Hospital safety-net burden does not predict differences in rectal cancer treatment and outcomes

Reporting of Circumferential Resection Margin in Rectal Cancer Surgery

Importance

Circumferential resection margin (CRM) in rectal cancer surgery is a major prognostic indicator associated with local recurrence and overall survival. Facility rates of CRM positivity have recently been established as a new quality measure by the Commission on Cancer (CoC); however, the completeness of CRM status reporting is not well characterized.

Objective

To describe the changes in CRM reporting and factors associated with low rates of reporting.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the National Cancer Database between January 2010 and December 2019. Data were analyzed between October 1, 2021, and February 1, 2022. Data from the National Cancer Database included patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma receiving surgical treatment at CoC-accredited facilities throughout the US.

Exposures

Patient, tumor, and facility-level factors. Facilities were divided by surgical volume, safety-net status, and CoC facility type.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Circumferential resection margin missingness rates.

Results

A total of 110 571 patients (59.3% men) with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent curative-intent surgery at 1307 CoC-accredited hospitals were included for analysis. Reporting of CRM improved over the study period, with a mean (SE) missing 12.0% (0.32%) decreased from 16.3% (0.36%). Academic facilities had a higher missingness than other facility types (14.3% vs 10.5%-12.7%; P < .001). Mean (SE) rates of missingness were similar between hospitals of varying volume (lowest quartile: 12.2% [0.93%] vs highest quartile: 12.4% [0.53%]; P = .96). Cases in which fewer than 12 lymph nodes were removed had higher rates of missingness (18.1% vs 11.4%; P < .001). Increased odds of CRM missingness were noted with T category (odds ratio [OR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.35-1.65) and N category (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.82-2.20). Black race was associated with missingness (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06-1.14).

Conclusion and Relevance

Although CRM positivity reporting has improved over the last decade, the findings of this study suggest there is substantial room for improvement as it becomes a quality standard. Missingness appears to be associated with poor performance on other quality metrics and facility type. This measure appears to be ideal for targeted institution-level feedback to improve quality of care nationally.

Association between hospital safety-net burden and receipt of trimodality therapy and survival for patients with esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

To examine the relationship between hospital safety-net burden and (1) receipt of surgery after chemoradiation (trimodality therapy) and (2) survival in esophageal cancer patients.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried to identify 22,842 clinical stage II to IVa esophageal cancer patients diagnosed in 2004 to 2015. The treatment facilities were categorized by proportion of uninsured/Medicaid-insured patients into percentiles. No safety-net burden hospitals (0-37th percentile) treated no uninsured/Medicaid-insured patients, whereas low (38-75th percentile) and high (76-100th percentile) safety-net burden hospitals treated a median (range) of 8.8% (0.87%-16.7%) and 23.6% (16.8%-100%), respectively. Adjusted odds ratios and hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were computed, adjusting for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.

RESULTS

Compared to no safety-net burden hospital patients, high safety-net burden hospital patients were significantly more likely to be young, Black, and low-income. Age, female sex, Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, nonprivate insurance, lower income, higher comorbidity score, upper esophageal location, squamous cell histology, higher stage, time to treatment, and treatment at a community program or a low-volume facility were associated with lower odds of receiving trimodality therapy. Adjusting for these factors, high safety-net burden hospital patients were less likely to receive surgery after chemoradiation versus no safety-net burden hospital patients (adjusted odds ratio 0.77 [95% confidence interval 0.68-0.86], P < .0001); no difference was detected comparing low safety-net burden hospitals versus no safety-net burden hospitals (adjusted odds ratio 1.01 [0.92-1.11], P = .874). No significant survival difference was noted by safety-net burden (low safety-net burden hospitals versus no safety-net burden hospitals: adjusted hazard ratio 1.01 [0.96-1.06], P = .704; high safety-net burden hospital versus no safety-net burden hospitals: adjusted hazard ratio 0.99 [0.93-1.06], P = .859).

CONCLUSION

Adjusting for patient, tumor, and treatment factors, high safety-net burden hospital patients were less likely to undergo surgery after chemoradiation but without significant survival differences.

Effect of Hospital Safety Net Burden on Survival for Patients With Sinonasal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To examine factors associated with hospital safety net burden and its impact on survival for patients with sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma (SNSCC).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective database study.

