 15% for their specialty. We used Cox proportional hazards models to examine associations between being treated by a linchpin physician and survival, with a 2-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 10 081 patients with non-small cell lung cancer and 9036 patients with CRC. Patients with lung cancer treated by a linchpin radiation oncologist had a 17% (95% confidence interval = 1.04 to 1.32) greater hazard of mortality, and similar trends were observed for linchpin medical oncologists. Patients with CRC treated by a linchpin surgeon had a 22% (95% confidence interval = 1.03 to 1.43) greater hazard of mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of Medicare beneficiaries with nonmetastatic lung cancer or CRC, those treated by linchpin physicians often experienced worse survival. Efforts to improve outcomes can use network analysis to identify areas with reduced access to multidisciplinary specialists.

Predictors of residual disease after debulking surgery in advanced stage ovarian cancer

Objective

Optimal debulking with no macroscopic residual disease strongly predicts ovarian cancer survival. The ability to predict likelihood of optimal debulking, which may be partially dependent on tumor biology, could inform clinical decision-making regarding use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Thus, we developed a prediction model including epidemiological factors and tumor markers of residual disease after primary debulking surgery.

Methods

Univariate analyses examined associations of 11 pre-diagnosis epidemiologic factors (n=593) and 24 tumor markers (n=204) with debulking status among incident, high-stage, epithelial ovarian cancer cases from the Nurses' Health Studies and New England Case Control study. We used Bayesian model averaging (BMA) to develop prediction models of optimal debulking with 5x5-fold cross-validation and calculated the area under the curve (AUC).

Results

Current aspirin use was associated with lower odds of optimal debulking compared to never use (OR=0.52, 95%CI=0.31-0.86) and two tissue markers, ADRB2 (OR=2.21, 95%CI=1.23-4.41) and FAP (OR=1.91, 95%CI=1.24-3.05) were associated with increased odds of optimal debulking. The BMA selected aspirin, parity, and menopausal status as the epidemiologic/clinical predictors with the posterior effect probability ≥20%. While the prediction model with epidemiologic/clinical predictors had low performance (average AUC=0.49), the model adding tissue biomarkers showed improved, but weak, performance (average AUC=0.62).

Conclusions

Addition of ovarian tumor tissue markers to our multivariable prediction models based on epidemiologic/clinical data slightly improved the model performance, suggesting debulking status may be in part driven by tumor characteristics. Larger studies are warranted to identify those at high risk of poor surgical outcomes informing personalized treatment.

Collaborating with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program to Increase Receipt of Ovarian Cancer Care from a Gynecologic Oncologist

Background: Treatment by a gynecologic oncologist is an important part of ovarian cancer care; however, implementation strategies are needed to increase care by these specialists. We partnered with National Comprehensive Cancer Control Programs in Iowa, Michigan, and Rhode Island in a demonstration project to deepen the evidence base for promising strategies that would facilitate care for ovarian cancer by gynecologic oncologists. Methods: Five main implementation strategies (increase knowledge/awareness; improve models of care; improve payment structures; increase insurance coverage; enhance workforce) were identified in the literature and used to develop initiatives. Specific activities were chosen by state programs according to feasibility and needs. Results: Activities included: (1) qualitative interviews with patients to determine barriers to receipt of specialized care; (2) development of patient/provider educational materials; (3) creation of patient/provider checklists to facilitate appropriate referrals; (4) expansion of a toll-free patient navigation hotline for ovarian cancer patients; (5) training of the health care workforce. The programs developed resources (educational handouts, toolkits, 2 webinars, 2 podcasts); trained 167 medical and nursing students during 8 Survivors Teaching Students® workshops; and conducted 3 provider education sessions reaching 362 providers in 45 states. Evaluations showed increases in providers' knowledge, awareness, abilities, and intentions to refer ovarian cancer patients to a gynecologic oncologist. Conclusion: The state program resources we discussed are available for other cancer control programs interested in initiating or expanding activities to improve access/referrals to gynecologic oncologists for ovarian cancer care. They serve as a valuable repository for public health professionals seeking to implement similar interventions.

