bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Factors affecting treatment in small cell and non-small cell lung cancer patients.
Authors: Ngo Phuong , Pinkston Christina M , Kloecker Goetz H. 
Published: October 2019

146 Background: Kentucky has the highest incidence of lung cancer death and despite improvements in treatment and survival, some small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients remain untreated. We looked at factors preventing these patients from receiving necessary treatment. Methods: Data was collected from the Kentucky Cancer Registry (KCR) for SCLC and NSCLC patients from 2012-2015 and included race, gender, age at diagnosis, treatment history, insurance and overall survival. Treatment included any combination of surgery, radiation, chemotherapy or immunotherapy. Patient demographics were summarized based on treatment status and derived odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. Significant associations were assessed at the p < 0.05 level. Results: KCR identified 2,992 SCLC and 13,975 NSCLC patients from 2012-2015. More NSCLC patients [3,608 (25.8%)] were untreated than SCLC patients [621 (20.8%), p < 0.001], and untreated patients overall were more likely to be older, have more comorbidities (SCLC only), and have Medicare, Medicaid or no insurance. Stage at diagnosis was also a factor but differed based on histology. NSCLC stage III and stage IV patients had higher odds of being untreated compared to stage I (Stage III OR: 2.91, 95% CI: 2.57-3.28; Stage IV OR: 4.82, 95% CI: 4.29-5.41) where these odds in SCLC patients were non-significant (Stage III OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.56-1.55) or lower (Stage IV OR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.01-2.55). SCLC patients also had lower odds of delayed treatment (defined as > 4 weeks to treatment) in stage III and stage IV compared to stage I (Stage III OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23-0.48; Stage IV OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.20-0.38). Conclusions: This study shows an overall significant number of untreated lung cancer patients with treatment being strongly associated with insurance status, histology and stage at diagnosis. SCLC patients are more likely to be treated than NSCLC, and advanced stage is less a factor in treating SCLC than NSCLC. The difference may be due to the more aggressive nature of SCLC with physicians feeling more urgency to treat SCLC given its rapid progression and chemotherapy sensitivity compared to NSCLC.
Impact of dual-eligible status on survival in Medicare patients with lung cancer.
Authors: Ragavan Meera Vimala , Gardner Rebecca , Cunanan Kristen , Sundaram Vandana , Wakelee Heather A. , Han Summer S. 
Published: October 2019

149 Background: Dual-eligible (DE) patients are insured by both Medicaid and Medicare and are known to have complex medical and social needs. While DE patients with cancer have been shown to be less likely to undergo definitive surgical resection of early stage disease and more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage, they have also been shown to be more likely to adhere to cancer treatment due to lower copays with Medicaid. Lung cancer (LC) is the most common cancer diagnosed in the DE population, but little is known about the outcomes of DE patients with LC compared to non-DE patients. Our study sought to assess the impact of DE status on overall survival in lung cancer patients. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional secondary analysis of data extracted from the Medicare-SEER database, including Medicare patients diagnosed with LC where complete survival data was available. Patients were defined as “DE” if they were designated as DE status during the month they were diagnosed with LC. Categorical variables were compared between DE and non-DE patients using the chi2 test. A Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between mortality and dual-eligibility, adjusting for demographic and clinical factors including age, ethnicity, gender, stage at time of diagnosis, type of lung cancer, and place of residence (urban vs. rural). Results: A total of 118,816 patients were included in the analysis, of which 81% were non-DE and 19% were DE. DE patients were more likely than non-DE patients to be female, non-white, younger, have squamous cell carcinoma, and be diagnosed at a later stage (P-values all < 0.001). After adjusting for all demographic and clinical characteristics included in the analysis, the hazard ratio for mortality was 1.243 (95% confidence interval: 1.222-1.264, p < 0.001) for DE patients compared to non-DE patients. Conclusions: DE patients with LC have a significantly higher mortality rate than non-DE patients in the Medicare population after adjusting for confounding factors. Future studies should explore the factors that influence this survival differential and consider targeted interventions at the policy level to improve outcomes in this population.
Identifying levels of financial toxicity and unmet needs in cancer patients receiving financial assistance: Exploring trends in populations lacking adequate resources to overcome healthcare barriers.
Authors: Barris Brittnee , Deehr Katie , Anderson Eric , Gallagher Kathleen D. , Chambers Shonta , Balch Alan James 
Published: October 2019

