PrEP Uptake and Methamphetamine Use Patterns in a 4-Year U.S. National Prospective Cohort Study of Sexual and Gender Minority People, 2017-2022

Methamphetamine use is on the rise among sexual and gender minority people who have sex with men (SGMSM), escalating their HIV risk. Despite pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) being an effective biomedical HIV prevention tool, its uptake in relation to methamphetamine use patterns in SGMSM has not been studied. In a U.S. cohort study from 2017 to 2022, 6,253 HIV-negative SGMSM indicated for but not using PrEP were followed for four years. Methamphetamine use was categorized (i.e., newly initiated, persistently used, never used, used but quit), and PrEP uptake assessed using generalized estimating equation (GEE), adjusted for attrition. Participants had a median age of 29, with 51.9% White, 11.1% Black, 24.5% Latinx, and 12.5% other races/ethnicities. Over the four years, PrEP use increased from 16.3 to 27.2%. GEE models identified risk factors including housing instability and food insecurity. In contrast, older age, health insurance, clinical indications, and prior PrEP use increased uptake. Notably, Latinx participants were more likely to use PrEP than Whites. Regarding methamphetamine use, those who newly initiated it were more likely to use PrEP compared to non-users. However, those who quit methamphetamine and those who persistently used it had PrEP usage rates comparable to those of non-users. Though PrEP uptake increased, it remained low in SGMSM. Methamphetamine use was associated with PrEP uptake. Healthcare providers should assess methamphetamine use for harm reduction. Prioritizing younger, uninsured SGMSM and addressing basic needs can enhance PrEP uptake and reduce HIV vulnerabilities.

PrEP Discontinuation In A US National Cohort Of Sexual And Gender Minority Populations, 2017-22

In the US, sexual and gender minority populations are disproportionately affected by HIV. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a key prevention method, but its effectiveness relies on consistent usage. Our four-year national cohort study explored PrEP discontinuation among sexual and gender minority people who initiated PrEP. We found a high annual rate of discontinuation (35-40 percent) after PrEP initiation. Multivariable analysis with 6,410 person-years identified housing instability and prior history of PrEP discontinuation as predictors of discontinuation. Conversely, older age, clinical indication for PrEP, and having health insurance were associated with ongoing PrEP use. To promote sustained PrEP use, strategies should focus on supporting those at high risk for discontinuation, such as younger people, those without stable housing or health insurance, and prior PrEP discontinuers.

Program-Based Lung Cancer Care: A Prospective Observational Tumor Registry Linkage Study

Introduction

Low-dose computed tomography screening (LDCT) and lung nodule programs (LNP) promote early lung cancer detection, improve survival; Multidisciplinary Care Programs (MDC) promote guideline-concordant care. The impact of such program-based care on "real-world" lung cancer survival is unquantified. We evaluated outcomes of lung cancer care delivered through structured programs in a community health care system.

Methods

We conducted a cohort study linking institutional prospective observational LDCT, LNP and MDC databases with Tumor Registry of Baptist Cancer Center facilities. We categorized all patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2011 and 2021 into program-based care versus non-program-based care cohorts. We compared patient characteristics, stage distribution, treatment modalities, survival and mortality in each pathway of care.

Results

Of 12,148 patients, 237, 1,165, 1,140 and 9,606 were diagnosed through the LDCT, LNP, MDC or no program, respectively; non-program-based care sequentially diminished from 96.3% to 66.5%, diagnosis through LDCT increased from 0.5% to 7.1%, LNP from 3.5% to 20.8%; and MDC alone decreased from a high of 12.8% in 2014 to 5.6% in 2021. Program-based care was associated with earlier stage (p < 0.001), higher surgical resection rates (p < 0.001), greater use of adjuvant therapy (p < 0.001), better aggregate and stage-stratified survival (p < 0.001), and lower all-cause and lung cancer-specific mortality (p < 0.001). Recipients of non-program-based care were considerably less likely to receive lung cancer treatment; results remained consistent when patients receiving no treatment were excluded.

Conclusions

Program-based care was associated with substantially better survival. Increasing access to program-based care should be explored as a matter of urgent public policy.

Women's cardiovascular health - the cardio-oncologic jigsaw

Improvements in cancer care have led to an exponential increase in cancer survival. This is particularly the case for breast cancer, where 5-year survival in Australia exceeds 90%. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) has emerged as one of the competing causes of morbidity and mortality among cancer survivors, both as a complication of cancer therapies and because the risk factors for cancer are shared with those for CVD. In this review we cover the key aspects of cardiovascular care for women throughout their cancer journey: the need for baseline cardiovascular risk assessment and management, a crucial component of the cardiovascular care; the importance of long-term surveillance for ongoing maintenance of cardiovascular health; and strong evidence for the beneficial effects of physical exercise to improve both cancer and cardiovascular outcomes. There is general disparity in cardiovascular outcomes for women, which is further exacerbated when both CVD and cancer co-exist. Collaboration between oncology and cardiac services, with an emergence of the whole field of cardio-oncology, allows for expedited investigation and treatment for these patients. This collaboration as well as a holistic approach to patient care and key role of patients' general practitioners are essential to ensure long-term health of people living with, during and beyond cancer.

