Provider-based research networks may improve early access to innovative colon cancer treatment for African Americans treated in the community

If health organisations and staff engage in research, does healthcare improve? Strengthening the evidence base through systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

There is an often-held assumption that the engagement of clinicians and healthcare organizations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels. Previous reviews found up to 28 studies suggesting a positive association between the engagement of individuals and healthcare organizations in research and improvements in healthcare performance. The current study sought to provide an update.

METHODS

We updated our existing published systematic review by again addressing the question: Does research engagement (by clinicians and organizations) improve healthcare performance? The search covered the period 1 January 2012 to March 2024, in two phases. First, the formal updated search ran from 1 January 2012 to 31 May 2020, in any healthcare setting or country and focussed on English language publications. In this phase two searches identified 66 901 records. Later, a further check of key journals and citations to identified papers ran from May 2020 to March 2024. In total, 168 papers progressed to full-text appraisal; 62 were identified for inclusion in the update. Then we combined papers from our original and updated reviews.

RESULTS

In the combined review, the literature is dominated by papers from the United States (50/95) and mostly drawn from the Global North. Papers cover various clinical fields, with more on cancer than any other field; 86 of the 95 papers report positive results, of which 70 are purely positive and 16 positive/mixed, meaning there are some negative elements (i.e. aspects where there is a lack of healthcare improvement) in their findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated review collates a substantial pool of studies, especially when combined with our original review, which are largely positive in terms of the impact of research engagement on processes of care and patient outcomes. Of the potential engagement mechanisms, the review highlights the important role played by research networks. The review also identifies various papers which consider how far there is a "dose effect" from differing amounts of research engagement. Additional lessons come from analyses of equity issues and negative papers. This review provides further evidence of contributions played by systems level research investments such as research networks on processes of care and patient outcomes.

Regional Collaboration and Trends in Clinical Management of Thyroid Cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the trends in the management of thyroid cancer and clinical outcomes in the Southwestern region of The Netherlands from 2010 to 2021, where a regional collaborative network has been implemented in January 2016.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

This study encompasses all patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer of any subtype between January 2010 and June 2021 in 10 collaborating hospitals in the Southwestern region of The Netherlands.

METHODS

The primary outcome of this study was the occurrence of postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes were trends in surgical management, centralization, and waiting times of patients with thyroid cancer.

RESULTS

This study included 1186 patients with thyroid cancer. Median follow-up was 58 [interquartile range: 24-95] months. Surgery was performed in 1027 (86.6%) patients. No differences in postoperative complications, such as long-term hypoparathyroidism, permanent recurrent nerve paresis, or reoperation due to bleeding were seen over time. The percentage of patients with low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma referred to the academic hospital decreased from 85% (n = 120/142) in 2010 to 2013 to 70% (n = 120/171) in 2014 to 2017 and 62% (n = 100/162) in 2018 to 2021 (P < .01). The percentage of patients undergoing a hemithyroidectomy alone was 9% (n = 28/323) in 2010 to 2013 and increased to 20% (n = 63/317; P < .01) in 2018 to 2021.

CONCLUSION

The establishment of a regional oncological network coincided with a de-escalation of thyroid cancer treatment and centralization of complex patients and interventions. However, no differences in postoperative complications over time were observed. Determining the impact of regional oncological networks on quality of care is challenging in the absence of uniform quality indicators.

Tracing the potential of networks to improve community cancer care: an in-depth single case study

Background

Despite overall declines in cancer mortality in the USA over the past three decades, many patients in community settings fail to receive evidence-based cancer care. Networks that link academic medical centers (AMCs) and community providers may reduce disparities by creating access to specialized expertise and care, but research on network effectiveness is mixed. The objective of this study was to identify factors related to whether and how an exemplar AMC network served to provide advice and referral access in community settings.

Methods

An embedded in–depth single case study design was employed to study a network in the Midwest USA that connects a leading cancer specialty AMC with community practices. The embedded case units were a subset of 20 patients with young-onset colorectal cancer or risk-related conditions and the providers involved in their care. The electronic health record (EHR) was reviewed from January 1, 1990, to February 28, 2018. Social network analysis identified care, advice, and referral relationships. Within-case process tracing provided detailed accounts of whether and how the network provided access to expert, evidence-based care or advice in order to identify factors related to network effectiveness.

Results

The network created access to evidence-based advice or care in some but not all case units, and there was variability in whether and how community providers engaged the network, including the path for referrals to the AMC and the way in which advice about an evidence-based approach to care was communicated from AMC specialists to community providers. Factors related to instances when the network functioned as intended included opportunities for both rich and lean communication between community providers and specialists, coordinated referrals, and efficient and adequately utilized documentation systems.

Conclusions

Network existence alone is insufficient to open up access to evidence-based expertise or care for patients in community settings. In-depth understanding of how this network operated provides insight into factors that support or inhibit the potential of networks to minimize disparities in access to evidence-based community cancer care, including both personal and organizational factors.