151 Background: The inability to afford healthcare has a widespread effect on cancer patients, notably impacting treatment decisions and outcomes. Patients receiving financial assistance to offset medication costs still face challenges overcoming cost of care barriers. This study investigated sources of concern and financial stress among racial groups and identified solutions to address patients’ needs beyond medication-related costs. Methods: This cross-sectional study utilized secondary survey data collected from cancer patients who received co-payment and/or financial aid from PAF in 2018. Respondents answered questions describing their financial distress and the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) tool (0-44 with lower scores indicating worse toxicity). Descriptive statistics were calculated using means and standard deviations (SD) for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Two sample t-tests were used for bivariate comparisons between racial groups. Results: Of 494 cancer patients surveyed, 72% were Caucasian, 11% were African American (AA), and 71% indicated a household income of < $48,000. Although this population received financial assistance, cost of medications was still a major barrier to adhering to treatment (59% vs 69%). AA patients reported greater financial burden caused by cost of deductibles/copay/coinsurance (58% vs 50%) and treatment costs not covered by insurance (49% vs 21%). AA patients highly rated day-to-day living expenses as an unmet need (64% vs 40%). COST scores differed significantly between Caucasian (mean 17.7, SD 8.6) and AA cohorts (mean 12.1, SD 8.6; p < .001), driven by the inability to meet monthly expenses at all (35% vs 11%). Of AA, 80% felt they do not have enough money in savings/retirement to cover treatment costs. Overall, the AA cohort reported higher frustration with not being able to work or contribute as much as usual (45% vs 26%). Conclusions: Under-resourced AA cancer patients identify a need for a comprehensive approach to cost of care conversation, to drive better adherence and improved treatment outcomes.
Navigating costs of care in women with breast cancer: Examining racial differences in non-treatment costs and financial toxicity in under-resourced populations struggling to afford medical care.
Authors: Gallagher Kathleen D. , Barris Brittnee , Anderson Eric , Deehr Katie , Chambers Shonta , Williams Courtney , Rocque Gabrielle Betty , Balch Alan James 
Published: October 2019

156 Background: Patients with cancer struggle to afford needed medical care alongside daily financial obligations due to rising healthcare costs. This may be more pronounced among minorities who are less likely to seek resources to mitigate their financial distress. This study sought to identify racial differences in non-treatment costs for under-resourced women with breast cancer who sought assistance from Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF). Methods: This cross-sectional study utilized secondary survey data collected from breast cancer patients receiving case management services from PAF in 2018. Respondents answered questions describing their financial distress and COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) tool (0-44 with lower scores indicating worse toxicity). Descriptive statistics were calculated using means and standard deviations (SD) for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Two sample t-tests were used for bivariate comparisons between racial groups. Results: Of 267 breast cancer patients surveyed, 54% were Caucasian, 29% were African American (AA), and 83% indicated a household income of < $48,000. Cohorts expressed strong dissatisfaction with their financial situation with AA impacted more acutely (78% vs 56%) and acknowledged inability to pay for treatment costs (83% vs 58%). Compared to Caucasians, AAs were more often concerned with transportation costs (33% vs 16%) and with day-to-day living expenses (83% vs 59%). Younger (≤55 years) AA respondents were twice as often unable to meet monthly expenses (60% vs. 27%). Older AA respondents ( > 55 years) reported greater distress than older Caucasians (74% vs 57%), while younger Caucasians reported greater distress than their AA counterparts (72% vs 65%). COST scores differed significantly between Caucasians (mean 13, SD 9) and AAs (mean 11, SD 8; p = 0.04). Conclusions: While the impacts of medical care costs were felt by all survey respondents, under-resourced AA breast cancer patients may be at higher risk for household material hardships as financial resources are diverted toward essential healthcare costs.
Worry about quality of life for younger versus older adult thyroid cancer survivors.
Authors: Thomas Stefanie Marie , Reyes-Gastelum David , Milam Joel , Miller Kimberly Ann , Ritt-Olson Anamara , Hamilton Ann S. , Ward Kevin C. , Gay Brittany L. , Hawley Sarah T. , Haymart Megan Rist 
Published: October 2019

