bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025 huggingface dataset:
Optimizing access to care for new patients with cancer discharged from an observation unit.
Authors: Wechsler Adriana H. , Fatima Huda , Nguyen Trung D. , Chou Camilla C. , Bier Nina N. , Chaftari Patrick
Published: September 2024

119

Background:
Each year, approximately 33,000 new cancer patients seek treatment at our dedicated cancer hospital, with many placed in our observation unit, the Clinical Decision Unit (CDU). These patients often experience significant delays in receiving oncologic care after discharge resulting in distress for both patients and providers. Our goal is to reduce the two-week appointment time from CDU discharge to outpatient oncologic care by more 10% for those eligible to be seen at the hospital.
Methods:
In fiscal year 2023, we gathered data on patients admitted to and discharged from the CDU, focusing on new patients. A multidisciplinary team developed a fishbone diagram, process flowcharts, and an impact matrix. Interventions included automated referrals, discharge notifications, patient and provider education, discharge booklets, and oncology recommendations for urgent consults. A physician satisfaction survey was conducted pre- and post-intervention. Three months of post-intervention data (February-May 2024) were reviewed, measuring the baseline percentage of patients receiving an appointment within two weeks, one month or more after CDU discharge.
Results:
In 2023, 90 eligible patients new to the institution were discharged from the CDU. Of those, 3 (3%) had follow-up appointments within 2 weeks, and 39 (43%) had appointments after 30 days or no appointment at all. Post-intervention data showed that out of 15 new patients discharged between February and May 2024, 10 (66%) had follow up appointments within 2 weeks, 4 (27%) within 30 days, while 1 (7%) had not yet received an appointment.
Conclusions:
Streamlining the referral process through a central service, automating the requests, and educating both providers and patients can reduce the time to establish oncologic care through an observation unit. However, limitations remain for patients with out-of-network insurance or lack of insurance coverage. Further research is necessary to assess whether expediting follow up cancer care for new patients improves clinical outcomes and relieves associated stress as we suspect it does.

Time interval for new patients to acquire oncology clinic appointments post discharge.

Dates/Time Frame
Eligible New Patients with Appointments Within 2 weeks
Eligible New Patients with Appointments within 15 to 30 days
Eligible New Patients with No Appointment or Appointment > 30 days*

Baseline DataFY 2023
3%(3/90)
53%(48/90)
43%(39/90)

Post-Intervention:2/6/24 – 5/6/24
66%%(10/15)
27%(4/15)
7%(1/15)

*Includes patients without follow up.
Inequalities in colon cancer treatment in Uruguay: Does age have a say?
Authors: Fontes Santiago , Berry Megan , Marín-Jiménez Ana , Sanchez Garcia Juan Carlos , Cuello Mauricio , Krygier Gabriel David
Published: September 2024

125

Background:
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most diagnosed cancer in men and women in Uruguay. Survival from CRC is known to be worse in those aged 65 years and older, despite more than 70% of cases occurring in this age group. It has been said that elderly cancer patients are often under-treated compared to younger ones, and that this unequal access to treatment in practice, despite universal access in theory, accounts for at least some of the reported survival difference. A better understanding of age-related inequalities in treatment would help to inform interventions to improve cancer control, therefore a retrospective study was undertaken to investigate if there are age-related inequalities in CRC care in Uruguay.
Methods:
Data on age, sex, tumor site and stage and treatments received (cancer-directed surgery and chemotherapy) were obtained for 1372 patients diagnosed with CRC. Likelihood of receipt of 1) cancer-directed surgery, 2) chemotherapy in surgical patients, 3) chemotherapy in non-surgical patients by age, adjusting for sex, cancer stage, was examined.
Results:
More than two-thirds (67%) of our population were aged 60 years or older at diagnosis and a slightly higher proportion were men (53%). Seventy six percent received cancer directed surgery, either in a curative or palliative intent. When analyzing patients with stage I-III cancers, 81% of patients received curative intent surgery. Those in the oldest age group (80+ years) were significantly less likely to be operated than those in the <60 years age group (p 0.002) specially if the tumor was in the sub peritoneal rectum. In relation to receipt of chemotherapy in surgical patients, similar age patterns were observed, although in a much more extreme manner (p <0.001). Increasing age was also strongly associated with reduced likelihood of receiving systemic therapy, with a higher percentage of patients <60 years old receiving at least palliative chemotherapy in comparison to the 80+ year age group (p <0,001). No differences in relation to gender or tumour location were observed.
Conclusions:
Age remains a major factor in treatment decisions. Research is needed both to identify the most effective treatment for colon cancer in older populations and to understand clinicians’ decision-making processes to ensure equitable access.
Status of uterine cervix cancer mortality and incidence disparities in Appalachian eastern Kentucky.
Authors: Sabharwal Kennedy , Garcia Oscar , Miller Robert Clell
Published: September 2024