SETTING

National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2016.

METHODS

SNSCC cases were identified in the National Cancer Database. Hospital safety net burden was defined by percentage of uninsured/Medicaid patients treated, namely ≤25% for low-burden hospitals, 26% to 75% for medium-burden hospitals, and >75% for high-burden hospitals (HBHs). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to investigate patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and overall survival.

RESULTS

An overall 6556 SNSCC cases were identified, with 1807 (27.6%) patients treated at low-burden hospitals, 3314 (50.5%) at medium-burden hospitals, and 1435 (21.9%) at HBHs. On multivariate analysis, Black race (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.028-1.868), maxillary sinus primary site (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.036-1.643), treatment at an academic/research program (OR, 20.63; 95% CI, 8.868-47.980), and treatment at a higher-volume facility (P < .001) resulted in increased odds of being treated at HBHs. Patients with grade III/IV tumor (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.513-0.949), higher income (P < .05), or treatment modalities other than surgery alone (P < .05) had lower odds. Survival analysis showed that hospital safety net burden status was not significantly associated with overall survival (log-rank P = .727).

CONCLUSION

In patients with SNSCC, certain clinicopathologic factors, including Black race, lower income, treatment at an academic/research program, and treatment at facilities in the West region, were associated with treatment at HBHs. Hospital safety net burden status was not associated with differences in overall survival.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Treatment quality and outcomes vary with hospital burden of uninsured and Medicaid patients with cancer in early non–small cell lung cancer

Objectives

Safety-net hospitals deliver a significant level of care to uninsured patients, Medicaid-enrolled patients, and other vulnerable patients. Little is known about the impact of safety-net hospital status on outcomes in non–small cell lung cancer. We aimed to compare treatment characteristics and outcomes between hospitals categorized according to their relative burden of uninsured or Medicaid-enrolled patients with non–small cell lung cancer.

Methods

We queried the National Cancer Database for patients with clinical stage I and II non–small cell lung cancer presenting from 2004 to 2018. We categorized hospitals on the basis of their relative burden of uninsured or Medicaid-enrolled patients with non–small cell lung cancer into low-burden (<8.2%), medium-burden (8.2%-12.0%), high-burden (12.1%-16.8%), and highest burden (>16.8%) quartiles. We investigated the impact of care at these hospitals on outcomes while controlling for sociodemographic, clinical, and facility characteristics.

Results

We identified 204,189 patients treated at 1286 facilities. There were 592 low-burden, 297 medium-burden, 219 high-burden, and 178 highest burden hospitals. Patients at highest burden hospitals were more likely to be younger, male, Black, and Hispanic (P < .01), and to reside in rural, low-income, and low-educated regions (P < .01). Patients at these facilities had a greater likelihood of not receiving surgery, undergoing an open procedure, undergoing a regional lymph node examination involving less than 10 lymph nodes, having a length of stay more than 4 days, and not receiving treatment (P < .05).

Conclusions

Our results indicate reduced treatment quality and higher mortality in patients undergoing surgery for early non–small cell lung cancer at hospitals with an increased burden of uninsured or Medicaid-enrolled patients with non–small cell lung cancer. There is a need to raise the standard of care to improve outcomes in vulnerable populations.

Impact of prognostic factor distributions on mortality disparities for socioeconomically disadvantaged cancer patients

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess whether differences in the distributions of prognostic factors explain reported mortality disparities between urban safety-net and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer populations.

METHODS

We used data from SEER and a safety-net cancer center in Texas. Eligible patients were adults aged ≤64 years and diagnosed with first primary female breast, colorectal, or lung cancer between 2008 and 2016. We estimated crude and adjusted risk differences (RD) in 3- and 5-year all-cause mortality (1- and 3-year for lung cancer), where adjustment was based on entropy balancing weights that standardized the distribution of sociodemographic and tumor characteristics between the two populations.

RESULTS

Our study populations comprised 1914 safety-net patients and 389,709 SEER patients. For breast cancer, the crude 3- and 5-year mortality RDs between safety-net and SEER populations were 7.7% (95% confidence limits [CL]: 4.3%, 11%) and 11% (95% CL: 6.7%, 16%). Adjustment for measured prognostic factors reduced the mortality RDs (3-year adjusted RD = 0.049%, 95% CL: -2.6%, 2.6%; 5-year adjusted RD = 5.6%, 95% CL: -0.83%, 12%). We observed similar patterns for colorectal and lung cancer albeit less magnitude.