157 Background: Thyroid cancer is one of the most common cancers in young adults, age 18-39 years. Since this population has distinct medical and developmental needs, it is important to understand age differences in worry about quality of life. Methods: Thyroid cancer patients diagnosed between 2014-15 were accrued from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program (SEER) registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County and surveyed between 2017-18. The primary outcome was patient reported worry about quality of life. Covariates for this analysis included age (categorized 18-25, 26-39, 40-64, and 65-79), involvement in surgical decision making (low, just right, high) and amount of information received on treatment side effects (low, just right, high). Race/ethnicity, sex, and tumor characteristics were also evaluated. Multivariable analyses were used to assess associations between worry about quality of life and independent variables. Results: In the cohort of 2,632 patients, 39.8% were somewhat to very much worried about quality of life not being the same as before thyroid cancer diagnosis, 15.1% reported low involvement in surgical decision making, and 32.6% reported low amount of information regarding side effects. Younger age was associated with high worry about quality of life (p < 0.001), low involvement in decision making (p < 0.001) and low amount of information on treatment side effects (p < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, high worry was significantly associated with female sex (Odds ratio [OR]: 1.29 95% confidence Interval [CI]:1.04-1.59), non-white, non-Hispanic race/ethnicity (OR: 1.64 CI: 1.38-1.95), positive lymph nodes (OR: 1.41 CI: 1.14-1.75) and younger age (ages 18-25 years OR: 2.34 CI: 1.45-3.76; ages 26-39 years OR: 2.26 CI: 1.68-3.05; and ages 40-64 years OR:1.94 CI 1.50-2.51). Age differences remained significant after adding either involvement in decision-making or information received. Conclusions: Young adults report higher worry about quality of life. Controlling for decision-making involvement or information received about side effects did not eliminate age differences in worry. Ongoing psychosocial support addressing quality of life worries among younger survivors is needed.
Socioeconomic deprivation and cancer outcomes in patients treated in clinical trials.
Authors: Unger Joseph M. , Moseley Anna , Ramsey Scott David , Osarogiagbon Raymond U. , Symington Banu , Hershman Dawn L. 
Published: October 2019

162 Background: Studies using cancer registry data have shown that cancer patients living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas have worse cancer outcomes. Socioeconomic deprivation (SD) has not been systematically examined in clinical trial patients, who are uniformly staged according to trial eligibility criteria and have access to protocol-directed care. Methods: We examined survival for patients enrolled in phase III clinical trials for all major cancers conducted by SWOG from 1985-2012. SD was measured using trial participant’s residence zip codes linked to the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) , a comprehensive index composed of 17 indicators reflecting a diverse set of socioeconomic variables, scored from 0-100, split into quintiles. Five-year overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were examined using Cox regression, adjusting for age (in 5 year intervals), sex, race (black v. non-black), and, for a subset of patients, insurance status (Medicaid/no insurance v. other). Analyses were stratified by cancer histology and stage. Results: In total, n = 41,182 patients from 55 trials comprising 24 cancer histology and stage-specific strata were examined. Compared to trial participants in the most affluent areas (ADI 0%-20%), trial participants from areas with the highest SD (ADI 80%-100%) had worse OS (HR = 1.26, 95% CI, 1.18-1.35, p < .001), PFS (HR = 1.19, 95% CI, 1.12-1.27, p < .001) and CSS (HR = 1.25, 95% CI, 1.17-1.35, p < .001). Results were similar after also adjusting for insurance status. For each outcome, there was a continuous increase in risk of an event as the ADI quintile increased. Conclusions: In cancer patients with access to protocol-directed care in clinical trials, area-level SD was associated with worse survival, even after adjusting for patient-level race and insurance. Future research should examine whether the etiology of this residual disparity is related to reduced access to supportive care or post-protocol therapy, and/or to differences in health status not reflected by protocol staging criteria. Policies to mitigate socioeconomic differences in cancer outcomes should emphasize access to cancer care services beyond initial therapy.
Outcomes and care patterns for advanced pancreatic cancer patients treated in tertiary vs regional/community cancer centres in Northern Alberta.
Authors: Anaka Matthew , Lee Minji , Ghosh Sunita , Cheung Winson Y. , Spratlin Jennifer L. 
Published: October 2019

163 Background: Cancer care in Northern Alberta (Canada) is delivered at a single tertiary cancer centre, and 11 regional and community cancer centres (RCCC). We compared outcomes and care patterns for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC; locally advanced or metastatic) in Northern Alberta treated with palliative chemotherapy at either the tertiary centre or an RCCC. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of APC patients treated with palliative chemotherapy from 2012-2015 in Northern Alberta (Canada). Data were obtained from outpatient medical oncology and palliative care notes and the provincial cancer registry. Survival analysis used a multivariate Cox-regression model. All other tests were Chi-squared/Fisher’s Exact. Results: We identified 106 patients, 90 treated in the tertiary centre, and 16 in a RCCC. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different. There were significant differences in first line chemotherapy regimen use (P = 0.037), with patients treated at RCCC more likely to receive gemcitabine during the study period (68.8% vs 36.6%), and less likely gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (12.5% vs 36.5%) or FOLFIRINOX (18.8% vs 28.7%). Patients treated at RCCC were less likely to see an outpatient palliative care physician (P = 0.020, 6.3% vs 35.6%), or have a documented goals of care designation (P = 0.005, 12.5% vs 52.2%). There was no significant difference in overall survival in a multivariate analysis (median 199 vs 232 days, HR = 1.080, 95% CI 0.594 – 1.966). Conclusions: We found that survival was not different for APC patients treated at the tertiary vs RCCC in Northern Alberta. However there were significant differences in the use of palliative care resources and 1st line chemotherapy regimens, which represent important disparities that should be the focus for future quality improvement.
Quality improvement pilot to engage rural Kentucky frontline against lung cancer death.
Authors: Hall Laura Lee , Weigel Joseph , Campbell Grace Libby , Miller Will , Louis J'Aimee , Hood Gregory A 
Published: October 2019