Timing of Kidney Replacement Therapy Initiation and Survival during Pediatric Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: An Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry Study

To characterize kidney replacement therapy (KRT) and pediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) outcomes and to identify the optimal timing of KRT initiation during ECMO associated with increased survival. Observational retrospective cohort study using the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry database in children (0-18 yo) on ECMO from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020. Of the 14,318 ECMO runs analyzed, 26% of patients received KRT during ECMO. Patients requiring KRT before ECMO had increased mortality to ECMO decannulation (29% vs. 17%, OR 1.97, P < 0.001) and to hospital discharge (58% vs. 39%, OR 2.16, P < 0.001). Patients requiring KRT during ECMO had an increased mortality to ECMO decannulation (25% vs. 15%, OR 1.85, P < 0.001) and to hospital discharge (56% vs. 34%, OR 2.47, P < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that the need for KRT during ECMO was an independent predictor for mortality to ECMO decannulation (OR 1.49, P < 0.001) and to hospital discharge (OR 2.02, P < 0.001). Patients initiated on KRT between 24 and 72 hours after cannulation were more likely to survive to ECMO decannulation and showed a trend towards survival to hospital discharge as compared to those initiated before 24 hours and after 72 hours.

Perceived Health Needs of Church Leaders and Members: A Secondary Data Analysis of the Mid-South Congregational Health Survey

Needs assessments have been successful in helping communities and congregations focus their health ministry efforts; however, most have used leader perceptions of congregational health needs. The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the self-reported needs of both church leaders and members to be addressed by their congregation. Church leaders (n = 369) and members (n = 459) from 92 congregations completed the 2019 Mid-South Congregational Health Survey. Frequencies and generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) were performed to examine the top 10 self-reported needs and associations by church role, respectively. Of the top 10 congregational needs, anxiety or depression, high blood pressure, stress, and healthy foods were ranked identically regardless of church role. Church leaders perceived obesity and diabetes to be important congregational health needs, whereas members perceived affordable health care and heart disease to be important congregational health needs. GLMM, controlling for within-church clustering and covariates, revealed church leaders were more likely than members to report obesity (odds ratio [OR]: 1.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.39, 2.67], p < .0001) and diabetes (OR: 1.73, 95% CI = [1.24, 2.41], p = .001) as congregational needs. Findings display similarities and differences in needs reported by church role. Including many perspectives when conducting congregational health needs assessments will assist the development of effective faith-based health promotion programs.

Food security status and breast cancer screening among women in the United States: Evidence from the Health and Retirement Study and Health Care and Nutrition Study

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of food insecurity on biennial breast cancer screenings (i.e., mammography or breast X-ray) among older women in the United States (US).

METHODS

Data from the 2014 and 2016 waves of the Health and Retirement Study and the 2013 Health Care and Nutrition Study were used. The analyses were limited to a nationally representative sample of 2,861 women between 50 and 74 years of age, residing in the US. We employed a propensity score weighting method to balance observed confounders between food-secure and food-insecure women and fit a binary logistic regression to investigate population-level estimates for the association between food security and breast cancer screening.

RESULTS

Food insecurity was significantly associated with failure to obtain a mammogram or breast X-ray within the past two years. Food-insecure women had 54% lower odds of reporting breast cancer screening in the past 2 years (adjusted OR = 0.46; 95% CI 0.30-0.70, p-value < 0.001) as compared to food-secure women. Additional factors associated with a higher likelihood of receiving breast cancer screenings included greater educational attainment, higher household income, regular access to health care/advice, not smoking, and not being physically disabled or experiencing depressive symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Results demonstrate a socioeconomic gradient existing in regard to the utilization of regular breast cancer screenings among women. Those who tend to have lower education, lower income, and lack of reliable healthcare access are more likely to be food insecure. Thus, more likely to face the financial, logistical, or environmental barriers in obtaining screening services that accompany food insecurity.

Evaluation of prognostic risk models for postoperative pulmonary complications in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and international external validation cohort study

BACKGROUND

Stratifying risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery allows clinicians to modify risk through targeted interventions and enhanced monitoring. In this study, we aimed to identify and validate prognostic models against a new consensus definition of postoperative pulmonary complications.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and international external validation cohort study. The systematic review was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on March 1, 2020, for articles published in English that reported on risk prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. External validation of existing models was done within a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Data were collected between Jan 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. Discriminative ability and prognostic accuracy summary statistics were compared between models for the 30-day postoperative pulmonary complication rate as defined by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC). Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC).

FINDINGS

In total, we identified 2903 records from our literature search; of which, 2514 (86·6%) unique records were screened, 121 (4·8%) of 2514 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 29 unique prognostic models were identified. Nine (31·0%) of 29 models had score development reported only, 19 (65·5%) had undergone internal validation, and only four (13·8%) had been externally validated. Data to validate six eligible models were collected in the international external validation cohort study. Data from 11 591 patients were available, with an overall postoperative pulmonary complication rate of 7·8% (n=903). None of the six models showed good discrimination (defined as AUROCC ≥0·70) for identifying postoperative pulmonary complications, with the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score showing the best discrimination (AUROCC 0·700 [95% CI 0·683-0·717]).

INTERPRETATION

In the pre-COVID-19 pandemic data, variability in the risk of pulmonary complications (StEP-COMPAC definition) following major abdominal surgery was poorly described by existing prognostication tools. To improve surgical safety during the COVID-19 pandemic recovery and beyond, novel risk stratification tools are required.

FUNDING

British Journal of Surgery Society.