Community access to primary care is an important geographic disparity among ovarian cancer patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery

Objective

Given the importance of understanding neighborhood context and geographic access to care on individual health outcomes, we sought to investigate the association of community primary care (PC) access on postoperative outcomes and survival in ovarian cancer patients.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of Stage III-IV ovarian cancer patients who underwent surgery at a single academic, tertiary care hospital between 2012 and 2015. PC access was determined using a Health Resources and Services Administration designation. Outcomes included 30-day surgical and medical complications, extended hospital stay, ICU admission, hospital readmission, progression-free and overall survival. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared analyses were used to analyze differences between patients from PC-shortage vs not PC-shortage areas.

Results

Among 217 ovarian cancer patients, 54.4 % lived in PC-shortage areas. They were more likely to have Medicaid or no insurance and live in rural areas with higher poverty rates, significantly further from the treating cancer center and its affiliated hospital. Nevertheless, 49.2 % of patients from PC-shortage areas lived in urban communities. Residing in a PC-shortage area was not associated with increased surgical or medical complications, ICU admission, or hospital readmission, but was linked to more frequent prolonged hospitalization (26.3 % vs 14.1 %, p = 0.04). PC-shortage did not impact progression-free or overall survival.

Conclusions

Patients from PC-shortage areas may require longer inpatient perioperative care in order to achieve the same 30-day postoperative outcomes as patients who live in non-PC shortage areas. Community access to PC is a critical factor to better understanding and reducing disparities among ovarian cancer patients.

Assessment of Travel Distance for Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Women with Ovarian Cancer

•

The median travel distance in women with EOC undergoing CRS with HIPEC was 57.0 miles in women with EOC.

•

Over 20% of patients treated at our institution traveled more than 100 miles for HIPEC procedures.

•

No differences were observed in post-operative complications or oncologic outcomes based upon travel distance.

Objective (s)

To evaluate travel distance in women with advanced or recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) undergoing cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and the subsequent impact upon outcomes.

Methods

An IRB-approved single-institution prospective registry was queried for women with OC who underwent HIPEC from 1/1/2009–12/1/2020. Demographic, oncologic, and surgical data were recorded. The patient's home zip code was compared to the institutional zip code to determine travel distance using Google Maps. Patients were divided into three strata for analysis: 1) local: ≤50 miles, 2) regional: 51–99 miles, and 3) distant: ≥100 miles and univariate analysis was performed.

Results

Of 127 women, the median distance travelled was 57.0 miles (IQR: 20.6, 84.6). There were no significant differences in mild (28.3% vs. 26.3 vs. 24.1%), moderate (21.7% vs. 15.8% vs. 17.2%) or severe postoperative complications (11.7% vs. 5.3% vs. 17.2%) (p = 0.75) for local, regional and distant patients, respectively. There was no difference in progression-free survival (17.4 vs. 22.2 vs. 12.8 months, p > 0.05) or overall survival (57.3 vs. 61.6 vs. 29.2 months, p > 0.05) for local, regional or distant patients, respectively.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that women with OC are willing to travel for HIPEC, with over 50% traveling > 50 miles. Our results suggest that women who travel for HIPEC procedures are not at increased risk for perioperative complications or worse oncologic outcomes than those local to HIPEC centers.

Association of gynecologic oncology versus medical oncology specialty with survival, utilization, and spending for treatment of gynecologic cancers

BACKGROUND

We examined the association of gynecologic oncology (GYO) versus medical oncology (MEDONC) based care with survival, health care utilization and spending outcomes in women undergoing chemotherapy for advanced gynecologic cancers.

METHODS

Women with newly diagnosed stage III-IV uterine, ovarian, and cervical cancers from 2000 to 2015 were identified in SEER-Medicare. We assessed the association of provider specialty with overall survival, emergency department utilization, admissions, and spending. Outcomes were assessed using unadjusted and Inverse Treatment Probability Weighted propensity-score applied, multi-variable cox modeling, Poisson regression, and generalized models of log-transformed data.