CONCLUSIONS

Sociodemographic and tumor characteristics may largely explain early mortality disparities between safety-net and SEER populations but not late mortality disparities.

Outcomes after clipping and endovascular coiling for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage among dual-eligible beneficiaries

Dual-eligible beneficiaries, individuals with both Medicare and Medicaid coverage, represent a high-cost and vulnerable population; however, literature regarding outcomes is sparse. We characterized outcomes in dual-eligible beneficiaries treated for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) compared to Medicare only, Medicaid only, private insurance, and self-pay. A 10-year cross-sectional study of the National Inpatient Sample was conducted. Adult aSAH emergency admissions treated by neurosurgical clipping or endovascular coiling were included. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for confounders. A total of 57,666 patients met inclusion criteria. Dual-eligibles comprised 2.8% of admissions and were on average younger (62.4 years) than Medicare (70.0 years), older than all other groups, and had higher mean National Inpatient Sample-Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Severity Scores than all other groups (p ≤ 0.001). Among patients treated by clipping, dual-eligibles were less often discharged to home compared to Medicare (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.30-0.87, p < 0.05) and all other insurance groups, p < 0.01. Likewise, those who received coiling were less often discharged to home compared to Medicaid (aOR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.23-0.73), private (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.23-0.76) and self-pay patients (aOR = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.12-0.46). They also had increased odds of poor National Inpatient Sample-Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Outcome Measures compared to Medicaid, private, and self-pay patients, all p < 0.05. There were no differences in inpatient mortality or total complications. In conclusion, dual-eligible patients had higher aSAH severity scores, less often discharged home, and among patients who received coiling, dual-eligibles had increased odds of poor outcome. Dual-eligible patients with aSAH represent a vulnerable population that may benefit from targeted clinical and public policy initiatives.

Patient Factors Limit Colon Cancer Survival at Safety-Net Hospitals: A National Analysis

BACKGROUND

Safety-net hospitals serve a vital role in society by providing care for vulnerable populations. Existing data regarding oncologic outcomes of patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals are limited and variable. The objective of this study was to delineate disparities in treatment and outcomes for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study identified 802,304 adult patients with colon adenocarcinoma from the National Cancer Database between 2004-2016. Patients were stratified according to safety-net burden of the treating hospital as previously described. Patient, tumor, facility, and treatment characteristics were compared between groups as were operative and short-term outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to compare overall survival between patients treated at high, medium, and low burden hospitals.

RESULTS

Patients treated at safety-net hospitals were demographically distinct and presented with more advanced disease. They were also less likely to receive surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, negative resection margins, adequate lymphadenectomy, or a minimally invasive operative approach. On multivariate analysis adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, survival was inferior for patients at safety-net hospitals, even for those with stage 0 (in situ) disease.

CONCLUSION

This analysis revealed inferior survival for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals, including those without invasive cancer. These findings suggest that unmeasured population differences may confound analyses and affect survival more than provider or treatment disparities.

Disparities in Laryngeal Cancer Treatment and Outcomes: An Analysis by Hospital Safety-Net Burden

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To analyze the impact of hospital safety-net burden on survival outcomes for laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

From 2004 to 2015, 59,733 LSCC patients treated with curative intent were identified using the National Cancer Database. Low (LBH) <25th, medium (MBH) 25th-75th, and high (HBH) >75th safety-net burden hospitals were defined by the percentage quartiles (%) of uninsured/Medicaid-insured patients treated. Social and clinicopathologic characteristics and overall survival (using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis) were evaluated. Crude and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed using Cox regression modeling.