164 Background: Kentucky is the epicenter of smoking and lung cancer in the U.S.: over half the population is a current or former smoker (second only to WV); and it has the highest annual lung cancer incidence—89.6 per 100,000 population—according to the most recent CDC data. While offering a significant, double-digit death benefit due to early recognition and improved therapies, LDCT lung cancer screening of at-risk individuals remains extremely low. Helping primary care practices identify their at-risk patients, promote reduced tobacco use, and refer for screening is critical. Methods: In this pilot, family practice and internal medicine practices, residency programs, and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) were recruited in rural regions of Eastern Kentucky with populations at highest risk. The Sustainable Healthy Communities Quality Improvement Education (SHC-QIE) model—which engages multidisciplinary practice leaders, rapid cycle improvement or a PDSA approach to QI, geoanalytics, and community engagement support—was implemented to promote better screening while enhancing clinician satisfaction. Results: Each practice significantly improved their identification of smokers and patients qualifying for lung cancer screening in the Medicare program as well as screening referrals by nearly 2-fold. For example, in one FQHC, accurate reporting of tobacco history data in the medical record increased from 34.6% to 56.9%. Another example showed referrals for LDCTs increased from 230 in 2017 to 412 in 2018, with a 71% increase over baseline. While survey data from the participating clinics conceded challenges in implementing a QI initiative, significant satisfaction with the initiative, ongoing plans for activities building on the program, and community engagement were found as well. Pre-, post-survey data also revealed significant improvement in screening, tobacco counseling, and LDCT referral. Conclusions: In spite of EMR barriers, significant increases in smoking history taking, counseling for tobacco cessation, and referral for lung cancer screening was achieved over the course of 9 months.
Assessing cancer programs' financial resources for rural cancer patients.
Authors: Petermann Victoria Marie , Vanderpool Robin C. , Eberth Jan Marie , Rohweder Catherine , Teal Randall , Stradtman Lindsay , Frost Elizabeth , Trapl Erika , Koopman Gonzalez Sarah , Vu Thuy , Ko Linda , Cole Allison , Farris Paige E. , Shannon Jackilen , Zahnd Whitney , Lee Jessica ,   Cancer Prevention Control Research Network Rural Cancer Workgroup
Published: October 2019

165 Background: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has identified rural cancer control as a research priority. Rural patients may have greater cancer-related financial burdens due to high travel costs, low insurance coverage, and less flexible work schedules. To better understand geographic differences in cancer-related financial toxicity from an organizational perspective, we interviewed staff from a range of cancer treatment settings in counties across the rural-urban continuum. The goal was to qualitatively assess the financial resources available to cancer patients, particularly those residing in rural areas. Methods: Seven research teams within the Cancer Prevention and Research Control Network interviewed personnel providing financial navigation services across four types of cancer care facilities and three urban/rural classifications. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. We identified themes using inductive content analysis. A total of 28 interviews were collected across 7 states and preliminary results have been generated from 20 interviews. Results: Study participants identified transportation and housing costs as primary financial stressors for rural patients. A few personnel from centers in urban counties did not observe clear differences in experiences of financial toxicity between rural and urban patients. No personnel mentioned resources that are long-term or specifically for rural patients. Gas cards and temporary housing are often provided to help rural and urban patients access treatment. Insufficient staffing is a barrier to addressing patients’ financial concerns in rural and urban centers. Urban institutions, particularly NCI-designated facilities, employ more cancer-specific financial navigators than rural institutions. Conclusions: Patients across the rural-urban continuum experience financial hardship, but rural patients may be disproportionately affected by transportation and housing costs. Improving transportation and housing support may improve their ability to access treatment. Financial navigation practices within states vary; thus, patients and cancer centers may benefit from more streamlined approaches to address financial needs for all cancer patients.