Longitudinal associations between insomnia symptoms and all-cause mortality among middle-aged and older adults: a population-based cohort study

To date, there is no scientific consensus on whether insomnia symptoms increase mortality risk. We investigated longitudinal associations between time-varying insomnia symptoms (difficulty initiating sleep, difficulty maintaining sleep, early-morning awakening, and nonrestorative sleep) and all-cause mortality among middle-aged and older adults during 14 years of follow-up. Data were obtained from 2004 through 2018 survey waves of the Health and Retirement Study in the United States for a population-representative sample of 15 511 respondents who were ≥50 years old in 2004. Respondents were interviewed biennially and followed through the end of the 2018 survey wave for the outcome. Marginal structural discrete-time survival analyses were employed to account for time-varying confounding and selection bias. Of the 15 511 cohort respondents (mean [±SD] age at baseline, 63.7 [±10.2] years; 56.0% females), 5878 (31.9%) died during follow-up. At baseline (2004), 41.6% reported experiencing at least one insomnia symptom. Respondents who experienced one (HR = 1.11; 95% CI: 1.03-1.20), two (HR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.01-1.23), three (HR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.05-1.27), or four (HR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.12-1.56) insomnia symptoms had on average a higher hazard of all-cause mortality, compared to those who were symptom-free. For each insomnia symptom, respondents who experienced difficulty initiating sleep (HR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.02-1.22), early-morning awakening (HR = 1.09; 95% CI: 1.01-1.18), and nonrestorative sleep (HR = 1.17; 95% CI: 1.09-1.26), had a higher hazard of all-cause mortality compared to those not experiencing the symptom. The findings demonstrate significant associations between insomnia symptoms and all-cause mortality, both on a cumulative scale and independently, except for difficulty maintaining sleep. Further research should investigate the underlying mechanisms linking insomnia symptoms and mortality.

Insomnia symptoms and incident heart failure: a population-based cohort study

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) is an ongoing epidemic and a serious clinical and public health issue. Currently, little is known about prospective associations between insomnia symptoms and HF incidence. We investigated the longitudinal associations between time-varying insomnia symptoms (difficulty initiating sleep, difficulty maintaining sleep, early-morning awakening, non-restorative sleep) and incident HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data were obtained from the Health and Retirement Study in the US for a population-representative sample of 12,761 middle-aged and older adults (age ≥ 50 years; mean [SD] age, 66.7 [9.4] years; 57.7% females) who were free from HF at baseline in 2002. Respondents were followed for 16 years for incident HF. We employed marginal structural discrete-time survival analyses to adjust for potential time-varying biological, psycho-cognitive, and behavioral factors and to account for bias due to differential loss to follow-up. At baseline, 38.4% of the respondents reported experiencing at least one insomnia symptom. During the 16-year follow-up, 1,730 respondents developed incident HF. Respondents experiencing one (hazard ratio [HR]=1.22; 95% CI: 1.08-1.38), two (HR=1.45; 95% CI: 1.21-1.72), three (HR=1.66; 95% CI: 1.37-2.02), or four (HR=1.80; 95% CI: 1.25-2.59) insomnia symptoms had a higher hazard of incident HF than asymptomatic respondents. Respondents that had trouble initiating sleep (HR=1.17; 95%CI: 1.01-1.36), maintaining sleep (HR=1.14; 95% CI: 1.01-1.28), early-morning awakening (HR=1.20; 95% CI: 1.02-1.43), or non-restorative sleep (HR=1.25; 95% CI: 1.06-1.46) had a higher hazard of incident HF than asymptomatic respondents.

CONCLUSION

Insomnia symptoms, both cumulatively and individually, are associated with incident HF. Public health awareness and screening for insomnia symptoms in at-risk populations should be encouraged to reduce HF incidence.

Comparing U.S. Preventive Services Task Force 2013 versus 2021 lung cancer screening eligibility

13

Background: Early detection of lung cancer provides the best opportunity for long-term survival. In 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the 2013 risk-based Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening criteria, in part to reduce unintended race and gender disparities in lung cancer detection. We evaluated the impact of the updated USPSTF criteria in a cohort of patients from an incidental lung nodule program (ILNP). Methods: We implemented an ILNP in a community healthcare system in the mid-south US. Patients with lung lesions on routinely-performed radiologic studies were triaged using evidence-based guidelines. We prospectively tracked patient demographics, clinical characteristics, procedures, complications, and health outcomes. We classified all patients in the ILNP cohort based on USPSTF 2013 and 2021 screening criteria. Statistical analysis used the chi-square test. Results: The ILNP cohort included 14,642 patients from 2015-2021. This cohort was 56% female, 65% White, 29% Black, with a median age of 64 years. Overall 1,581 (10.8%) met 2013 and 2,051 (14.0%) met 2021 USPSTF criteria. 1.9% of subjects eligible by 2013 criteria were diagnosed with lung cancer compared to 2.2% by 2021 criteria. 470 additional patients met screening criteria when we expanded from USPSTF 2013 to 2021. As expected, these patients were younger and less likely to have Medicare insurance. These additional eligible patients were significantly more likely to be female (58% v 49%, p = 0.0011) or Black (28% vs. 18%, p < 0.0001) compared to those eligible by 2013 criteria. 44 of the 470 (9%) were diagnosed with cancer: 36% adenocarcinoma, 18% squamous, and 11% small cell, 11% non-lung primary, 9% non-small cell lung cancer NOS, and 15% other or unknown histology. The median tumor size was 3 cm with an interquartile range from 1.7 to 4.2 cm. The clinical stage distribution was 34% I, 4.5% II, 15.9% III, and 31.8% IV. Conclusions: In this selective community-based cohort, USPSTF 2021 criteria identified a higher percentage of subjects with lung cancer and were more inclusive of women and minorities compared to USPSTF 2013 criteria.