132

Background:
Cervical cancer continues to affect the Appalachian population to a higher degree than the rest of the American population. Researchers believe the increased prevalence of cervical cancer in the Appalachian area is due to health disparities across the area.
Methods:
We queried the Kentucky Cancer Registries online public Cancer Incidence and Mortality Inquiry System to determine changes in age adjusted invasive cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates in Appalachian (AK) and Non-Appalachian Kentucky (NAK) counties over time. Incidence rate ratios were used to analyze the difference in cervical cancer incidence and mortality between Appalachian KY and non-Appalachian KY populations across several time periods.
Results:
In 1995-1999, there was a statistically significant difference in cervical cancer incidence between AK and NAK 14.8 vs. 12.7/100,000 people (p= 0.0035) and mortality 4.6 vs. 4.0/100,000 (p=0.0471). The cervical cancer incidence was 16.9% higher in AK versus NAK and mortality was 18.4% higher in AK versus NAK. In 2016-2020, there was a statistically significant difference in cervical cancer incidence between AK and NAK 12.1 vs. 8.9/100,000 people (p≤ 0.0001) and mortality between AK and NAK 3.6 vs. 2.3/100,000 people (p= 0.0001). The cervical cancer incidence was 36% higher in AK versus NAK and mortality was 55.7% higher in AK versus NAK.
Conclusions:
Disparities between in Appalachian Kentucky and Non-Appalachian Kentucky in cervical cancer incidence and mortality not only have persisted since the 1990’s, but they have widened proportionally over time as survival gains have lagged in Appalachia. The observed cervical cancer outcome disparities are likely contributed to by not only the lack of general health education in the region, but more importantly barriers to care access contributing to a lower use of Pap testing in the area. Higher rates of poverty, increased rates of smoking and HPV infection also likely play a role. Research has been conducted to observe identified opportunities for intervention and begin collaborative efforts in the region engineered towards a cervical cancer risk reduction program, but the need for improvement clearly remains.

Cervical cancer mortality rates in Appalachian Kentucky vs. non-Appalachian Kentucky, 1995-2020.

Appalachia
Non-Appalachia

Population at Risk
Deaths
Crude Rate/100,000
Age-Adjusted Rate
95% Confidence Interval

Population at risk
Deaths
Crude Rate/100,000
Age-Adjusted Rate
95% Confidence Interval

1995-1999
2928468
145
5
4.6
[3.9-5.4]

7209127
301
4.2
4
[3.6-4.5]

2000-2004
2962204
102
3.4
3.2
[2.6-3.9]

7485965
214
2.9
2.7
[2.3-3.1]

2005-2009
2986284
117
3.9
3.5
[2.9-4.2]

7833348
225
2.9
2.6
[2.3-3.0]

2010-2015
3577269
141
3.9
3.4
[2.8-4.0]

9803897
277
2.8
2.5
[2.2-2.9]

2016-2020
2941022
121
4.1
3.6
[3.0-4.4]

8378683
221
2.6
2.3
[2.0-2.7]
Pain severity among Black and White patients with cancer within a remote symptom monitoring program using electronic patient-reported outcomes.
Authors: El Dick Joud , Olisakwe Sandra C , Deng Luqin , Franks Jeffrey , Caston Nicole E. , Williams Courtney , Azuero Andres , McGowen Chelsea , Diaz Bryanna , McNair Carrie C , McElhany Sheila , Dent D'Ambra , Eltoum Noon , Starks Indya , Parks Katherine , Howell Doris , Stover Angela M. , Basch Ethan , Young Pierce Jennifer , Rocque Gabrielle Betty
Published: September 2024

138

Background:
Black patients with cancer report higher pain intensity for both consistent and breakthrough pain. Remote symptom monitoring (RSM) using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) allows patients with cancer to communicate symptoms between visits. This study evaluated whether there were racial disparities in pain severity reporting among Black and White patients with cancer utilizing RSM with ePROs.
Methods:
This retrospective study analyzed data from 1453 patients with cancer undergoing treatment who utilized an RSM platform for the completion of weekly PRO-CTCAEs surveys to report pain intensity. Survey data from patients during the initial 6 months following RSM enrollment at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and the Mitchell Cancer Institute (MCI) were included. Descriptive statistics were compared using frequencies, percentages, and Cramer’s V for categorical variables. Regression models were adjusted for age, sex, cancer type, and rurality.
Results:
Data from 1453 patients and 17,722 surveys were analyzed. 454 (31.2%) patients were Black and 999 (68.8%) patients were White. Among 454 baseline surveys completed by Black patients, no pain was reported in 68%, mild pain in 4%, moderate in 12%, and severe in 16%. In comparison, among 999 baseline surveys completed by White patients, no pain was reported in 71%, mild pain in 3%, moderate in 12% and severe in 14% (V=0.03). Among all post-baseline surveys completed by Black patients, no pain was reported in 69% (n=5081), mild pain in 5%, moderate in 13% and severe in 13%. In comparison, among all post-baseline surveys completed by White patients, no pain was reported in 72% (n=11188), mild pain in 4%, moderate in 14% and severe in 10% (V=0.05). In adjusted analysis, severe pain at follow-up was higher amongst Black patients than White patients (OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.87-1.56).
Conclusions:
Although modestly increased prevalence (3%) in any pain at baseline and severe pain during their 6 months after enrollment in RSM was observed for Black participants compared to Whites, this finding was not significant in adjusted models. This analysis suggests similar pain levels for Black and White patients within RSM programs. RSM can promote proactive reporting and early intervention for pain, which may help to mitigate previously reported disparities in long-term pain for Black individuals.
Impact of household income on survival in solid malignancies with synchronous brain metastases: A population-based study.
Authors: Sharma Parth , Miller Tayla , Mahadevia Himil , Fatima Ifrah , Sharma Priyanka , Cheng An-Lin , Shrestha Anuj
Published: September 2024