N1c colon cancer and the use of adjuvant chemotherapy: a current audit of the National Cancer Database

AIM

Colorectal cancer staging has evolved to define N1c as the presence of tumour deposits without concurrent positive lymph nodes. Work to date reports poor prognosis in N1c colon cancer, with Stage III categorization and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) recommended. No study has yet evaluated the prevalence, treatment compliance or treatment-related outcomes on a national scale. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of N1c colon cancer, use, outcomes and factors associated with AC in the USA.

METHOD

The National Cancer Database was reviewed for N1cM0 colon adenocarcinomas that underwent resection from 2010 to 2016. Cases were stratified into 'AC' or 'no AC' cohorts. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and compare the AC and no AC cohorts using the log-rank test. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with AC. The main outcome measures were the prevalence and factors associated with AC use and its impact in N1c disease.

RESULTS

Of the 5684 (1.59% of 357 752) colon adenocarcinomas that were N1c, 55% (n = 3071) received AC. AC significantly improved 1-, 3- and 5-year OS compared with no AC (96.2%, 80%, 67.4% and 72.9%, 48.5%, 33.8%, respectively; P < 0.001). Compared with the no AC group, AC patients were younger, had less comorbidity, were of the male gender and received minimally invasive surgery at an academic treatment centre (all P < 0.05). Socioeconomic and procedural factors significantly impacted the use of AC.

CONCLUSION

In the USA, AC is underutilized in N1c colon cancer despite significantly improved OS. Socioeconomic and procedural factors associated with AC were identified, highlighting disparities in AC use and opportunities to improve oncological outcomes and survival.

How Soon Should Patients With Colon Cancer Undergo Definitive Resection?

BACKGROUND

Timing of surgery has been shown to affect outcomes in many forms of cancer, but definitive national data do not exist to determine the effect of time to surgery on survival in colon cancer.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether a delay in definitive surgery in colon cancer significantly affects survival.

DATA SOURCES

A retrospective cohort study using 2 independent population-based databases, The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare-linked database and the National Cancer Database, was performed.

STUDY SELECTION

All patients had American Joint Committee on Cancer stage 1 through 3 colon cancer. Patients were more than 18 years of age in the National Cancer Database cohort and older than 66 years of age in the Medicare cohort. Patients had a minimum of 3 years of follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome was overall survival as a function of time between diagnosis and surgery in 4 intervals (1-2, 3-4, 5-6, >6 weeks).

RESULTS

The Medicare cohort demonstrated an adjusted 5-year survival of 8% to 14% higher in patients with a surgical delay between 3 and 6 weeks, with significantly lower hazard ratios in that interval. The National Cancer Database cohort demonstrated an adjusted 5-year survival of 9% to 16% higher in patients with surgery 3 to 6 weeks after diagnosis, with comparatively similar improvements in survival hazard.

LIMITATIONS

Because this was a retrospective study of administrative databases, with Medicare data limited to billing data, the causality of outcomes must be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

The ideal timing of definitive resection in colon cancer is between 3 and 6 weeks after initial diagnosis. All efforts should be made for patients to obtain definitive surgery within this interval to achieve a modest but significant improvement in overall survival. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B76. ¿CUÁNDO DEBEN SOMETERSE LOS PACIENTES CON CÁNCER DE COLON A UNA RESECCIÓN DEFINITIVA?: Se ha demostrado que el momento de la cirugía afecta los resultados en muchas formas de cáncer, pero no existen datos nacionales definitivos para determinar el efecto del tiempo hasta la cirugía en la supervivencia en el cáncer de colon.Determinar si un retraso en la cirugía definitiva en el cáncer de colon afecta significativamente la supervivencia.Un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo que utiliza dos bases de datos independientes basadas en la población; Se realizó la base de datos vinculada a la vigilancia, la epidemiología y los resultados finales y la base de datos nacional del cáncer.Pacientes con cáncer de colon en estadíos 1 a 3 del Comité Estadounidense Conjunto sobre el Cáncer. Los pacientes tenían más de 18 años en la cohorte de la National Cancer Database y más de 66 años en la cohorte de Medicare. Los pacientes tuvieron un mínimo de 3 años de seguimiento.El resultado principal fue la supervivencia general en función del tiempo entre el diagnóstico y la cirugía en 4 intervalos (1-2, 3-4, 5-6, y mas de 6 semanas).La cohorte de Medicare demostró una supervivencia ajustada de 5 años de 8 a 14% más en pacientes con un retraso quirúrgico entre 3 a 6 semanas, con razones de riesgo significativamente más bajas en ese intervalo. La cohorte de la National Cancer Database demostró una supervivencia ajustada a 5 años de 9 a 16% más en pacientes con cirugía de 3 a 6 semanas después del diagnóstico, con mejoras comparativamente similares en el riesgo de supervivencia.Dado que este fue un estudio retrospectivo de bases de datos administrativas, con datos de Medicare limitados a datos de facturación, la causalidad de los resultados debe interpretarse con precaución.El momento ideal para la resección definitiva en el cáncer de colon es entre tres y seis semanas después del diagnóstico inicial. Se deben hacer todos los esfuerzos para que los pacientes obtengan una cirugía definitiva dentro de este intervalo para lograr una mejora modesta pero significativa en la supervivencia general. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B76.