A disease-based evaluation of lung cancer care quality in a community healthcare system

251

Background: Lung cancer care is complex, but, for quality improvement, can be simplified into five ‘nodal points’: lesion detection, diagnostic biopsy, radiologic staging, invasive staging, and treatment. We previously demonstrated great heterogeneity in passage through these nodal points in patients who received surgical resection for lung cancer in our healthcare system. However, examining only surgical patients may underestimate the enormity of the opportunity for quality improvement. With the aim of identifying quality gaps in pre-treatment evaluation for lung cancer, we evaluated the flow of care through these nodal points within a community-based healthcare system. Methods: We classified lung cancer care procedures received by all suspected lung cancer patients treated within the Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program at Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis TN between 2014 and 2019, into five nodal points. We compared the frequency of, and time intervals between, nodal points among patients receiving surgical, nonsurgical (chemotherapy/radiation), or no definitive treatment, using Chi-square or Kruskal Wallis tests, where appropriate. Results: Of 1304 eligible patients: 11% had no pre-treatment diagnostic procedure, 20% no PET/CT, and 39% no invasive staging. 39% of patients underwent surgical resection, 51% received non-surgical treatment, and 10% received no treatment. Patients who had surgery were less likely than those who had non-surgical treatment to get a diagnostic test, radiologic staging, and invasive staging (Table). Patients who had non-surgical treatment were more likely to pass through all five nodal points (50% v 68%, p<0.0001). The median (IQR) duration from initial lesion identification to treatment (n=1126) was 77 days (45-190); 27 days (10-90) from lesion identification to diagnostic biopsy (n=1115); and 38 days (26-63) from diagnostic biopsy to treatment (n=1041). Patients who had surgery received less timely care than those who had non-surgical or no treatment: median 122 v 66 v 68 days from lesion identification to treatment; 40 v 21 v 29 days from lesion identification to diagnostic biopsy; 46 v 38 v 31 days from diagnostic biopsy to treatment (p<0.0001 all comparisons). Conclusions: Quality improvement initiatives within our healthcare system, such as the establishment of a coordinated multidisciplinary program, enhanced care quality over previous benchmarks. Despite improvements, lung cancer patients who had surgery received less frequent and less timely pre-treatment evaluation than those without surgery. Implementing a standardized cancer care pathway from diagnosis to surgery could help to reduce variations in optimal care delivery.[Table: see text]

Patient and caregiver’s satisfaction with multidisciplinary vs. serial lung cancer care in a community setting

200

Background: Few existing studies examined lung cancer patients and caregivers’ satisfaction with the team-based multidisciplinary care (MD) in comparison to the usual serial care (SC). We hypothesized that MD, by providing early and concurrent input from key specialists collaborating as a team with patients and caregivers to develop a consensus care plan, can improve patients and caregivers’ satisfaction with care, compared to SC, in which multiple specialists independently screen, diagnose, and treat patients through a fragmented sequence of referrals. Methods: Data on newly diagnosed lung cancer patients, enrolled in a prospective matched cohort comparative effectiveness trial of MD or SC between Oct. 9th, 2014 and July 5th, 2017 in a Mid-South community hospital system, were collected at baseline, 3- and 6-month periods to assess patient and caregiver’s satisfaction with these two care-delivery models. Measures of satisfaction were adapted from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey. Multivariate mixed linear models were used to examine the cross-group differences, the time-related variances, and how the interaction between groups and time-periods influenced patients’ and caregivers’ satisfaction. Results: Compared with SC (N = 297), patients in MD (N = 159) were older (66 vs. 69 years), more in an early cancer stage (33% vs. 41% in stage I or II), and lower in performance score (35% vs. 45% asymptomatic). Demographic and social-economic characteristics of caregivers in MD (N = 97) and SC (N = 122) were not significantly different. Patients and caregivers in MD were more likely than those in SC to perceive their care to be better than that received by other patients (p =.003 and p <.001 respectively). Greater satisfaction with their treatment plan at 6-month was observed among the MD patients (p =.004). Also, MD patients reported better overall satisfaction with team members (p =.038). Consistent with the findings among the patients in MD, caregivers in MD were more satisfied with the quality of care (p <.001) and with care received from team members (p <.001) than that reported by caregivers in SC. Conclusions: Coordinated MD care improved patients and caregivers’ satisfaction with lung cancer care in a community healthcare system. Further research will compare the quality of life and financial burden on patients in the MD and SC treatment models to provide more evidence for stakeholders to refine cancer care models.

Early detection of lung cancer with an incidental lung nodule program (ILNP)