142

Background:
Solid malignancies presenting with brain metastasis at the initial diagnosis usually carry a poor prognosis. Increased incidence of brain metastasis can be attributed to the advancements in neuroimaging techniques and improvements in the treatment of solid malignancies. The role of socioeconomic factors in cancer survival is being increasingly recognized. In this study, we analyzed the effect of median household income on survival outcomes in patients diagnosed with brain metastasis at the time of diagnosis of primary malignancies from 2010 to 2020.
Methods:
We analyzed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program 17 registry (November 2022 submission) database for four primary sites of cancers based on their high propensity to develop brain metastases- Lung and/or Bronchus, Breast, Kidney and/or Renal Pelvis, and Melanoma. Patients with a median household income (MHHI) greater than 75,000 per year were classified as a high-income group, whereas those less than 75,000 per year were low-income. Patients diagnosed with malignancy during autopsy or via death certificate and with incomplete data were excluded. Kaplan-Meier method was used for 2-year survival rates and overall survival analyses. Cox regression analysis was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR).
Results:
A total of 66493 patients were identified across the four primary sites of tumors. Lung and/or bronchus tumors comprised most of the cases (n = 58,324). 25337 patients were in the high-income group, and 41156 patients comprised the low-income group. Median survival in the low-income group was 4 months, and in the high-income group was 5 months, with a 2-year survival rate of 11% and 18% respectively. Patients in the high-income group had better survival outcomes than the low-income [HR:0.88, 95% CI:0.86-0.90, p<0.001]. Additionally, the high-income group had 19% higher odds of receiving chemotherapy [OR:1.19, 95% CI:1.16-1.23, p<0.0001]. Amongst the cancer subgroups, household income did not have a significant effect on survival in patients with kidney and/or renal pelvis tumors [HR:0.97, 95% CI:0.88-1.06, p=0.5]. The 2-year survival rates are outlined (Table).
Conclusions:
Our analysis highlights a modest improvement in survival in the patient population with higher median household income. This difference could be attributed to the greater accessibility to treatment modalities and other resources for patients with higher household incomes. Further studies are needed to address socioeconomic disparities in survival for patients with solid malignancies having synchronous brain metastases.

2-year survival rates (95% CI).

Cancer Groups
Low-income
High-income

Combined Cancers
11% (11-12%)
18% (18-19%)

Lung and/or Bronchus
10% (10-11%)
17% (17-18%)

Breast
27% (25-29%)
34% (31-37%)

Melanoma
19% (17-21%)
23% (20-25%)

Kidney and/or Renal Pelvis
15% (13-17%)
18% (15-21%)
Association between food insecurity and healthcare utilization among patients at a breast oncology center.
Authors: Sathe Claire M. , Dreher Nickolas , DeStephano David , Beauchemin Melissa P. , Kahn Justine , Hershman Dawn L.
Published: September 2024

143

Background:
A breast cancer (BC) diagnosis often creates or exacerbates financial stress. As a result, many patients with BC struggle with a lack of consistent access to nutritious food due to limited resources, a condition termed “food insecurity” (FI). We investigated the association between FI and healthcare utilization among breast oncology patients at our urban academic medical center.
Methods:
Screening for health-related social needs (HRSN) was conducted primarily through the electronic patient portal, at appointment registration for a breast oncology clinic visit. The 8-item HRSN survey included 2 questions on access to food resources and 1 question quantifying emergency department (ED) visits over the past year. Any level of food hardship or concern constituted a positive FI screen. We conducted a retrospective analysis among patients evaluated between 11/2/22 and 4/20/24. Clinical and demographic data were obtained from the electronic health record (EHR). We evaluated the association between FI and health care utilization measures (ED visits, inpatient admissions) with a Pearson's Chi-squared test and univariate logistic regression.
Results:
A total of 2820 patients were screened for HRSN and provided responses to at least 1 FI question, of which 19.7% (555) reported some level of FI. Food-insecure patients self-reported significantly higher rates of ED visits in the past 12 months compared to food-secure patients: 43.2% vs 22.6% reported at least 1 ED visit, respectively (p<0.001), and 25.0% vs 8.45% reported multiple ED visits, respectively (p<0.001). Overall, FI was associated with 2.5 times the odds of self-reporting at least 1 ED visit (univariate OR 2.47, p<0.001). Similarly, on review of EHR data, 33.3% of food-insecure patients had at least 1 ED visit (vs 20.0% of food-secure patients, p<0.001), and 6.13% had 3 or more ED visits (vs 2.83%, p<0.001) during the study period. On univariate analysis, food-insecure patients had double the odds of having at least 1 ED visit documented in the EHR (univariate OR 2.00, p<0.001). We examined reasons for ED presentations among 186 food-insecure patients with ED visits during the study period, and found that 23.8% had at least 1 cancer-related complaint (oncological treatment-related (16.8%) and/or BC symptom-related (8.6%)). The incidence of inpatient admissions during the study period was similar among food-insecure vs food-secure patients (19.8% vs 18.4%, p=0.467).
Conclusions:
In this analysis of FI and health care delivery measures, ED utilization was significantly higher among food-insecure patients. A quarter of food-insecure patients who presented to the ED had oncological complaints. FI may be a marker of unmet healthcare needs in patient with cancer, and targeted interventions focused on symptom monitoring and management are warranted to optimize healthcare utilization.
The Cancer Equity Compass: Interactive maps showing the association between social determinants of health and cancer disparities.
Authors: Rula Elizabeth , Drake Alexandra , Brathwaite Carla , Schohn Kristie , Brawley Otis W.
Published: September 2024

