Less-Than-Standard Treatment in Rectal Cancer Patients: Which Patients Are at Risk?

Gender disparities in head and neck cancer chemotherapy clinical trials participation and treatment

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the representation of women in clinical trials directing the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for chemotherapy use in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), as well as the relationship between gender and chemotherapy administration in the definitive treatment of HNSCC in the United States.

METHODS

A review of all HNSCC chemotherapy clinical trials cited by the 2018 NCCN guidelines was performed. Sex-based proportions were compared with the corresponding proportions in the general U.S. population of patients with HNSCC between 1985 and 2015, derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. A second analysis using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), identified 63,544 adult patients diagnosed with stages III-IVB HNSCC between 2004 and 2014 and treated with definitive radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify predictors of chemotherapy administration.

RESULTS

While women comprised 26.2% of U.S. patients with HNSCC between 1985 and 2015, they comprised only 17.0% of patients analyzed in U.S. NCCN-cited chemotherapy clinical trials between 1985 and 2017. On multivariable analysis, women had decreased odds of receiving chemotherapy (Odds Ratio [OR]: 0.875; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.821-0.931; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Women are underrepresented in HNSCC chemotherapy clinical trials cited by the national guidelines. Additionally, women are less likely than men to receive definitive chemoradiotherapy as oppose to definitive radiotherapy. Reasons for these disparities warrant further investigation as well as re-evaluation of eligibility criteria and enrollment strategies, in order to improve relevance of clinical trials to women with HNSCC.

[Trans-sectoral care for patients with colorectal cancer: Design of a prospective randomized controlled multi-center trial (FKZ 01GY1143)]

BACKGROUND

Health-related quality of life (HrQoL) is an increasingly focused aim in the care for patients with colorectal cancer that are treated with curative intent. Achieving this aim partly depends on the quality of the transsectoral management of these patients throughout the entire treatment course. However, recent population-based surveys have shown that HrQoL in patients with colorectal cancer is significantly impaired over a long time following initial diagnosis. This also applies to patients for whom adjuncant chemotherapy is not indicated according to the German medical S3 guideline. In addition, the patients' need for medical and psychosocial support has repeatedly been reported to persist at a significantly increased level - despite the extensive establishment of certified cancer centres which has apparently failed to solve this problem sufficiently.

AIM

The SCAN intervention aims to increase the percentage of patients reaching an enhancement of their HrQoL by at least 12 points (range: 0-100 pts.) within eight weeks after hospital discharge by 15 percent compared to standard care.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The SCAN intervention is carried out as a randomised controlled multicentre trial in seven large- and middle-sized hospitals all over Saxony-Anhalt. 370 patients have been enrolled, 185 of whom are offered additional nurse-led outpatient counselling.

INTERVENTION

Patients in the intervention group are offered transitional guidance and support consisting of routine symptom assessment and patient counselling regarding self-management, informed therapy-related decision-making and psychosocial support.

ENDPOINTS

The primary endpoint of the study is the patients' global health-related quality of life (HrQoL), assessed by the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire QLQ C-30 V3.0, item 30. Disease-free survival within eight months, the utilisation of indicated adjuvant chemotherapies as well as therapy-related side effects, e. g., anxiety and depression and the patients' symptom burden are monitored as secondary endpoints.

EXPECTED RESULTS

We assume that the SCAN intervention will be effective in increasing the percentage of patients reaching a clinically relevant enhancement of their HrQoL within eight weeks after hospital discharge by 15 percent compared to standard care.

Treatment patterns among colorectal cancer patients in South Australia: a demonstration of the utility of population-based data linkage

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Population level data on colorectal cancer (CRC) management in Australia are lacking. This study assessed broad level patterns of care and concordance with guidelines for CRC management at the population level using linked administrative data from both the private and public health sectors across South Australia. Disparities in CRC treatment were also explored.

METHOD

Linking information from the South Australian Cancer Registry, hospital separations, radiotherapy services and hospital-based cancer registry systems provided data on the socio-demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics for 4641 CRC patients, aged 50-79 years, diagnosed from 2003 to 2008. Factors associated with receiving site/stage-specific treatments (surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy) and overall concordance with treatment guidelines were identified using Poisson regression analysis.