RESULTS

There were 324, 647, and 323 hospitals that met the criteria as LBH, MBH, and HBH, respectively. The median follow-up was 38.6 months. A total of 27,629 deaths were reported, with a median survival of 75.8 months (a 5-year survival rate of 56.6%). Median survival was 83.2, 77.8, and 69.3 months for patients from LBH, MBH, and HBH, respectively (P < .0001). The median % of uninsured/Medicaid-insured patients treated among LBH, MBH, and HBH were 3.6%, 14.0%, and 27.0%, respectively. Patients treated at HBH were significantly more likely to be young, Black, Hispanic, of low income, and present with more advanced disease compared to LBH and MBH. Survival was comparable for LBH and MBH (HR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.97-1.07, P = .408) on multivariate analysis. HBH, compared to LBH patients, had inferior survival (HR = 1.07; 95% CI = 1.01-1.13, P = .023).

CONCLUSIONS

High burden safety-net hospitals receive disproportionately more patients with advanced-stage and low socioeconomic status, yielding inferior survival compared to low burden hospitals.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 (individual cohort study) Laryngoscope, 131:E1987-E1997, 2021.

The impact of hospital safety-net status on inpatient outcomes for brain tumor craniotomy: a 10-year nationwide analysis

Background

Outcome disparities have been documented at safety-net hospitals (SNHs), which disproportionately serve vulnerable patient populations. Using a nationwide retrospective cohort, we assessed inpatient outcomes following brain tumor craniotomy at SNHs in the United States.

Methods

We identified all craniotomy procedures in the National Inpatient Sample from 2002–2011 for brain tumors: glioma, metastasis, meningioma, and vestibular schwannoma. Safety-net burden was calculated as the number of Medicaid plus uninsured admissions divided by total admissions. Hospitals in the top quartile of burden were defined as SNHs. The association between SNH status and in-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, complications, hospital-acquired conditions (HACs), length of stay (LOS), and costs were assessed. Multivariate regression adjusted for patient, hospital, and severity characteristics.

Results

304,719 admissions were analyzed. The most common subtype was glioma (43.8%). Of 1,206 unique hospitals, 242 were SNHs. SNH admissions were more likely to be non-white (P < .001), low income (P < .001), and have higher severity scores (P = .034). Mortality rates were higher at SNHs for metastasis admissions (odds ratio [OR] = 1.48, P = .025), and SNHs had higher complication rates for meningioma (OR = 1.34, P = .003) and all tumor types combined (OR = 1.17, P = .034). However, there were no differences at SNHs for discharge disposition or HACs. LOS and hospital costs were elevated at SNHs for all subtypes, culminating in a 10% and 9% increase in LOS and costs for the overall population, respectively (all P < .001).

Conclusions

SNHs demonstrated poorer inpatient outcomes for brain tumor craniotomy. Further analyses of the differences observed and potential interventions to ameliorate interhospital disparities are warranted.

Quality of Care and Outcomes of Patients With Gynecologic Malignancies Treated at Safety-Net Hospitals

Background

Although safety-net hospitals (SNH) provide a valuable role serving vulnerable patients, the quality of gynecologic oncology care at these hospitals remains inadequately documented. We examined the quality of care at SNH for women with gynecologic cancers.

Methods

We used the National Cancer Database to identify hospitals that treated patients with uterine, ovarian, or cervical cancer from 2004 to 2015. Hospitals with the greatest proportion of uninsured patients or Medicaid beneficiaries were defined as SNH. Quality metrics were derived from evidence-based recommendations. Thirty-day mortality, readmission rates, and 5-year survival were calculated. Multivariable models were developed to determine the association between treatment at SNH and outcomes.

Results

Overall, 594 750 patients diagnosed with gynecologic cancer were treated at 1340 hospitals. Compared with non-SNH, patients at SNH were younger, more frequently racial minorities, low income, and had more aggressive histologies and advanced-stage tumors. SNH had lower rates of minimally invasive surgery for uterine cancer (62.3% vs 75.9%, P < .0001), debulking for ovarian cancer (83.6% vs 86.9%, P < .05), and lymph node assessment for all three cancer types (P < .05). Rates of chemotherapy for uterine and ovarian cancer was greater whereas concurrent chemoradiation for cervical cancer was lower (P < .05 for all). Thirty-day mortality and readmission rates were equivalent. Mortality was moderately worse for patients with stage IV ovarian cancer and stage II-III cervical cancer (P < .05) but were otherwise equivalent.

Conclusions

After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, women with gynecologic cancers treated at SNH receive lower-quality surgical care and equivalent medical care and a subset of these patients has modest decreases in survival.