RESULTS

We identified 7930 gynecologic cancer patients (4360 ovarian, 2934 uterine, 643 cervix). 37% were treated by GYO and 63% by MEDONC. For ovarian patients, GYO care was associated with improved OS (median OS 3.3 v. 2.9 years; HR 0.85, 95%CI 0.80, 0.91, p < .0001) and similar mean spending per month ($4015 v. $4316, mean ratio 0.97 (95% CI 0.93, 1.02), p = .19), compared to MEDONC in adjusted analyses. For uterine patients, GYO care was associated with similar OS, but decreased spending ($3573 v. $4081, mean ratio 0.87 (95% CI.81, 0.93), p < .0001), and decreased ED utilization (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69, 0.85, p < .0001). For cervical patients, GYO care was associated with similar OS, and similar spending. Admissions were more likely in ovarian (RR 1.23, 95%CI 1.11, 1.37, p = .0001) and cervical patients (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05, 1.51, p = .015) treated by GYO, in adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

GYO based care was associated with improved OS and equal spending for patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. Uterine and cervix patients had similar OS, and less or equal spending respectively, when treated by GYO compared to MEDONC.

Improving the quality of care for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: Program components, implementation barriers, and recommendations

The high lethality of ovarian cancer in the United States and associated complexities of the patient journey across the cancer care continuum warrant an assessment of current practices and barriers to quality care in the United States. The objectives of this study were to identify and assess key components in the provision of high‐quality care delivery for patients with ovarian cancer, identify challenges in the implementation of best practices, and develop corresponding quality‐related recommendations to guide multidisciplinary ovarian cancer programs and practices. This multiphase ovarian cancer quality‐care initiative was guided by a multidisciplinary expert steering committee, including gynecologic oncologists, pathologists, a genetic counselor, a nurse navigator, social workers, and cancer center administrators. Key partnerships were also established. A collaborative approach was adopted to develop comprehensive recommendations by identifying ideal quality‐of‐care program components in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer management. The core program components included: care coordination and patient education, prevention and screening, diagnosis and initial management, treatment planning, disease surveillance, equity in care, and quality of life. Quality‐directed recommendations were developed across 7 core program components, with a focus on ensuring high‐quality ovarian cancer care delivery for patients through improved patient education and engagement by addressing unmet medical and supportive care needs. Implementation challenges were described, and key recommendations to overcome barriers were provided. The recommendations emerging from this initiative can serve as a comprehensive resource guide for multidisciplinary cancer practices, providers, and other stakeholders working to provide quality‐directed cancer care for patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer and their families.

Quality‐directed recommendations for ovarian cancer care delivery are developed across 7 core program components, with a focus on ensuring high‐quality care delivery by addressing unmet medical and supportive care needs. These recommendations can serve as a comprehensive resource guide for multidisciplinary cancer practices, providers, and other stakeholders working to provide quality‐directed cancer care for patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer and their families.

Impact of Surgeon Type and Rurality on Treatment and Survival of Ovarian Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend ovarian cancer patients receive cancer-directed surgery from a gynecologic oncologist surgeon. We aimed to determine if rurality impacts type of surgeon and estimate if the interaction between rurality and type of surgeon impacts cytoreductive surgery, chemotherapy initiation, and survival.

METHODS

Our population-based cohort of Iowan (N=675) ovarian cancer patients included women diagnosed with histologically confirmed stages IB-IV cancer in 2010 to 2016 at the ages of 18 to 89 years old and who received cancer-directed surgery in Iowa. Multivariable logistic regression analysis and Cox proportional hazards models were used.

RESULTS

Rural (vs. urban) patients were less likely to receive surgery from a gynecologic oncologist (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30-0.78). Rural patients with a gynecologic oncologist (vs. nongynecologic oncologist) surgeon were more likely to receive cytoreduction (OR: 2.84; 95% CI: 1.31-6.14) and chemotherapy (OR: 4.22; 95% CI: 1.82-9.78). Gynecologic oncologist-provided surgery conferred a 3-year cause-specific survival advantage among rural patients (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.33-0.97) and disadvantage among urban patients (hazard ratio: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.02-3.06) in the model without treatment covariates. Significance dissipated in models with treatment variables.

DISCUSSION

The variation in the gynecologic oncologist survival advantage may be because of treatment, referral, volume, or nongynecologic oncologist surgeons' specialty difference by rurality. This is the first study to investigate the ovarian cancer survival advantage of having a gynecologic oncologist surgeon by rurality.

Primary treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: how does the 'real world' practice?

