bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Impact of social determinants of health on a late diagnosis and survival of patients with pancreatic cancer.
Authors: Fabregas Jesus C. , Lam Miranda 
Published: June 2021

e18530 Background: While disparities in pancreatic cancer (PC) are documented, it is unclear whether these inequities occur at the time of diagnosis or throughout treatment. We hypothesize social determinants of health (SDH) such as income, education, race and insurance status are a) associated with a late diagnosis of PC (Stage IV vs Stages 0-III) and b) associated with overall survival (OS) in Stage IV patients. Methods: The National Cancer Database 2017 version was accessed. Primary outcome: diagnosis of Stage IV PC. Secondary outcome: OS. Primary predictors: race, income, education, insurance. Confounders: Charlson comorbidity score, age, sex. Univariate and multivariate regression models evaluated the association between SDH and a late diagnosis of PC. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model examined OS. 95% Confidence Intervals were used. Results: 230,877 patients were included. Median 68 yrs, mean 67.3 SD(12.1). In univariate analysis, education (>93% high school completion (HSC) vs <82.4%, OR 0.93 [0.91 – 0.95]), income (>$63,333 vs<$40,277, OR 0.94 [0.92– 0.96]), and insurance (Private vs No, OR 0.70 [0.66 – 0.73]), decreased the odds of Stage IV PC. Black race was associated with higher odds of Stage IV PC (vs White, OR 1.11 [1.08 – 1.14]). In multivariate analysis, education and having insurance decreased the risk of a late diagnosis, whereas black race increased it (table). In univariate Cox analysis, higher income (>$63,333 (vs<$40,277), HR 0.82 [0.81– 0.83]), insurance (Private vs No, HR 0.77 [0.73 – 0.76]) and education (>93% HSC vs <82.4%, HR 0.87 [0.86 – 0.88]) improved OS. Black race was associated with poorer OS (vs White, HR 1.03 [1.02 – 1.05]). In multivariate Cox analysis, only higher income (>$63,333 (vs<$40,277), HR 0.87 [0.85 – 0.89]) and having insurance (Private vs No, HR 0.77 [0.74 – 0.79]) were associated with improved OS. Conclusions: SDH impacted the continuum of pancreatic neoplasia care, from diagnosis to treatment. Expanding insurance coverage could be an effective public health intervention to improve early diagnosis and survival rates.[Table: see text]
First data from OUT: The National Cancer Survey of LGBTQ+ survivors.
Authors: Scout Nfn , Veras Michelle ED , Rhoten Bethany Andrews , Lyerly Reece ED , Kasberg Aurea ED , Naimool Kk ED 
Published: June 2021

e18544 Background: Cultural barriers that inhibit LGBTQ cancer care are a public health crisis. Although LGBTQ cultural competency trainings are rapidly becoming the norm, patient-centered information is lacking for healthcare professionals in cancer care. The purpose of OUT: The National Cancer Survey is to understand the experiences of LGBTQ cancer survivors in order to make cancer care a safer and more welcoming place for survivors and their support teams. Methods: Individuals age 18 or older currently living in the United States who have been previously diagnosed with cancer and who identify as LGBTQ+ were recruited via community partnerships and targeted paid social media advertisements with an oversample of media outreach to Black Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC). Participants completed a cross-sectional web-based survey of their cancer care experiences. This resulted in a final sample of [1,600+] survivors, the largest known sample of LGBTQ+ cancer survivors in the world. The sample was weighted to adjust for U.S. sex assigned at birth and racial/ethnic demographics. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize participant responses, crosstabs were used to compare responses across demographic categories, and excerpted responses are used to highlight qualitative themes. Results: Participants ranged in age from X to X years (median X). X% of the sample identified as either gay or lesbian, X% as bi, and X% as trans or gender nonconforming. X% of the sample identified as White only, followed by X% as Latine, X% as Black and X% as other or mixed race. Most common cancer types included XYZ. When asked about welcoming care, X% of the sample reported they specifically sought an LGBTQ+ welcoming provider after diagnosis. Most common methods for finding such a provider included: X, X, and X. Most common cues that helped patients identify welcoming providers included X, X, and X. Overall X% reported receiving care in an LGBTQ+ welcoming environment but X% did not. Of those who did not receive care in a welcoming environment, they were more likely to be X, X, and X. Overall, X% of patients were out to their providers, but this varied by X, X, and X. The most common ways of coming out included X, X, and X. When asked what they wanted to tell health care providers to ensure better care, participants highlighted several themes, including: X, X, and X. These findings provide patient driven insights into how cancer care varies within the LGBTQ+ population by different demographic factors and specific strategies providers can take to enhance care for LGBTQ+ people.
Analysis of potential disparities in lung cancer clinical trial participation among Medicare beneficiaries.
Authors: Mishkin Grace E. , Franzini Luisa 
Published: June 2021