8553

Background: Lung cancer early detection improves survival, but risk-based low-dose CT screening (LDCT) only identifies a minority of patients. We implemented an ILNP in a community healthcare system, and evaluated its risks and benefits. Methods: Patients with lung lesions on routinely-performed radiologic studies were flagged by radiologists and triaged using evidence-based guidelines. We tracked demographics, clinical characteristics, procedures, complications, and health outcomes. We analyzed ILNP subjects’ eligibility for LDCT by National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), Center for Medicaid Services (CMS), NEderlands Leuvens Screening ONderzoek (NELSON), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Risk Groups 1 and 2 (screening recommended), NCCN Risk Group 3 (screening not currently recommended), and US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria from 2013 and 2020. Statistical analysis used the chi-square test and Kaplan Meier method. Results: From 2015-2020, 13,710 patients were evaluated in the ILNP program: median age, 64 years; 42% male; 65% White, 29% Black; 667 (4.9%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. Lung cancers diagnosed from ILNP were 39% adenocarcinoma / 20% Squamous Cell with clinical stage distribution 49% I, 8% II, 17% III, and 16% IV. 832 (6.1%) had invasive diagnostic testing- CT-guided biopsy (50%), bronchoscopy (30%), and/or EBUS (26%); 11% of the 832 had >1 invasive diagnostic test. The most common complications from invasive testing were pneumothorax and chest tube placement. Only 11%-20% of all ILNP patients would have been eligible for LDCT. In ILNP patients diagnosed with lung cancer, only 33% were eligible for screening by NLST criteria; the proportion increased substantially when USPSTF 2020 or NCCN Group 2 criteria were applied (Table). Compared to NLST, NCCN Group 2 criteria increased screening eligibility among cancer patients by 22% (from 33% to 55%), while only increasing screening eligibility by 6% (from 8% to 14%) in non-cancer patients. Aggregate 1-year and 3-year survival rates for lung cancer patient diagnosed through ILNP were 76% (95% CI: 73, 80) and 64% (95% CI: 59, 69). Conclusions: The ILNP identified early-stage lung cancer more frequently than most LDCT programs, with promising survival rates. The majority of subjects with lung cancer were not eligible for LDCT, we still need to optimize risk-based screening criteria. Even with new, expanded criteria for LDCT, structured ILNP is necessary to expand early detection of lung cancer.[Table: see text]

Food Insecurity and Influenza and Pneumonia Vaccines Uptake Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults in the United States

Influenza and pneumonia vaccines can reduce morbidities and mortality associated with infectious diseases among older adults. Food security, good nutrition, and high-quality diets are critical for the wellbeing of older adults. However, little is known about the relationship between food insecurity and use of preventive health services, such as influenza and pneumonia vaccinations, among older adults. In this study, we analyzed data on 40,555 adults aged ≥ 65 years from the 2014-2018 National Health Interview Survey in the United States. Through multiple hierarchical logistic regression models, we investigated the associations between food insecurity and influenza and pneumonia vaccines uptake in this population. We found that, during 2014-2018, about 12.6 million (5.3%) adults aged ≥ 65 years lived in food-insecure households in the United States. Of those, 60.6% reported getting an influenza vaccine in the past 12 months, and 54.2% reported ever getting a pneumonia vaccine. Compared to food-secure older adults, food-insecure individuals were not significantly different in terms of influenza vaccine uptake. However, they were 25% less likely to have ever gotten a pneumonia vaccine (adjusted odds ratio = 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.86, P < .001). Efforts should be made to develop strategies to improve immunization rates among food-insecure older adults. Healthcare providers could routinely assess their vaccination status and screen them for food insecurity. Also, community level screening and intervention programs should target food-insecure older adults, who often face structural disadvantages. Future studies could explore and identify the underlying predictive factors contributing to low pneumonia vaccination rates among food-insecure older adults.

Impact of a Lymph Node Specimen Collection Kit on the Distribution and Survival Implications of the Proposed Revised Lung Cancer Residual Disease Classification: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

IMPORTANCE

The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) has proposed a revision of the residual disease (R-factor) classification, to R0, 'R-uncertain', R1 and R2. We previously demonstrated longer survival after surgical resection with a lymph node specimen collection kit, and now evaluate R-factor redistribution as the mechanism of its survival benefit.

OBJECTIVE

We retrospectively evaluated surgical resections for lung cancer in the population-based observational 'Mid-South Quality of Surgical Resection' cohort from 2009-2019, including a full-cohort and propensity-score matched analysis.

RESULTS

Of 3,505 resections, 34% were R0, 60% R-uncertain, and 6% R1 or R2. The R0 percentage increased from 9% in 2009 to 56% in 2019 (p < 0.0001). Kit cases were 66% R0 and 29% R-uncertain, compared to 14% R0 and 79% R-uncertain in non-kit cases (p < 0.0001). Compared with non-kit resections, kit resections had 12.3 times the adjusted odds of R0 versus R-uncertainty.Of 2,100 R-uncertain resections, kit cases had lower percentages of non-examination of lymph nodes, 1% vs. 14% (p < 0.0001) and non-examination of mediastinal lymph nodes, 8% vs. 35% (p < 0.0001). With the kit, more R-uncertain cases had examination of stations 7 (43% vs. 22%, p < 0.0001) and 10 (67% vs. 45%, p < 0.0001).The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for kit cases versus non-kit cases was 0.75 (confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-0.85, p < 0.0001). In 2,100 subjects with R-uncertain resections, kit cases had an aHR of 0.79 versus non-kit cases ([CI: 0.64-0.99], p=0.0384); however, in the 1,199 R0 resections the survival difference was not significant (aHR: 0.85[0.68-1.07], p = 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

A lymph node kit increased overall survival by increasing R0, reducing the probability of R-uncertain resections, and diminishing extreme R-uncertainty.