Aims: This study evaluated primary treatment modalities in advanced ovarian cancer according to sociodemographic characteristics and characterized chemotherapy regimens used. Methods: This was a retrospective study of newly diagnosed advanced ovarian, tubal or peritoneal cancer patients at two hospitals from 2011 to 2016. Results: Of 175 women, 41% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 59% received primary cytoreductive surgery. Within the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group, 23% did not have a surgical consultation prior to initiating treatment. Women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy lived closer to an academic center and more frequently received carboplatin/paclitaxel every 3 weeks. Cytoreductive surgery patients more frequently received intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Conclusion: The authors identified disparities in age, insurance, distance from treatment center and chemotherapy choice in the primary treatment for ovarian cancer.

Potential Strategies to Increase Gynecologic Oncologist Treatment for Ovarian Cancer

Evidence shows that treatment by gynecologic oncologists (GOs) increases overall survival among women with ovarian cancer. However, specific strategies for institutions and community-based public health programs to promote treatment by GOs are lacking. To address this, we conducted a literature review to identify evidence-based and promising system- and environmental-change strategies for increasing treatment by GOs, in effort to ensure that all women with ovarian cancer receive the standard of care. We searched for English-language literature published from 2008 to 2018. We used PubMed, PubMed Central, OVID, and EBSCO for peer-reviewed literature and Google and Google Scholar for gray literature related to increasing receipt of care by GOs among ovarian cancer patients. Numerous suggested and proposed strategies that have potential to increase treatment by GOs were discussed in several articles. We grouped these approaches into five strategic categories: increasing knowledge/awareness of role and importance of GOs, improving models of care, improving payment structures, improving/increasing insurance coverage for GO care, and expanding or enhancing the GO workforce. We identified several strategies with the potential for increasing GO care among ovarian cancer patients, although currently there is little evidence regarding their effectiveness across US populations. Public health programs and entities that measure delivery of quality health care may pilot the strategies in their populations. Certain strategies may work better in certain environments and a combination of strategies may be necessary for any one entity to increase GO ovarian cancer care. Findings, lessons learned, and recommendations from implementation projects would inform community and public health practice.

The impact of expanding gynecologic oncology care to ovarian cancer patients in small cities and rural communities

OBJECTIVE

Patients with ovarian cancer from smaller cities and rural communities face unique challenges in accessing comprehensive care. This study compares management strategies, outcomes, and access to care for patients in a small city and surrounding rural communities before and after establishing a full-time gynecologic oncology (GO) office.

METHODS

A local tumor registry was used to identify patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer before and after a full-time GO office was established. Quantitative analyses were used to compare disease characteristics, management strategies, overall survival, and distance traveled for care between cohorts.

RESULTS

Out of 381 patients, 171 women were diagnosed prior to establishing a full-time GO office (pre-GO) and 210 after (post-GO). Post-GO patients were more likely to undergo surgery by a GO specialist (97.1% versus 53.2%, p < 0.01), receive surgery locally (79.0% versus 43.3%, p < 0.01), and undergo complete lymph node dissection (63.3% versus 38.6%, p < 0.01). Patients treated with chemotherapy by GO increased from 10.3% pre-GO to 76.9% post-GO. 5-year survival rates were 33.8% versus 49.5% in the pre-GO and post-GO groups, respectively (p < 0.01). Median survival time increased from 30.8 months to 52.5 months from pre-GO to post-GO time periods. Distance patients traveled for surgery decreased from a mean of 47.9 miles pre-GO to 26.8 miles post-GO.

CONCLUSION

After establishing a full-time GO office within a small city, local patients had significantly improved overall survival and access to care. These results highlight the benefit of expanding GO care into small cities with surrounding rural communities and may be used to address public health discrepancies for women across the country.

Rural disparities in surgical care from gynecologic oncologists among Midwestern ovarian cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Up to one-third of women with ovarian cancer in the United States do not receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist specialist despite guideline recommendations. We aim to investigate the impact of rurality on receiving surgical care from a specialist, referral to a specialist, and specialist surgery after referral, and the consequences of specialist care.

METHODS

We utilized a retrospective cohort created through an extension of standard cancer surveillance in three Midwestern states. Multivariable adjusted logistic regression was utilized to assess gynecologic oncologist treatment of women 18-89 years old, who were diagnosed with primary, histologically confirmed, malignant ovarian cancer in 2010-2012 in Kansas, Missouri and Iowa by rurality.

RESULTS

Rural women were significantly less likely to receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist specialist (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.58) and referral to a specialist (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.59) compared to urban women. There was no significant difference in specialist surgery after a referral (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.26-1.20). Rural women treated surgically by a gynecologic oncologist versus non-specialist were more likely to receive cytoreduction and more complete tumor removal to ≤1 cm.