e18548 Background: Disparities in clinical trial participation can mean disparities in medical advances, and disproportionate participation is an ethical issue even if differential results are not expected. The disparate impact of Covid-19 highlighted the importance of representativeness in trials aiming to prevent or treat disease. Previous analyses suggest there are likely significant differences in cancer clinical trial participants by race, ethnicity, and age. However, these analyses generally compare trial demographics to broad population demographics. Methods: This analysis used the SEER-Medicare linked database with claims data from 2014-2016 to compare lung cancer clinical trial participants to similar lung cancer patients not participating in a treatment trial. We compared the race, ethnicity, sex, age, and number of comorbidities for Medicare beneficiaries with at least one claim for an active treatment for lung cancer to the demographics of Medicare beneficiaries with at least one claim coded with the National Clinical Trials (NCT) number for an active treatment trial in lung cancer. The relationship between clinical trial participation and demographic variables was assessed using chi-square tests for binary variables and t-tests for continuous variables and corrected for multiplicity. A logistic regression model was used to assess robustness of these findings. Clinical trial participants were hypothesized to be more likely to be White, non-Hispanic, and male, and have a lower mean age and fewer comorbidities than the comparable non-trial active treatment population. Results: We compared 1,624 lung cancer clinical trial patients to 34,077 active treatment lung cancer patients. Clinical trial participants were more likely than non-trial active treatment patients to be female (53.6% vs. 50.4%, p = 0.015) or Asian/Pacific Islander (13.0% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.001) and less likely to be Black (5.2% vs. 9.0%, p < 0.001) or White (76.5% vs. 81.4%, p < 0.001). Trial participants had a lower mean age (70.7 vs. 73.7, p < 0.001) and fewer comorbidities (3.0 vs. 4.6, p < 0.001). There was not a significant difference by Hispanic ethnicity (5.2% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.106). The regression analyses supported these findings. Conclusions: Most analyses of clinical trials enrollment do not have a direct comparison group. Because this study is directly comparing lung cancer trial participants and non-participants from the same Medicare beneficiary population, the results fill a gap in our understanding of disparities in cancer clinical trial participation. Trial participants in this analysis were more representative than hypothesized, although the results supported previous findings that Black patients and older patients are underrepresented in cancer trials. There was also lower participation by White patients. Underrepresentation of patients with comorbidities may be due to trial eligibility criteria.
Review of cohort diversity in the development and validation of cancer risk assessment models.
Authors: Khan Ambreen , Amanda Gammon , Jeter Joanne M. 
Published: June 2021

e18570 Background: Multiple validated models have been proposed to quantify an individual's lifetime risk of breast and colon cancer. However, an evaluation of the race and ethnicity of the cohorts studied in the development and validation of each of these models has not been reviewed. Predicting cancer risks accurately in Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) can be crucial in helping to reduce cancer mortality rates and improving access to preventative care for these individuals. Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify published development and validation studies for the following cancer risk assessment models: Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) Risk Calculator, Tyrer-Cuzick, Gail, Claus, CanRisk/BOADICEA, BRCAPRO and MMRPRO. Articles included were identified through review of a number of electronic databases and websites for the cancer risk prediction models. Authors were contacted for data not readily available through literature search. Results: A total of 15 development studies and 19 validation studies of the cancer risk prediction models were reviewed for the seven models listed above. Out of the 19 validation studies, seven were internal and twelve were external validation studies. 80% (12/15) of development studies and 68% (13/19) of validation studies did not include information on racial and ethnic composition of the cohorts. After obtaining additional information from authors, 53% (8/15) of the development studies were conducted solely in non-Hispanic White (NHW) cohort. The development cohorts ranged from 50%-100% NHW, 0%-7% non-Hispanic Black (NHB), 0%-8% Hispanic/Latinx, 0%-3% Asian and 0%-1% Indigenous participants. 58% (7/12) of external validation studies included ethnically and racially diverse populations compared to 14% (1/7) of internal validation studies. The BCBS, Gail, BRCAPRO and MMRPRO models were the only models with external validation studies conducted in ethnically or racially diverse populations. Overall, the model that had the most diverse cohort for its development and internal validation studies was the BCBS with 70% NHW, 6.7% NHB, 7.5% Hispanic/Latinx, 2.7% Asian, 0.8% Indigenous and 11.5% mixed/other ethnicities. Conclusions: The majority of the models reviewed did not have ethnically or racially diverse populations in their development and validation cohorts. Awareness of the under-representation of ethnically and racially diverse populations in these models is an important precaution for extrapolating data when using these models in medical decision making for BIPOC individuals. Although several barriers exist for participation of BIPOC individuals in clinical studies, these findings highlight the critical, yet unmet need for the development and use of appropriate cancer risk models in racially and ethnically diverse populations as a means to reduce health-related disparities.
Increasing underrepresented minority cancer patient enrollment into cancer clinical trials: A systematic review.
Authors: Nouvini Rosa , Parker Patricia A. , Malling Charlotte , Godwin Kendra , Costas-Muñiz Rosario 
Published: June 2021