149

Background:
Cancer incidence and mortality in Black, Hispanic and Native American populations is over twice that in the White population for some prevalent cancers. A new, publicly available mapping tool, the Cancer Equity Compass (CEC), was developed to inform data-driven initiatives to improve equity by identifying community factors associated with cancer disparities. The tool is comprised of interactive maps that visually reveal correlations between two variables. Development of the tool began with assembling a group of nine advisors with expertise in cancer prevention, treatment and health equity. These experts inform the strategy, data sources, variables of interest, and stakeholder value propositions for the CEC.
Methods:
The data source for the CEC is a national, multi-level database developed using individual, health system, and community data, aggregated by county. For the three most common cancers in the U.S., breast, prostate and lung, screening and prevalence rates were collected from 2021 Medicare 5% research identifiable files and mortality rates from 2020 SEER Medicare rates. These metrics were each mapped with a variety of social determinants of health (SDOH) variables. Population rates for minorities, education, poverty, income and unemployment, and an air quality measure were from the Area Health Resources File. Environmental risks were derived from the Environmental Justice Index and included environmental burden (ranked 0-17 for pollution, toxic sites, built environment, transportation infrastructure and water pollution), air pollution (ranked 0-4), and social vulnerability (ranked 0-14 across socioeconomic variables).
Results:
Each map includes one cancer metric and one SDOH variable. Each variable is stratified to show the top quartile, middle 50%, and bottom quartile. The choropleth heat maps, created on Tableau, display 9 colors representing each combination of the three levels (>75%, 25-75%, <25%) for both mapped variables. The CEC currently has 140 maps presenting visualizations of county SDOH associations with cancer disparities.
Conclusions:
The expert advisors on the project have outlined four avenues for the CEC to aid efforts to improve cancer equity: 1) Enhance diversity in clinical trial recruitment and data registries through targeted site recruitment; 2) Identify high opportunity targets for improving equity and informing solutions; 3) Identify common correlates of disparities within and across U.S. counties to direct priorities for national policy and programs for large-scale impact; and 4) Measure change to support improvement efforts and report impact of equity initiatives. The CEC will be expanded with additional measures including healthcare access. The goal is use by stakeholders and changemakers who can apply the reported data to fuel advocacy efforts and enact positive change.
Spillover effects of Medicaid expansion on insurance coverage among low-income older individuals newly diagnosed with cancer.
Authors: Shi Kewei Sylvia , Ji Xu , Yabroff Robin , Han Xuesong
Published: September 2024

168

Background:
Medicaid expansion is associated with increased insurance coverage and improved health outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer < 65 years. Although not the target population, individuals ≥65 years may benefit from Medicaid expansion through “welcome mat” effects – the indirect increase in enrollment, particularly those with low income eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare (dual-eligible). This study aims to examine the associations of Medicaid expansion with Medicaid coverage, including both dual-eligible and Medicaid-only, among individuals diagnosed with cancer.
Methods:
Using the National Cancer Database, we identified patients ≥65 years newly diagnosed with cancer between 2010-2019 with income below 138% federal poverty level. We applied a quasi-experimental design, the difference-in-difference approach, with multivariable linear probability models to compare the changes in the percentage of dual-eligible or Medicaid-only coverage post (vs. pre) Medicaid expansion in expansion v. non-expansion states. Analyses were also stratified by key demographic characteristics.
Results:
A total of 256,997 patients with cancer were identified, with 136,373 patients from expansion states and 120,624 patients from non-expansion states. After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, the percentage of patients with dual or Medicaid-only coverage increased from 16.84 to 18.09 in expansion states and decreased from 14.14 to 12.62 in non-expansion states, resulting in a net increase of 2.11 percentage points (ppt, 95% confidence interval: 1.55, 2.67) associated with Medicaid expansion. Differences were more pronounced among patients diagnosed with stage III-IV cancers (DD: 2.53 ppt, 95%CI: 1.58, 3.48), racialized as non-Hispanic Black (DD: 3.71 ppt, 95%CI: 2.70, 4.73), residing in metropolitan areas (DD: 2.77 ppt, 95%CI: 2.08, 3.47), with two or more comorbidities (DD: 4.14 ppt, 95%CI: 2.47, 5.80), and treated in comprehensive (DD: 2.98 ppt, 95%CI: 2.02, 3.94) or academic cancer centers (DD: 3.31 ppt, 95%CI: 2.14, 4.49).
Conclusions:
Medicaid expansion was associated with an increase in Medicaid enrollment among patients diagnosed with cancer at 65 or older, suggesting spillover benefits of Medicaid expansion in supporting low-income elderly populations with cancer.
Longitudinal outcomes after financial toxicity and health-related social risks screening and referral.
Authors: Chino Fumiko , Tin Amy L. , Aviki Emeline Mariam , Thom Bridgette
Published: September 2024