CONCLUSION

There is a large rural-urban difference in receipt of ovarian cancer surgery from a gynecologic oncologist specialist (versus a non-specialist). Disparities in referral rates contribute to the rural-urban difference. Further research will help define the causes of referral disparities, as well as promising strategies to address them.

Patient and Provider Perspectives on Barriers to Accessing Gynecologic Oncologists for Ovarian Cancer Surgical Care

Objective

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend that patients with ovarian cancer receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist. However, 15%-30% of patients with ovarian cancer do not receive surgical care from this specialist. The reasons for this remain unknown. We aim at assessing the barriers and attitudes perceived by patients with ovarian cancer who did not receive their primary surgery from a gynecologic oncologist and by diagnosing providers in an exploratory qualitative study.

Materials and Methods

Patients and providers were sampled through the Iowa Cancer Registry. Participants were interviewed by telephone about barriers that patients face receiving surgical care from a specialist. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was completed by two team members.

Findings

Providers (n = 10, 13% participation rate) identified many system-level barriers, including poor provider-to-provider communication, long time-to-surgery wait times, and a limited number of gynecologic oncologists working in their referral range. Patients (n = 16, 38% participation rate) denied system-level barriers; however, no patients reported receiving a referral to a gynecologic oncologist. This, in and of itself, constitutes a system-level barrier. Providers identified many barriers that their patients face, whereas patients failed to identify these barriers and denied facing them. Patients described the shock that they experienced after diagnosis and its limitations on their decision-making process. Both providers and patients agreed that the providers were influential in determining care decisions.

Discussion

There is a divergence in the perceptions of barriers to care between providers and patients. Open discussions are needed about options and clinical guidelines for surgical ovarian cancer care. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate mechanisms to improve provider-to-patient discussions about surgical recommendations.

Impact of geography and travel distance on outcomes in epithelial ovarian cancer: a national cancer database analysis

Background

As ovarian cancer treatment shifts to provide more complex aspects of care at high-volume centers, almost a quarter of patients, many of whom reside in rural counties, will not have access to those centers or receive guideline-based care.

Objective

To explore the association between proximity of residential zip code to a high-volume cancer center with mortality and survival for patients with ovarian cancer.

Methods

The National Cancer Database was queried for cases of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer between January 2004 and December 2015. Our predictor of interest was distance traveled for treatment. Our primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and overall survival. The effect of treatment on survival was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Multiple logistic regression for binary outcomes and Cox proportional hazards regression for overall survival were used to assess the effect of distance on outcome, controlling for potential confounding variables.

Results

A total of 115 540 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in 30- or 90-day mortality among any of the travel distance categories. A statistically significant decrease in 30-day re-admission was found among patients who lived further away from the treating facility. A total of 105 529 patients were available for survival analysis, and survival curves significantly differed between distance strata (p<0.0001). The adjusted regression models demonstrated increased long-term mortality in patients who lived farther away from the treating facility after controlling for potential confounding.

Conclusion

Although 30- and 90-day mortality do not differ by travel distance, worse survival is observed among women living >50 miles from a high-volume treatment facility. With a national policy shift toward centralization of complex care, a better understanding of the impact of distance on survival in patients with ovarian cancer is crucial. Our findings inform the practice of healthcare delivery, especially in rural settings.

Ovarian cancer in California: Guideline adherence, survival, and the impact of geographic location, 1996-2014

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that geographic location may independently contribute to ovarian cancer survival. We aimed to investigate how the association between residential location and ovarian cancer-specific survival in California varies by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status.

METHODS

Additive Cox proportional hazard models were used to predict hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between geographic location throughout California and survival among 29,844 women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 1996 and 2014. We conducted permutation tests to determine a global P-value for significance of location. Adjusted analyses considered distance traveled for care, distance to closest high-quality-of-care hospital, and receipt of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline care. Models were also stratified by stage, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

RESULTS

Location was significant in unadjusted models (P = 0.009 among all stages) but not in adjusted models (P = 0.20). HRs ranged from 0.81 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.93) in Southern Central Valley to 1.41 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.73) in Northern California but were attenuated after adjustment (maximum HR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.27). Better survival was generally observed for patients traveling longer distances for care. Associations between survival and proximity to closest high-quality-of-care hospitals were null except for women of lowest socioeconomic status living furthest away (HR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, geographic variations observed in ovarian cancer-specific survival were due to important predictors such as receiving guideline-adherent care. Improving access to expert care and ensuring receipt of guideline-adherent treatment should be priorities in optimizing ovarian cancer survival.