e18574 Background: Minorities continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials despite the National Institute of Health’s Revitalization Act, passed in 1993, mandating the representation of women and underrepresented minority groups in clinical trials. Studies have shown that although Blacks represent 15% and Hispanics 13% of the cancer population, their clinical trial enrollment rates in are disproportionately low at 4-6% and 3-6% respectively. We conducted a systematic review exploring interventions aimed at improving clinical trial enrollment for racial and ethnic minorities. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Ovid PsycINFO was conducted for English-language studies of humans since 1993. Inclusion criteria included peer-reviewed, U.S.-based studies with interventions aimed to recruit underrepresented minority adult cancer patients into cancer clinical trials. We defined underrepresented minority groups as Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander. Results: A total of 2471 titles and abstracts were identified and 2324 were excluded based on the eligibility criteria. A full text review was conducted of the remaining 147 articles, of which only 9 met criteria for our review. The interventions included patient navigation/coaching (n = 4), a clinical trial educational video (n = 2), institutional research infrastructure changes (n = 1), a relationship building and social marketing recruitment model (n = 1) and cultural competency training for providers (n = 1). Studies were conducted in a variety of practice settings including national cancer institutes and community practices. The quality of evidence was limited by the heterogeneity of study methods, patient representation and bias. Several studies had a homogeneous population of Black patients. Most studies (n = 7) were single arm trials that compared results to either historical controls or those cited in the existing literature; two studies were randomized controlled trials. A statistically significant improvement in accrual was shown in three of the patient navigation interventions, one of the clinical trial educational videos, the institutional research infrastructure change and the relationship building and social marketing recruitment model. The common threads to many of these successful interventions were support through the cancer care continuum, cultural congruency of research staff and culturally catered clinical trial educational materials. Conclusions: This systematic review illustrates several mechanisms by which to increase cancer clinical trial recruitment for cancer patients of underrepresented minority backgrounds in a variety of clinical settings. Randomized controlled trials with representation of multiple races/ethnicities are needed to further explore the benefits of these interventions.
Improving financial disclosures in oncology.
Authors: Heng Joseph , Polite Blase N. 
Published: June 2021