17

Background:
Financial toxicity (FT) is associated with delayed/omitted care, reduced quality of life, and worse mortality. Routine screening for FT and health-related social risks (HRSR) is recommended during clinical care, but there is limited longitudinal evidence on outcomes after patients screen positive and are referred for assistance.
Methods:
FT and HRSR screening for patients with breast, gynecologic, gastrointestinal, or thoracic cancers was implemented at an urban comprehensive cancer center. Screening included the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool (0-44, lower scores=worse FT) and a HRSR checklist to identify food, housing, and transportation insecurity. COST score ≤16-20 or reported HRSR was a “positive” screen and counseling referral was offered: patients could accept the referral by identifying their current concerns. Analysis sample was limited to receiving chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery 120 days prior to baseline survey and had a follow-up survey 4-12 months later. Data were collected 10/2022-12/2023.
Results:
2196 patients met inclusion criteria, median time between surveys was 5.5 months (IQR 4.4, 6.9). 20% (n=438) screened positive and accepted referral; 11% (n=246) screened positive and declined referral; the remaining 69% (n=1512) screened negative. Sociodemographic factors of age (median 58 vs 62, p<.001), sex (82% vs 74% female, p =.015), and race (31% vs 17% racial/ethnic minority, p<.001) were associated with accepting vs declining referral. Those who accepted referral had lower COST scores (median 10 vs 19) and more HRSR (39% vs 20% housing; 32% vs 18% food; 37% vs 17% transportation) at baseline (all p≤.001). At follow-up, both cohorts had COST decrease, indicating worsened FT [mean difference (95% CI): accepted referral -2.0 (-2.8, -1.2) vs declined referral -2.8 (-4.0, 1.5)]. Across all collected HRSR, those who accepted referral had small benefits in previously reported HRSR, however were more likely to have newly designated HRSR (Table shows changes).
Conclusions:
Screening for FT and HRSR identified one-third of patients on recent cancer treatment with financial or social needs. Those who accepted financial assistance referral had significantly higher FT and more reported HRSR. Although referral did appear to have some benefit on initial needs, new HRSR were identified at follow-up. Future work will focus on optimizing available assistance to meet ongoing patient needs during and after cancer treatment.

Accepted Referraln = 438 (%)
Declined Referraln = 246 (%)

Housing

Resolved need
67 (15)
31 (13)

New need
54 (12)
15 (6.1)

Stable unmet need
102 (23)
18 (7.3)

Stable no need
215 (49)
182 (74)

Food

Resolved need
64 (15)
31 (13)

New need
69 (16)
16 (6.5)

Stable unmet need
77 (18)
14 (5.7)

Stable no need
228 (52)
185 (75)

Transportation

Resolved need
73 (17)
34 (14)

New need
56 (13)
20 (8.1)

Stable unmet need
87 (20)
8 (3.3)

Stable no need
222 (51)
184 (75)
Baseline financial distress and cost-related social risks among participants in the Cancer Financial Experience (CAFÉ) trial.
Authors: Banegas Matthew P. , Dickerson John F. , Petrik Amanda F , Ramaprasan Arvind , Keast Erin , Garcia Robin , Locher Blake W. , Rivelli Jennifer S. , King Deborah A. , Schneider Jennifer L. , Scrol Aaron , Figueroa Gray Marlaine , Henrikson Nora B.
Published: September 2024

172

Background:
Cancer Financial Experience (CAFÉ) is a multi-site, three-arm randomized controlled trial to test the impact of a novel financial navigation intervention on financial distress among cancer patients. We compared the baseline prevalence of financial distress among CAFÉ trial participants, using two instruments (InCharge and COST), and assessed cost-related social risks.
Methods:
Three hundred seventy one (n=371) participants were consented and randomized between August 2021-March 2023. Eligible participants (n=2033) included adults (18+ years of age), diagnosed with invasive cancer within 120 prior to a recent visit to a CAFÉ study clinic/site, members of Kaiser Permanente Northwest or Kaiser Permanente Washington, and spoke English or Spanish. Following consent, participants were randomized to one of three trial arms: enhanced usual care; brief intervention; enhanced intervention. The two primary trial outcomes were: financial distress, measured using the InCharge Financial Distress/Financial Well-Being scale, and cancer-specific health-related quality of life, measured by the FACT-G7 scale. Additionally, we collected the COST measure and cost-related social risks. All participant-reported outcomes, demographic, and socioeconomic data were collected via telephone survey at baseline and 12 months by trained interviewers. Survey data was stored in REDCap. Descriptive statistics were used to assess participant demographic, socioeconomic, and outcome data at baseline.
Results:
Among randomized participants (n=371), mean age was 61 years (standard deviation=14 years), 63% were female, 11% Hispanic, 9% Asian, 8% Black , 61% married or living with partner, 31% were employed full-time, 37% retired, 44% had annual income of $20000-$74999, 45% had Medicare, and 38% had breast cancer. At baseline, InCharge scores showed 31% (n=113) of participants had high, 19% had moderate, and 50% had low financial distress. Based on COST scores, 2.2% (n=16) of participants had high, 63% had moderate, and 39% had low financial distress. Forty percent (n=148) of participants reported any cost-related social risk, including heat and electricity (15%) and housing (15%).
Conclusions:
Baseline findings from the CAFÉ trial indicate that nearly one-third of patients with cancer may have high financial distress around the time of diagnosis, though this may vary by screening tool. The ideal screening tool for use at diagnosis is worthy of further study. Assessing and assisting patients with social risks, including financial distress, is essential to advancing cancer health equity.