An Optimal Care Coordination Model (OCCM) for Medicaid patients with lung cancer: Results from the beta model testing phase of a multisite initiative in the United States

105

Background: Medicaid patients with lung cancer have poorer outcomes than non-Medicaid patients, partly because of suboptimal care quality. The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) launched a project to develop, test, and refine an OCCM. Methods: The OCCM comprised 13 areas, spanning care access to supportive care/survivorship. Using the OCCM, 7 cancer programs in 6 US states conducted self-assessments of care delivery systems and implemented quality improvement projects. Sites worked with ACCC to conduct data benchmarked projects. Data collection and analysis were centralized. Statistical analyses used Kruskal−Wallis and chi-squared tests. Results: There were 926 patients (257 Medicaid/dual eligible; 669 non-Medicaid) across 7 sites. Medicaid/dual eligible patients were 52% male, 69% Caucasian, 48% active smokers, and 45% clinical stage III/IV. Prospective multidisciplinary case planning (PMCP), patient care access, and tobacco cessation were commonly selected for projects. PMCP evaluation used fortnightly tumor board (FTB), virtual tumor board (VTB), and multidisciplinary team huddle (MTH). Presentation of eligible patients was higher for VTB and MTH (FTB: 23%, VTB: 100%, MTH: 100%, p < 0.0001). While FTB and MTH discussed all cases prospectively, VTB achieved 80%. Median days (d) from diagnosis to presentation were 18 (FTB), 14 (VTB), and 9 (MTH, p = 0.14). Patient care access was evaluated with timeliness metrics at 2 sites. Site 1: Medicaid patients had a median of 13 d from lesion discovery to diagnosis and 21 d from diagnosis to treatment (not different from non-Medicaid; p = 0.96 and 0.38). 94% met the goal of treatment initiation within 45 d. Site 2: Medicaid patients had a median of 16 d from discovery to diagnosis and 27 d from diagnosis to treatment (not different from non-Medicaid; p = 0.68 and 0.83). Similar benchmarks were collected and compared for other assessment areas. Sites identified enhanced collaboration and improved programming (e.g., patient navigation) as successes. Challenges at project start included inadequate staffing and lack of centralized data collection and benchmarking. Importance of lung cancer–dedicated navigation, PMCP, and Medicaid patient needs were key transferable lessons. Conclusions: The OCCM is useful for cancer programs’ self-assessment of care delivery to Medicaid patients across 13 high-impact areas. Dissemination can advance multidisciplinary coordinated care delivery, but sites may need additional resources to evaluate outcomes.

Outcomes from a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology conference (MTOC) versus serial care (SC) in a community healthcare system

55

Background: Lung cancer care delivery is complex, with disparate quality and outcomes. Prospective multidisciplinary case planning is a recommended but poorly validated solution. We conducted a prospective comparative effectiveness trial to evaluate the impact of multidisciplinary care on care processes and long-term survival in a large community-based healthcare system. Methods: We previously reported primary objective results comparing patients in the multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) with those not cared for in the MDC i.e. usual, SC. However, a subset of the SC subjects (and all MDC subjects) were discussed at a weekly MTOC. In this secondary analysis, we compare all subjects who were prospectively discussed at MTOC (with or without MDC) with ‘true’ SC (TSC). Subjects were frequency matched by age range, race, insurance, performance status, and initial clinical stage. We compared the thoroughness of staging, use of guideline-concordant treatment, and survival. Models were stratified by frequency matched variables and adjusted for age, sex, and histology as covariates. Statistical methods included chi-square, logistic regression with adjusted Odds Ratios (aOR), and Proportional Hazards models with adjusted Hazard Ratios (aHR); both with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Of 526 subjects enrolled, 246 (47%) were discussed at MTOC. MTOC patients were older (median age 68 v 66, p = 0.03), less intense smokers (p = 0.03), and more commercially insured (p = 0.02). Fewer MTOC subjects were clinical stage IV (33% v 45%, p = 0.01). The MTOC patients had significantly greater odds of bimodal staging (aOR: 2.2 [1.3, 3.8]), trimodal staging (2.6 [1.8, 3.8]), invasive stage confirmation (2.6 [1.7, 3.9]), and mediastinal stage confirmation (2.4 [1.6, 3.6]; all p < 0.01). The additional stage confirmation resulted in more patients who were up- or down-staged in MTOC (44% v 33%, p = 0.03). MTOC patients were twice as likely to receive National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment (aOR: 2.0 [1.3, 3.2]). Despite more thorough care, time from initial lesion detection to treatment was similar (mean: 2.86 vs. 2.83 months, p = 0.71). Health-related quality of life measures did not differ between the two arms (P = 0.07 to 0.99). We found no difference in overall (aHR: 1.1 [0.9, 1.4]) or disease free survival (aHR: 1.1 [0.9, 1.3]) between MTOC and TSC. Conclusions: MTOC improved the thoroughness of care and delivery of appropriate treatment, without delays in treatment initiation or survival improvement.

A comparison of two models of multidisciplinary lung cancer care within a community-based healthcare system

36

Background: The Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Conference (MTOC) model is easier to implement than the Multidisciplinary Clinic (MDC) model, but does not directly involve patients in decision-making. We compared the processes and outcomes of lung cancer care between patients discussed in a weekly MTOC versus those seen in a MDC. Methods: Prospective observational study of thoroughness of staging, stage confirmation (defined as biopsy of the stage-defining lesion), National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment, overall (OS) and event-free (EFS) survival of lung cancer patients in a community healthcare system’s MDC and MTOC from 2014-2019. We used the chi-square test and multivariable logistic regression to evaluate guideline-concordant treatment and stage confirmation; Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression were used to evaluate OS and EFS. We adjusted models for age, sex, race, insurance, smoking status, and histology. Results: 614 patients received care in MDC; 571 in MTOC. MDC patients were older (median age: 69 vs. 67); less likely to be active smokers (44% vs. 47%; p=0.03); more likely to have bimodal (98% v 95%, p=0.02) and trimodal staging (60% v 46%, p<0.0001). The stage-confirmation rate (OR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.22-1.96) and mediastinal stage confirmation rate (OR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.23-1.95) were both significantly higher in MDC, even after adjustment (aOR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.25-2.03); (aOR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.25-2.00). A higher proportion of patients received guideline-concordant treatment in MDC than in MTOC (82% vs. 73%; OR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.21-2.20) even after adjustment (aOR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.20-2.24). However, MTOC patients had significantly better OS (p=0.03) and EFS (p=0.001) than MDC patients and a lower hazard of death (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67-0.98), even after adjusting for confounding variables (aHR: 0.79 95%CI: 0.66-0.95). Conclusions: Although the processes of lung cancer care delivery were better in MDC than in MTOC, survival was better in MTOC. Patient selection may have played a role in these survival differences. The MTOC model, as implemented, seems competitive with the MDC model and is worthy of further exploration as a more feasible model of multidisciplinary care. [Table: see text]