RESULTS

About 83% of colon and 56% of rectal cancer patients received recommended treatment. Provision of neo-adjuvant/adjuvant therapies may be less than optimal. Radiotherapy was less likely among older patients (prevalence ratio 0.7, 95% confidence interval 0.5-0.8). Chemotherapy was less likely among older patients (0.7, 0.6-0.8), those with severe or multiple co-morbidities (0.8, 0.7-0.9), and those from rural areas (0.9, 0.8-1.0). Overall discordance with treatment guidelines was more likely among rectal cancer patients (3.0, 2.7-3.3), older patients (1.6, 1.4-1.8), those with multiple co-morbid conditions (1.3, 1.1-1.4), and those living in rural areas (1.2, 1.0-1.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Greater emphasis should be given to ensure CRC patients who may benefit from neo-adjuvant/adjuvant therapies have access to these treatments.

Meeting the information needs of lower income cancer survivors: results of a randomized control trial evaluating the american cancer society's "I can cope"

The American Cancer Society is a leader in the development of cancer survivorship resources. One resource of the American Cancer Society is the I Can Cope program, an educational program for cancer survivors and their families. Evaluations of this program indicate that cancer patients highly rate its objectives. Yet, there are gaps in the understanding of the full impact of the program on diverse cancer survivors. In this study, the authors used a randomized trial to evaluate the program. Participants included 140 low-income survivors (79% Black; 38% breast cancer) from community hospitals who were randomized to 4 sessions of I Can Cope (learning about cancer; understanding cancer treatments; relieving cancer pain; and keeping well in mind and body) or 4 sessions of a wellness intervention (humor, meditation, relaxation, and music therapy). The authors' primary outcome was "met information needs." After controlling for covariates, their analysis indicated that I Can Cope was no more effective than the wellness intervention in addressing survivor information needs relative to the learning objectives. Participants provided high overall ratings for both interventions. Self-efficacy for obtaining advice about cancer, age, education, and income were associated with information needs. Educational programs tailored to levels of self-efficacy and patient demographics may be needed.

Patterns of colorectal cancer care in the United States and Canada: a systematic review

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the United States and Canada. Given the high incidence and increased survival of colorectal cancer patients, prevalence is increasing over time in both countries. Using MEDLINE, we conducted a systematic review of the literature published between 2000 and 2010 to describe patterns of colorectal cancer care. Specifically we examined data sources used to obtain treatment information and compared patterns of cancer-directed initial care, post-diagnostic surveillance care, and end-of-life care among colorectal cancer patients diagnosed in the United States and Canada. Receipt of initial treatment for colorectal cancer was associated with the anatomical position of the tumor and extent of disease at diagnosis, in accordance with consensus-based guidelines. Overall, care trends were similar between the United States and Canada; however, we observed differences with respect to data sources used to measure treatment receipt. Differences were also present between study populations within country, further limiting direct comparisons. Findings from this review will allow researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to evaluate treatment receipt by patient, clinical, or system characteristics and identify emerging trends over time. Furthermore, comparisons between health-care systems in the United States and Canada can identify disparities in care, allow the evaluation of different models of care, and highlight issues regarding the utility of existing data sources to estimate national patterns of care.

What do cancer patients worry about when making decisions about treatment? Variation across racial/ethnic groups

The aim of this study was to determine the issues patients worry about when making decisions about cancer treatment. A total of 5,044 colorectal and lung cancer patients from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium reported their level of worry about (1) treatment side effects, (2) treatment costs, (3) time away from family, (4) time away from work, and (5) transportation to treatment sites. Using multivariable logistic regression, we evaluated the association of sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables with worry. Overall, 75 % of patients worried about side effects of treatments; 40 %, the cost of treatment; 50 %, time away from family; 52 %, time away from work; and 22 %, about transportation. In multivariable analyses, across all worry domains, older patients had lower odds of reporting worry (p values < 0.001). Patients who perceived less than excellent quality of care, self-assessed their health as less than excellent, and those with a higher cancer stage were more likely to report worry. Asian patients were more likely to report worry than Whites about the cost of treatment and transportation, and relative to Whites, Hispanics were more likely to report worry about transportation (p values < 0.05). Black patients were less likely to report worry about time away from work. Patients worry about issues beyond treatment side effects when making treatment decisions. The pattern of worry varies along sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors, including race and ethnicity. Understanding the source of patient worry and identifying interventions to alleviate worry are important to delivering patient-centered cancer care.