Clinical trial information:
NCT05018000

.
Effect of an oncology care management program on ED visits in a rural Medicaid population.
Authors: French Wendy L. , Wasserman Elizabeth P. , Beagley Callie B. , Stevens Erica , Spinks Tracy E. , Norrell Angelica I. , Geis Sarah , Latts Lisa M.
Published: September 2024

175

Background:
Optum’s Cancer Support Program (CSP) provides care management to members with cancer diagnoses facing healthcare barriers. CSP nurses educate members on symptom management, palliative care and advance care planning, address psychosocial needs and close gaps in care. Improving health equity and outcomes is a program priority. In 2023, Optum analyzed outpatient claims for 24,221 Medicaid members with cancer and found that rural members visit emergency departments (ED) 31% more than urban members. As part of a CSP quality and outcomes assessment, we aimed to understand CSP’s impact on ED utilization within a high-risk rural Medicaid population.
Methods:
Beginning 1/1/23, Medicaid members in rural zip codes with an active cancer diagnosis were stratified as high- or low-risk based on diagnosis and clinical factors. High-risk members were invited to participate in CSP and receive individualized telephonic care management. 2023 outpatient medical claims were evaluated, and rural ED visit rates were compared for high-risk CSP participants and non-participants for approximately 4 months (average CSP engagement) after CSP enrollment or identification (non-participants). Population demographics were tested via a Mood's median test; ED visits per thousand members per year (PTMPY)—engaged, non-engaged, and difference in means—was tested via a 10,000-iteration bootstrap.
Results:
The study population included 421 members stratified as high-risk. Of those, 38% (161) enrolled in CSP. Reasons for non-enrollment included inability to reach the member (61%) and member refused (39%). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups’ demographic composition (all variables had p ≥ 0.05). Under a 10,000-iteration bootstrap, there were 2,696 ED visits PTMPY, 80% CI [2,258, 3,150] in the participant group and 3,427 ED visits PTMPY, 80% CI [2,904, 3,974] in the non-participant group. The difference in means between the groups was 730 ED visits PTMPY, 80% CI [52, 1,421].
Conclusions:
Rural Medicaid members enrolled in CSP experienced lower ED visit rates, suggesting that care management may be effective at reducing ED utilization within rural populations that lack access to wraparound oncology services. Limitations of this study include small sample size and potential enrollment bias. Further analysis is underway to increase the study sample size and identify other factors that may be impacted by care management, thereby improving healthcare equity.
Uptake of germline genetic testing in patients with advanced breast, ovarian, pancreatic, or prostate cancer.
Authors: Estrin Adina , Michel Alissa M , Ro Vicky , Fine Matthew , Jones Tarsha , Trivedi Meghna S. , Crew Katherine D.
Published: September 2024

19

Background:
With FDA approval of PARP inhibitors for treatment of
BRCA1/2
-associated advanced breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for germline genetic testing (GGT) have expanded for patients with these tumor types since 2019. We aimed to analyze factors associated with GGT uptake in these patient populations.
Methods:
We conducted a retrospective cohort study among patients diagnosed with metastatic breast and prostate cancer and all stages of ovarian and pancreatic cancer in 2020-2023 at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City. We extracted data from the electronic medical record on demographics (age at diagnosis, sex, race/ethnicity, Jewish ancestry, marital status) and clinical characteristics (tumor type, year of diagnosis, family history of cancer, receipt of somatic testing, genetic counseling, targeted therapy). The primary outcome was receipt of GGT. Descriptive statistics were generated and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the association between demographic/clinical factors and GGT uptake.
Results:
Among 884 evaluable patients, mean age was 67 years (SD, 14) and the study population included 45% Whites, 15% Blacks, 21% Hispanics, and 9% Asians/Others; 14% had Jewish ancestry. Only 16% were seen by a genetic counselor, 66% had undergone GGT, and 57% had somatic testing. After adjustment for confounders, younger age, Jewish ancestry, later year at diagnosis, and family history of breast or pancreatic cancer were significantly associated with GGT uptake. Patients with pancreatic or prostate cancer were about 60% less likely to undergo GGT compared to patients with ovarian cancer. Patients who had somatic testing were over 4.5-fold more likely to receive GGT. No significant differences were observed based upon sex or race/ethnicity. Among patients who underwent GGT, 20% were found to have a PV and over half of patients who received targeted therapy had PVs detected.
Conclusions:
We observed increasing use of oncologist-led GGT over time with over 65% of patients with advanced breast, ovarian, pancreatic, or prostate cancer undergoing testing, of which 20% had PVs detected. Given the evolution of targeted therapies and the potential downstream impact of known PVs for family members, under-utilization of GGT in patients with pancreatic and prostate cancer as well as older individuals should be addressed in future studies.
Race and ethnicity representation in phase 2/3 oncology clinical trial publications in the United States: A systematic review.
Authors: Shih Jonathan , Benavente Ryan , Gimmen Megan Y. , Tominez Paul , Kekumano Kāʻeo , Pineda Eric , Halualani Gisele , Cakobau Henrietta , Ludmir Ethan B. , Deville Curtiland , Peppercorn Jeffrey M. , Gomez Scarlett L. , Bosserman Linda D. , Chino Fumiko , Patel Manali I. , Shah Chirag , Taparra Kekoa A.
Published: September 2024