Survival impact of multidisciplinary thoracic oncology care in a regional healthcare system

2004

Background: Much-advocated, the value and impact of multidisciplinary care and planning (MDC) needs greater evidence. We compared non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient characteristics, treatment patterns and survival in a large community healthcare system spanning 3 US states with some of the highest lung cancer incidence and mortality rates. Methods: We identified MDC patients in the Tumor Registry NSCLC data from 2011-2017. Because the MDC program was located in metropolitan Memphis, we separated non-MDC patients by location of care resulting in 3 cohorts: MDC, non-MDC metropolitan care and non-MDC regional care. Using National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, we categorized treatment by stage as ‘preferred’, ‘appropriate’ (allowable under certain circumstances). We compared demographic and clinical characteristics across cohorts using chi-squared tests and compared survival using Cox regression with Bonferroni adjustment. We repeated survival analysis with propensity matched cohorts. Results: Of 6259 patients, 14% received MDC, 56% metro care and 30% regional care; MDC had the highest rates of African Americans (34% v 28% v 22%), stage I-IIIB (63 v 40 v 50), urban residents (81 v 78 v 20), stage-preferred treatment rates (66 v 57 v 48), stage-appropriate treatment rates (78 v 70 v 63;), and lowest non-treatment rates (6 v 21 v 28). All p<0.001. Compared to MDC, the hazard for death was higher in metro (1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.3-1.6) and regional (1.7, 1.5-1.9); hazards were higher in regional care v metro (1.2, 1.1-1.3); all p<0.001 after adjustment. Results were similar for MDC comparisons after propensity matching with and without adjusting for preferred treatment. No differences in regional and metro cohorts. Conclusions: In this large community-based healthcare system, receipt of MDC for NSCLC was associated with significantly higher rates of guideline-concordant care and survival, providing strong evidence for recommending rigorous implementation of MDC. [Table: see text]

An optimal care coordination model for Medicaid patients with lung cancer: Lessons learned from the beta testing phase of a multisite initiative in the United States

e14010

Background: Medicaid patients with lung cancer often have less favorable outcomes than non-Medicaid patients, which, given provision of care is typically comparable, may be due to socioeconomic disparities between these populations. In 2016, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) embarked on a 3-year initiative to develop and test the Optimal Care Coordination Model (OCCM) to improve care coordination for Medicaid patients with lung cancer. A framework of 13 independent care delivery areas, spanning access to care to survivorship and supportive care, aids cancer programs in identifying barriers to access and use of their care, with a focus on Medicaid patients, and therefore enables optimal care coordination. Methods: Seven community-based healthcare systems in 6 U.S. states were selected as OCCM beta testing sites and then supported by the ACCC via site visits and biweekly calls. Sites self-assessed the quality of their care in selected OCCM areas to identify relevant quality improvement projects and improve understanding of needs specific to Medicaid patients. Results: Total patient enrollment across all sites was 926 (257 Medicaid; 669 non-Medicaid). Each site selected 1–2 priority OCCM areas, including patient access to care, prospective multidisciplinary case planning, or tobacco cessation, for projects. Enhanced collaboration, improved programming (e.g., patient navigation and formation of lung health leadership team), and organic programmatic changes due to the OCCM work were identified as successes. Site-specific challenges included inadequate staffing at project start and lack of centralized data collection and coordination. The importance of lung cancer–dedicated navigation, multidisciplinary conference use for treatment planning, and understanding needs specific to Medicaid patients were key transferable lessons. Examples of institutional support received by sites during the project included opportunities for staff training and leadership commitment from other hospital departments to assist with care delivery improvements. Use of the existing OCCM framework; increased staffing, particularly for lung cancer navigation; and expanded community outreach were identified in the sustainability plans. Conclusions: OCCM beta testing helped sites self-assess care delivery and identify areas for improvement. Ultimately, it was apparent that Medicaid patients need to be treated differently to obtain equity of outcomes with non-Medicaid patients.

Prospective comparative effectiveness trial of multidisciplinary lung cancer (LC) care