Contribution of Geographic Location to Disparities in Ovarian Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

More than 14,000 women in the United States die of ovarian cancer (OC) every year. Disparities in survival have been observed by race and socioeconomic status (SES), and vary spatially even after adjusting for treatment received. This study aimed to determine the impact of geographic location on receiving treatment adherent to the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for OC, independent of other predictors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Women diagnosed with all stages of epithelial OC (1996-2014) were identified through the California Cancer Registry. Generalized additive models, smoothing for residential location, were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for receiving nonadherent care throughout California. We assessed the impact of distance traveled for care, distance to closest high-quality hospital, race/ethnicity, and SES on receipt of quality care, adjusting for demographic and cancer characteristics and stratifying by disease stage.

RESULTS

Of 29,844 patients with OC, 11,419 (38.3%) received guideline-adherent care. ORs for nonadherent care were lower in northern California and higher in Kern and Los Angeles counties. Magnitudes of associations with location varied by stage (OR range, 0.45-2.19). Living farther from a high-quality hospital increased the odds of receiving nonadherent care (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29), but travel >32 km to receive care was associated with decreased odds (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.84). American Indian/other women were more likely to travel greater distances to receive care. Women in the highest SES quintile, those with Medicare insurance, and women of non-Hispanic black race were less likely to travel far. Patients who were Asian/Pacific Islander lived the closest to a high-quality hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Among California women diagnosed with OC, living closer to a high-quality center was associated with receiving adherent care. Non-Hispanic black women were less likely to receive adherent care, and women with lower SES lived farthest from high-quality hospitals. Geographic location in California is an independent predictor of adherence to NCCN Guidelines for OC.

Telemedicine and Gynecologic Cancer Care

Patients with gynecologic cancers experience better outcomes when treated by specialists and institutions with experience in their diseases. Unfortunately, high-volume centers tend to be located in densely populated regions, leaving many women with geographic barriers to care. Remote management through telemedicine offers the possibility of decreasing these disparities by extending the reach of specialty expertise and minimizing travel burdens. Telemedicine can assist in diagnosis, treatment planning, preoperative and postoperative follow-up, administration of chemotherapy, provision of palliative care, and surveillance. Telemedical infrastructure requires careful consideration of the needs of relevant stakeholders including patients, caregivers, referring clinicians, specialists, and health system administrators.

Impact of Rurality on Stage IV Ovarian Cancer at Diagnosis: A Midwest Cancer Registry Cohort Study

PURPOSE

We aim to understand if rurality impacts patients' odds of presenting with stage IV ovarian cancer at diagnosis independent of distance to primary care provider and the socioeconomic status of a patient's residential census tract.

METHODS

A cohort of 1,000 women with ovarian cancer in Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri were sampled and analyzed from the cancer registries' statewide population data. The sample contained those with a histologically confirmed primary ovarian cancer diagnosis in 2011-2012. All variables were captured through an extension of standard registry protocol using standardized definitions and abstraction manuals. Chi-square tests and a multivariable logistic regression model were used.

FINDINGS

At diagnosis, 111 women in our sample had stage IV cancer and 889 had stage I-III. Compared to patients with stage I-III cancer, patients with stage IV disease had a higher average age, more comorbidities, and were more often living in rural areas. Multivariate analysis showed that rural women (vs metropolitan) had a greater odds of having stage IV ovarian cancer at diagnosis (odds ratio = 2.41 and 95% confidence interval = 1.33-4.39).

CONCLUSION

Rural ovarian cancer patients have greater odds of having stage IV cancer at diagnosis in Midwestern states independent of the distance they lived from their primary care physician and the socioeconomic status of their residential census tract. Rural women's greater odds of stage IV cancer at diagnosis could affect treatment options and mortality. Further investigation is needed into reasons for these findings.