20

Background:
The five 1997 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) races in the US include American Indian or Alaskan Native (AI/AN), Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NHPI), and White, with Hispanic ethnicity. Despite the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandating OMB-based collecting/reporting standards, race and ethnicity publishing in medical journals is inconsistent, despite being necessary to achieve health equity. We aimed to quantify race and ethnicity reporting rates and calculate representation quotients (RQs) in published oncology clinical trials.
Methods:
In this systematic review, PubMed/Embase were queried for phase 2/3 clinical trials of the 6 most common noncutaneous solid malignancies, published between 2012-2022, in 4 high-impact journals. Trial characteristics were recorded. The RQs for each race and ethnicity were calculated by dividing the percent of representation in clinical trial publications by the percent of year-matched, site-specific incident cancers in the US, compared with Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni Correction (BC). Reporting was compared between journal publications and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Results:
Among 1,202 publications evaluated, 364 met inclusion criteria: 16
JAMA
, 241
JCO
, 19
Lancet
, and 88
NEJM
. Publications included 268,209 patients (171,132 women [64%]), with a median of 356 (IQR, 131-800) patients per publication. Reported race and ethnicity included AI/AN in 52 (14%) publications, Asian in 196 (54%), Black or African American in 215 (59%), Hispanic in 67 (18%), NHPI in 28 (8%), and White in 254 (70%). Median RQ varied across race (P < .001 BC) with 1.04 (IQR, 0.09-4.77) for Asian, 0.98 (IQR, 0.86-1.06) for White, 0.42 (IQR, 0.12-0.75) for Black or African American, and 0.00 (IQR, 0.00-0.00) for both AI/AN and NHPI patients. Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings upon subset analysis for US-only clinical trials. There was significantly less race and ethnicity reporting in the clinical trial publications compared with ClinicalTrials.gov documentation for AI/AN (14% vs 45%, P < .001 per McNemar χ
2
with continuity correction [MC]) and NHPI (7.7% vs 43%; P < .001 MC).
Conclusions:
While most phase 2/3 oncology clinical trials published in high-impact journals report race and ethnicity, most did not report AI/AN and NHPI racial categories. Our findings support a call to action for consistent journal policies and transparent race and ethnicity reporting, in alignment with ACA-concordant race and ethnicity federal reporting requirements.
An updated comparative analysis of needs and role of patient navigation among early phase cancer clinical trial participants and non-participants at a single cancer center.
Authors: Doroshow Deborah Blythe , Sheng Tianxiang , Aryeh Brittany , Conner Robert , Loehle Julia , Lucas Natalie , Padilla Melisa , Pappalardo Rachel , Fromm Katherine , Smith Cardinale B.
Published: September 2024

237

Background:
Early phase clinical trials (EPCTs) assess the safety and toxicity of novel anticancer agents and represent opportunities for patients (pts) to try novel therapies when standard therapies have become ineffective. However, EPCT participants represent a vulnerable population with high financial toxicity and symptom burdens. EPCTs may add to these burdens by requiring frequent, long visits and additional procedures. Pt navigators perform needs assessments and provide guidance to pts as they move through the health care system. Navigation, which has a high level of acceptance among pts with cancer, can improve time from diagnosis to treatment, decrease pt anxiety, and improve participation of minoritized individuals in clinical trials. We hypothesized that EPCT participants would have higher navigation needs than those of non-EPCT participants with cancer.
Methods:
Utilizing a needs assessment conducted in person or by telephone, pts with cancer treated at Mount Sinai are assessed for 26 individual and systemic social drivers of health (SDoH) barriers by pt navigators at their trial screening visit. EPCT participants were defined as pts participating in a study in the Early Phase Trials Unit. Descriptive characteristics were assessed for all participants regarding demographic characteristics and SDoH barriers. Welch's T-test was used to compare differences in navigation encounters and SDoH barriers between the EPCT and non-EPCT pt groups.
Results:
From February 2023 to April 2024, 40 EPCT pts and 1290 non-EPCT pts completed the assessment. Median age was 60.5 and 63.1 years, respectively. Racial and ethnic self-identification included 17.5% vs. 19% Black pts and 10% vs. 17% Hispanic pts. EPCT pts had a mean 5.2 navigation encounters per pt compared to 3.05 in non-EPCT pts (p=0.002). Pts in the EPCT group were found to have an average of 2.8 SDoH barriers identified, in contrast to 2.0 in the non-EPCT group (p=0.002). The most common barriers identified in EPCT pts were institutional, knowledge, psychosocial and financial; in non-EPCT pts, transportation, institutional, knowledge and treatment adherence were most common. Interventions related to institutional barriers most frequently involved coordinating with the primary team and among departments. Interventions related to knowledge included providing education and teach back.
Conclusions:
EPCT pts had more SDoH barriers identified, higher acuity of barriers, and required more navigation encounters than non-EPCT pts. Participants in EPCTs are a vulnerable pt population for whom navigation is particularly warranted.