6549

Background: LC is common and lethal; care-delivery is complex, varies in quality and outcomes, stimulating calls for multidisciplinary treatment planning (MTP) involving key specialists. This much-advocated model lacks rigorous evaluation. We conducted a prospective cohort study of MTP v Serial Care (SC) in a community healthcare system. Methods: Newly-diagnosed LC patients with performance status (PS) 0-2, and their caregivers, were enrolled from a LC multispecialty group clinic (MGC) or single-specialty general oncology clinics. A subset of general oncology clinic patients were discussed in a Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Conference (MTOC), others were not (Serial Care [SC]). In this analysis, we compare MGC and MTOC patients (MTP recipients) to SC patients. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were measures of quality: staging practices, guideline-concordant treatment, timeliness of care, patient and caregiver satisfaction. We adjusted proportional hazards and logistic models for age, sex, histology, stage, PS, insurance, and race. Results: 254 patients received MTP v 272 SC. After a median 30 months’ follow up, there was no difference in OS (adjusted hazard ratio 1.10 [CI 0.87-1.40], p = .43). Stage-confirmatory biopsy was done in 61% MTP v 45% SC patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.59, CI 1.74-3.86, p < .0001); 81% MTP v 68% SC patients received guideline-concordant treatment (aOR 2.04, CI 1.31-3.19, p < .002). Although the time from lesion detection to diagnostic biopsy (25 v 15 days, p = .004) or staging biopsy (29 v 20 days, p = .007) was higher with MTP, there was no difference in time to definitive treatment (60 v 57 days, p = .06). MTP patients and their caregivers reported greater satisfaction with the combined quality of care received from all team members (p < .0001) at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Conclusions: MTP for LC significantly improved the quality of care including the thoroughness of staging, use of guideline-concordant care, and patient satisfaction. Contrary to reports from retrospective analyses, timeliness of care was worse with MTP. Patient and caregiver satisfaction was superior with MTP. Despite improved quality, MTP was not associated with improved LC survival. Clinical trial information: NCT02123797.

Lung cancer diagnosed by an incidental lung nodule program or lung cancer screening

8546

Background: Early detection reduces lung cancer (LC) mortality. We prospectively evaluated LC patients diagnosed through Lung Cancer Screening (LCS) or an Incidental Lung Nodule Program (ILNP) (‘early detection’ programs) compared to routinely diagnosed LC patients in a multidisciplinary program (MDP). Methods: We compare demographics, tumor characteristics, and survival between the three groups diagnosed within the same healthcare system from 2015-2018. The ILNP prospectively tracks patients with suspicious lung lesions on routinely-performed studies flagged by radiologists using a standard macro text. LCS used Medicare eligibility criteria. Statistical methods include the chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and proportional hazards models with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals. Results: ILNP detected 201 lung cancers from 4713 scans (4.3%), LCS yielded 35 lung cancers from 1540 low-dose CT scans (2.3%), while MDC had 926 LC cases not detected by LCS or ILNP. Mean age at diagnosis for ILNP/LCS/MDC was 70/69/67 years (p = 0.0083); African Americans were under-represented in LCS (25%/11%/32%, p = 0.0104). LCS had the highest proportion with commercial insurance (46%/54%/43%, p = 0.3442). Early detection groups were more likely to have adenocarcinoma histology (ILNP/LCS/MDC: 61%/57%/49%, p = 0.0113). Smoking exposure was highest in LCS cohort (mean pack years: 48/64/52, p = 0.0500); 11% of ILNP, 8% MDC patients were never-smokers. Only 36% ILNP and 39% MDC patients were eligible for LCS by NLST criteria and 30%/40% by NELSON criteria. Reasons for ineligibility included smoking status in 73-90% and age in 7-27% of patients. Stage I/II distribution was (66%/58%/21%, p < 0.0001), stage IV 15%/20%/36%; surgical resection rates were (56%/55%/31%, p < 0.0001). Overall survival was longer in early detection groups (LCS HR: 0.31 [0.11,0.82]; ILNP HR: 0.51[0.33,0.81]) compared to MDC (p = 0.0011). Conclusions: The majority of LC patients were ineligible for LCS, but the ILNP identified LC in a high proportion of such patients, with similar stage re-distribution, curative-intent treatment, and survival rates. Structured ILNP complement LCS for early LC detection, such programs need to be built out.

The relative impact of patient and institutional rurality on lung cancer disparities

e20052

Background: We quantified variation in stage specific, guideline concordant treatment and examined the interaction with rurality and overall survival (OS). Methods: We used tumor registry data for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients at 5 institutions in the Mississippi Delta from 2011-2017, including patient demographics, clinical stage, treatment, and OS. We defined rurality by Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes, hospital and patient zip codes; based stage-stratified treatment on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines; used Chi-squared and ANOVA F-tests to assess differences across institutions and logistic regression to assess associations between appropriate care, patient- and institution-level rurality. We used Log-rank tests to examine differences in OS and Cox proportional hazard regression to calculate hazard ratios (HR). Results: 6,259 patients were identified across 2 rural (n = 1255, 20%) and 3 metropolitan (metro) institutions (n = 5004, 80%). There were significant demographic and clinical differences between institutions: proportion of African-Americans (range: 6-37%, p < 0.001), uninsured (3-18%, p < 0.001), patient rurality (17-99%, p < 0.001), ‘no treatment’ rates (17-31%, p < 0.001). Metro patients or those treated at metro institutions were more likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment (odds ratio: 1.34, 95% CI [1.20 - 1.49]; 1.45 [1.28 - 1.65], respectively) than their rural counterparts and had improved OS (HR: 0.89; 95% CI [0.84 - 0.95]; 0.68 [0.63 - 0.72], respectively). They were also less likely to receive ‘no treatment’ (0.62 [0.55 - 0.71], p < 0.001; 0.51 [0.49 - 0.66], p < 0.001, respectively). Among patients with proper care, there were no patient-level rurality based OS differences (p = 0.2203) but those treated at metro institutions had better OS (p < 0.001). When stage-stratified, only advanced-stage patients treated at metro institutions had better survival (p < 0.001), no other differences in OS were detected for early or late-stage patients. Conclusions: Institution-level rurality had greater influence than patient-level rurality on receipt of guideline concordant care and OS. Appropriate care eliminated patient-level rurality OS disparities.