The relative biological effectiveness of proton irradiation in dependence of DNA damage repair

Clinical parameters and empirical evidence are the primary determinants for current treatment planning in radiation oncology. Personalized medicine in radiation oncology is only at the very beginning to take the genetic background of a tumor entity into consideration to define an individual treatment regimen, the total dose or the combination with a specific anticancer agent. Likewise, stratification of patients towards proton radiotherapy is linked to its physical advantageous energy deposition at the tumor site with minimal healthy tissue being co-irradiated distal to the target volume. Hence, the fact that photon and proton irradiation also induce different qualities of DNA damages, which require differential DNA damage repair mechanisms has been completely neglected so far. These subtle differences could be efficiently exploited in a personalized treatment approach and could be integrated into personalized treatment planning. A differential requirement of the two major DNA double-strand break repair pathways, homologous recombination and non-homologous end joining, was recently identified in response to proton and photon irradiation, respectively, and subsequently influence the mode of ionizing radiation-induced cell death and susceptibility of tumor cells with defects in DNA repair machineries to either quality of ionizing radiation.This review focuses on the differential DNA-damage responses and subsequent biological processes induced by photon and proton irradiation in dependence of the genetic background and discusses their impact on the unicellular level and in the tumor microenvironment and their implications for combined treatment modalities.

Geographic Access to Cancer Care and Mortality Among Adolescents

PURPOSE

Adolescents with cancer have had less improvement in survival than other populations in the United States. This may be due, in part, to adolescents not receiving treatment at Children's Oncology Group (COG) institutions, which have been shown to increase survival for some cancers. The objective of this ecologic study was to examine geographic distance to COG institutions and adolescent cancer mortality.

METHODS

We calculated cancer mortality among adolescents and sociodemographic and healthcare access factors in four geographic zones at selected distances surrounding COG facilities: Zone A (area within 10 miles of any COG institution), Zones B and C (concentric rings with distances from a COG institution of >10-25 miles and >25-50 miles, respectively), and Zone D (area outside of 50 miles).

RESULTS

The adolescent cancer death rate was highest in Zone A at 3.21 deaths/100,000, followed by Zone B at 3.05 deaths/100,000, Zone C at 2.94 deaths/100,000, and Zone D at 2.88 deaths/100,000. The United States-wide death rate for whites without Hispanic ethnicity, blacks without Hispanic ethnicity, and persons with Hispanic ethnicity was 2.96 deaths/100,000, 3.10 deaths/100,000, and 3.26 deaths/100,000, respectively. Zone A had high levels of poverty (15%), no health insurance coverage (16%), and no vehicle access (16%).

CONCLUSIONS

Geographic access to COG institutions, as measured by distance alone, played no evident role in death rate differences across zones. Among adolescents, socioeconomic factors, such as poverty and health insurance coverage, may have a greater impact on cancer mortality than geographic distance to COG institution.

Disparities in ovarian cancer survival in the United States (2001-2009): Findings from the CONCORD-2 study

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States. This study reports ovarian cancer survival by state, race, and stage at diagnosis using data from the CONCORD-2 study, the largest and most geographically comprehensive, population-based survival study to date.

METHODS

Data from women diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 2001 and 2009 from 37 states, covering 80% of the US population, were used in all analyses. Survival was estimated up to 5 years and was age standardized and adjusted for background mortality (net survival) using state-specific and race-specific life tables.

RESULTS

Among the 172,849 ovarian cancers diagnosed between 2001 and 2009, more than one-half were diagnosed at distant stage. Five-year net survival was 39.6% between 2001 and 2003 and 41% between 2004 and 2009. Black women had consistently worse survival compared with white women (29.6% from 2001-2003 and 31.1% from 2004-2009), despite similar stage distributions. Stage-specific survival for all races combined between 2004 and 2009 was 86.4% for localized stage, 60.9% for regional stage, and 27.4% for distant stage.

CONCLUSIONS

The current data demonstrate a large and persistent disparity in ovarian cancer survival among black women compared with white women in most states. Clinical and public health efforts that ensure all women who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer receive appropriate, guidelines-based treatment may help to decrease these disparities. Future research that focuses on the development of new methods or modalities to detect ovarian cancer at early stages, when survival is relatively high, will likely improve overall US ovarian cancer survival. Cancer 2017;123:5138-59. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

"Best practices in risk reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy: the influence of surgical specialty"

Background

Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRBSO) increases survival in patients at high risk of developing ovarian cancer. While many general gynecologists perform this procedure, some argue it should be performed exclusively by specialists. In this retrospective observational study, we identified how often optimal techniques were used and whether surgeons’ training impacted implementation.