EPCT pts
Non-EPCT pts
p value

Navigation encounters, mean (SD)
5.20 (6.16)
3.05 (4.34)
0.002

SDoH barriers identified, mean (SD)
2.82 (1.83)
2.00 (1.66)
0.002
Understanding the relative impact of ethnicity and sex on patient experience in cancer care.
Authors: Lyons William
Published: September 2024

247

Background:
Patient experience is a key indicator of healthcare quality and outcomes. Research suggests that patient ethnicity and sex have a significant impact on patient experience scores. Therefore, our hospital created a process for continuously monitoring patient experience scores stratified by patient demographic data. In 2021, this process caught what appeared to be a significant drop in some areas of patient experience for non-white female inpatients. This drop prompted an investigation that attempted to better understand the relative impact of ethnicity and sex on patient experience at our hospital.
Methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional study using 13,560 Press Ganey inpatient experience surveys collected from 11,435 unique patients between 2021 and 2023 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. This investigation analyzed the responses to “likelihood of recommending this hospital to others” using a ordinal logistic regression model including patient ethnicity, sex, language, age, expected mortality on admission, admitting department, insurance, marital status, and length of stay observed to expected ratio.
Results:
Asian (odds ratio [OR] 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] (-0.86,-0.47), p=1.98e-11), female (odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] (-0.38,-0.15), p=2.76e-06), and patients admitted to emergency departments female (odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] (-0.73,-0.30), p=1.65e-06) reported lower scores than white, male, and patients admitted to medicine. Differences associated with marital status, patient insurance, and patient primary language were insignificant. The largest impact on patient experience was the patient’s expected mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] (-2.20,-0.19), p=1.98e-02). Patients with higher expected mortality were much more likely to give low scores. Non-white patients were also more likely to have high expected mortality when compared to their white counterparts (p = 1.90e-24).
Conclusions:
Our study suggests that while a patient’s expected mortality on admission has the largest impact on patient experience scores. There are also significant differences in patient experience scores based on ethnicity and sex, but they are relatively small in magnitude. The data suggests that focusing on the intersection of high expected mortality and female patients could be an effective method for improving healthcare quality and outcomes. We recommend additional exploration of end of life care and its interactions with patient experience to better understand optimal methods and times for process improvement projects.
Trajectory of symptoms reported in remote symptom monitoring over the course of oncology treatment for lung cancer.
Authors: McGowen Chelsea , Diaz Bryanna , McNair Carrie C , McElhany Sheila , Rocque Gabrielle Betty , Franks Jeffrey , Deng Luqin , Caston Nicole E. , Olisakwe Sandra C , Williams Courtney , Azuero Andres , Jackson Bradford E. , Dent D'Ambra , Weiner Bryan , Howell Doris , Stover Angela M. , Basch Ethan , Young Pierce Jennifer
Published: September 2024

250

Background:
Electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs) enable patients to report symptoms from treatment in real time using their mobile device. This analysis sought to better understand the trajectory of reported symptoms via remote symptom monitoring (RSM) during treatment for patients with lung cancer.
Methods:
We approached patients with lung cancer initiating treatment at the Mitchell Cancer Institute (MCI) between March 2022-October 2023 to participate in an RSM program. Patients were eligible if they were initiating treatment (chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy) for the first time at MCI. Patients seeking a second opinion were excluded. Enrolled patients received a symptom survey (PRO-CTCAE questions) once a week via text or email. Alerts were forwarded to the clinical care team for symptom management. Patients completed symptom assessments for 24 weeks or until withdrawal. At 24 weeks, patients were given the ability to continue symptom assessments if they were continuing treatment. Patient demographics including age at enrollment, race, sex, cancer type, cancer stage, and PRO data were collected from electronic health records and the PRO platform (Carevive). Descriptive statistics were calculated using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and median and interquartile ranges (IQR) for continuous variables.
Results:
Of 80 patients approached, a total of 57 (71%) patients with lung cancer were enrolled in RSM; 20% were Black or African American and 80% were White; median age was 66 (IQR 61-73). Over 24 weeks, 732 symptom alerts were reported; 75% considered moderate and 25% considered severe. Overall, the most frequently reported symptom was pain (29%), followed by dyspnea/cough (25%) and constipation (13%). At baseline (week 0), 78 moderate symptoms and 39 severe symptoms alerts were reported. At week 24, 10 moderate symptoms and 4 severe symptoms alerts were reported. Overall, there was a decrease in symptom alerts over time for both moderate and severe alerts. Specific symptom trajectories followed similar patterns.
Conclusions:
In our sample, most symptoms were reported during the initial three months of treatment with a subsequent decrease in symptom alerts over time, indicating effective monitoring and management by clinical teams engaged in RSM. Future research is needed to understand if symptom improvement correlates with enhanced quality of life, reduced hospitalizations, and prolonged survival, as well as a lessened burden of call volume on the clinical team. Future analyses should also be done to compare similar results of different disease types.