A checklist for ascertaining study cohorts in oncology health services research using secondary data: report of the ISPOR oncology good outcomes research practices working group

OBJECTIVES

The ISPOR Oncology Special Interest Group formed a working group at the end of 2010 to develop standards for conducting oncology health services research using secondary data. The first mission of the group was to develop a checklist focused on issues specific to selection of a sample of oncology patients using a secondary data source.

METHODS

A systematic review of the published literature from 2006 to 2010 was conducted to characterize the use of secondary data sources in oncology and inform the leadership of the working group prior to the construction of the checklist. A draft checklist was subsequently presented to the ISPOR membership in 2011 with subsequent feedback from the larger Oncology Special Interest Group also incorporated into the final checklist.

RESULTS

The checklist includes six elements: identification of the cancer to be studied, selection of an appropriate data source, evaluation of the applicability of published algorithms, development of custom algorithms (if needed), validation of the custom algorithm, and reporting and discussions of the ascertainment criteria. The checklist was intended to be applicable to various types of secondary data sources, including cancer registries, claims databases, electronic medical records, and others.

CONCLUSIONS

This checklist makes two important contributions to oncology health services research. First, it can assist decision makers and reviewers in evaluating the quality of studies using secondary data. Second, it highlights methodological issues to be considered when researchers are constructing a study cohort from a secondary data source.

Gender differences in colon cancer treatment

Abstract Background: Despite women suffering a disproportionate burden of colon cancer mortality, few studies have examined gender differences in evidence-based treatment, especially in poorer states like Alabama.

OBJECTIVE

To describe colon cancer treatment in older patients diagnosed in Alabama by gender.

METHODS

Colon cancer patients 65 years and older diagnosed in 2000-2002 were identified from the Alabama Statewide Cancer Registry (N=1785). Treatment was identified from Medicare claims for 1999-2003. Outcomes were (1) receipt of surgery and adjuvant 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy (5FU) and (2) 5FU treatment duration (0-4, 5-7, and >7 months). Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models were used to determine significant gender differences, adjusting for clustering at the reporting hospital level, and controlling for race, age, stage, comorbid conditions, census tract-level socioeconomic variables, and adverse chemotherapy effects (when analyzing 5FU duration).

RESULTS

Overall, 93.9% of the patients received surgery. Of stage II-III patients undergoing surgery, 60.4% stage III and 25.6% stage II patients received 5FU. Compared with men, women were more likely to have surgery (95.5% vs. 92.2%, p=0.003), less likely to have 5FU (38.6% vs. 45.2%, p=0.02), and more likely to have 0-4 months of 5FU (32.9% vs. 24.9%, p=0.05). Gender differences were significant for having chemotherapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.78, confidence interval [CI] 0.61-1.00, p=0.049), but not for having 0-4 months of 5FU when adjusting for adverse effects (aOR 1.36, CI 0.95-1.94, p=0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

In Alabama, some gender differences in stage-specific colon cancer treatment are worth further scrutiny.

Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy use in patients with stage II/III rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy: a national comprehensive cancer network analysis

PURPOSE

Practice guidelines recommend that patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation for locally advanced rectal cancer complete postoperative adjuvant systemic chemotherapy, irrespective of tumor downstaging.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Colorectal Cancer Database tracks longitudinal care for patients treated at eight specialty cancer centers across the United States and was used to evaluate how frequently patients with rectal cancer who were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy also received postoperative systemic chemotherapy. Patient and tumor characteristics were examined in a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Between September 2005 and December 2010, 2,073 patients with stage II/III rectal cancer were enrolled in the database. Of these, 1,193 patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were in the analysis, including 203 patients not receiving any adjuvant chemotherapy. For those seen by a medical oncologist, the most frequent reason chemotherapy was not recommended was comorbid illness (25 of 50, 50%); the most frequent reason chemotherapy was not received even though it was recommended or discussed was patient refusal (54 of 74, 73%). After controlling for NCCN Cancer Center and clinical TNM stage in a multivariable logistic model, factors significantly associated with not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy were age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 1, on Medicaid or indigent compared with private insurance, complete pathologic response, presence of re-operation/wound infection, and no closure of ileostomy/colostomy.

CONCLUSION

Even at specialty cancer centers, a sizeable minority of patients with rectal cancer treated with curative-intent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy do not complete postoperative chemotherapy. Strategies to facilitate the ability to complete this third and final component of curative intent treatment are necessary.