Methods

We used the ACOG guidelines highlighting various aspects of the procedure to determine which elements were consistent with best practices to maximize surgical prophylaxis. All cases of RRBSO from 2006 to 2010 were identified. We abstracted data from the operative and pathology reports to review the techniques employed. Fisher’s exact test and chi-square were utilized to compare differences between groups (InStat, La Jolla, CA).

Results

Among 263 RRBSOs, 22 were performed by general gynecologists and 241 by gynecologic oncologists. Gynecologic oncologists were more likely to perform pelvic washings—217/241 vs. 10/22 (p < .0001). They were more likely to include a description of the upper abdomen—220/241 vs. 12/22 (p < .0001). Oncologists were more likely to utilize a retroperitoneal approach to skeletonize the infundibulopelvic ligaments—157/241 vs. 3/22 (p < .0001). When operations were performed by oncologists, the specimens were more often completely sectioned—217/241 vs. 16/22 (p = .003). The use of a retroperitoneal approach among gynecologic oncologists increased over the study period (chi-square for trend, p < .0001). There was no visible trend in performance improvement in any other area when looking at either group.

Conclusion

Gynecologic oncologists are more likely to adhere to best practice techniques when performing RRBSO, though there was room for improvement for both groups.

Adherence of Primary Care Physicians to Evidence-Based Recommendations to Reduce Ovarian Cancer Mortality

Ovarian cancer is the deadliest gynecologic cancer. Receipt of treatment from a gynecologic oncologist is an evidence-based recommendation to reduce mortality from the disease. We examined knowledge and application of this evidence-based recommendation in primary care physicians as part of CDC gynecologic cancer awareness campaign efforts and discussed results in the context of CDC National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP). We analyzed primary care physician responses to questions about how often they refer patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer to gynecologic oncologists, and reasons for lack of referral. We also analyzed these physicians' knowledge of tests to help determine whether a gynecologic oncologist is needed for a planned surgery. The survey response rate was 52.2%. A total of 84% of primary care physicians (87% of family/general practitioners, 81% of internists and obstetrician/gynecologists) said they always referred patients to gynecologic oncologists for treatment. Common reasons for not always referring were patient preference or lack of gynecologic oncologists in the practice area. A total of 23% of primary care physicians had heard of the OVA1 test, which helps to determine whether gynecologic oncologist referral is needed. Although referral rates reported here are high, it is not clear whether ovarian cancer patients are actually seeing gynecologic oncologists for care. The NCCCP is undertaking several efforts to assist with this, including education of the recommendation among women and providers and assistance with treatment summaries and patient navigation toward appropriate treatment. Expansion of these efforts to all populations may help improve adherence to recommendations and reduce ovarian cancer mortality.

Gynecologic oncologists involvement on ovarian cancer standard of care receipt and survival

AIM: To examine the influence of gynecologic oncologists (GO) in the United States on surgical/chemotherapeutic standard of care (SOC), and how this translates into improved survival among women with ovarian cancer (OC).

METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER)-Medicare data were used to identify 11688 OC patients (1992-2006). Only Medicare recipients with an initial surgical procedure code (n = 6714) were included. Physician specialty was identified by linking SEER-Medicare to the American Medical Association Masterfile. SOC was defined by a panel of GOs. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of receiving surgical/chemotherapeutic SOC and proportional hazards modeling to estimate the effect of SOC treatment and physician specialty on survival.

RESULTS: About 34% received surgery from a GO and 25% received the overall SOC. One-third of women had a GO involved sometime during their care. Women receiving surgery from a GO vs non-GO had 2.35 times the odds of receiving the surgical SOC and 1.25 times the odds of receiving chemotherapeutic SOC (P < 0.01). Risk of mortality was greater among women not receiving surgical SOC compared to those who did [hazard ratio = 1.22 (95%CI: 1.12-1.33), P < 0.01], and also was higher among women seen by non-GOs vs GOs (for surgical treatment) after adjusting for covariates. Median survival time was 14 mo longer for women receiving combined SOC.

CONCLUSION: A survival advantage associated with receiving surgical SOC and overall treatment by a GO is supported. Persistent survival differences, particularly among those not receiving the SOC, require further investigation.