e18642 Background: The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, as part of the Affordable Care Act, was enacted in 2010 to improve transparency of payments from drug and medical device manufacturers to physicians, which are easily accessible in a public database (OpenPayments CMS). However, in a review conducted of clinical drug trials in oncology, one-third of oncologist authors did not disclose their industry payments. Failure to disclose financial conflicts of interest can lead to a loss of public trust and in some cases may lead to legal liability. The American Society for Clinical Oncology and our institutional polices require all faculty to fully report financial conflicts of interest (COI). This pilot project aims to evaluate the accuracy of financial COI disclosures among our oncologists at the University of Chicago, and improve subsequent disclosures. Methods: This project was approved through the institutional quality improvement process. In May 2020, we crossmatched COI disclosures on journal publications for 37 practicing clinical hematologists/oncologists in our institution with 2017 and 2018 records on OpenPayments. We then conducted a department-wide Grand Rounds to review omissions, and to remind faculty of ASCO and University COI policies. In addition, we privately contacted individual oncologists to review any COI omissions. We reminded faculty that at the end of 2020 we would again review the accuracy of their disclosures. Results: We examined a total of 37 practicing hematologists/oncologists’ disclosure forms. At initial review, 6/37 (16.2%) of oncologists had incomplete or missing disclosures. A total of $569,182.95 in payments was not disclosed in 2018. 2 of these 6 oncologists did not disclose relevant payments from pharmaceutical companies whose drugs were referred to in publications. Several disclosure errors appeared to be inadvertent omissions as they were disclosed in other publications. Reasons given for disclosure omissions were: “oversight”, “did not believe to be relevant to publication”, “confusion over journal COI policies”, “unnecessary due to low payment amount”, "too many journals to update disclosures in". At the final review, only 2 of the 6 oncologists with disclosure omissions had updated disclosures at the end of the year despite education provided at multiple grand rounds and private communications. Conclusions: This pilot project demonstrated that education sessions and individual feedback improved adherence to COI disclosure policies, but not fully. Additional feedback and enforcement mechanisms may be required for full compliance. In addition, a centralized disclosure form (such as ASCO’s disclosure form) that journals can easily access may improve disclosure adherence.
Reduced blood product utilization via implementation of an anemia clinic and consult service in a large health system hospital.
Authors: Bowers Reid Christian , Korman Sandra Tomany , Thompson Michael A. , Sana Sherjeel , Pant Manish Krishna , Sanchez Federico Augusto 
Published: June 2021

e18654 Background: An Anemia Clinic program was started Sept. 2016 as part of system wide implementation of Patient Blood Management (PBM) initiated in 2015. Methods: The Anemia Clinic accepted referrals for non-cancer anemia, predominantly preoperative cardiovascular surgery (CVS) Pts. Hgb thresholds were <13 g/dL in men and <12 g/dL in women. Non-anemia cytopenias triggered Hematology referral. All Pts were screened for iron, B12, folate, and reticulocyte. Nutrient deficiencies were supplemented. Pts with CKD or chronic disease were considered for erythropoiesis stimulating agents. Results: PBM implementation resulted in a drop in packed red blood cell (PRBC) usage (Table). Of CVS Pts pre-operatively anemic in 2020, 181 were referred to the Anemia Clinic and 259 were not. The percentage of Pts who received PRBCs after Anemia Clinic referral was not statistically different from those who were not referred (52.5% vs. 43.6% Chi-Square p=0.07). Of preoperatively anemic Pts who were transfused in 2020, an average of 1.49 PRBCs were used in the referred group vs. an average of 2.12 PRBCs in those in the not referred group (Poisson Means p=0.0009). Length of stay (LOS) which was a median 9d ( P25=6d, P75=16d) in the referred group vs a median 10d ( P25=6d, P75=16d) in the non-referred group was not statistically different between groups (Smirnov p=0.99). LOS analyses of observed-to-expected (O/E) ratios used the Premier Healthcare Providers Alliance Database (PHD) which contains data on approximately 45% of US hospital discharges. For 2020 through Nov. the referred group had an O/E = 0.89 (observed LOS μgeo = 9.97 days, expected LOS μgeo = 11.17 days, N=159). The not referred group had an O/E = 0.94 (observed LOS μgeo = 10.14 days, expected LOS μgeo = 10.83 days, N=232). Conclusions: PBM decreased PRBC use through systematization of best practices during the initial year. Subsequent addition of Anemia Clinic services did not decrease PRBC use further at first but appears to have contributed to this past year’s decrease. There is a trend toward shorter LOS for patients referred to Anemia Clinic but it is not statistically significant. Our methods improved nutrient deficiency identification which may improve both later health outcomes not detected here and access to treatment for hematologic malignancies.[Table: see text]
Impact of tobacco and illicit drug use in the care of adolescent and young adults with sarcoma.
Authors: Machhi Rushad , Parkes Amanda Marie 
Published: June 2021

e18657 Background: Despite adolescent and young adults (AYAs) representing the patient population most likely to initiate and use tobacco and illicit drugs, studies of their impact have thus far focused on older cancer patients or those in survivorship. As sarcomas often serve as a model for AYA care and are associated with poor psychosocial function, frequent delays in diagnosis, and outcomes related to chemotherapy dose density, we sought to understand the impact of tobacco and illicit drug use on diagnosis, chemotherapy delays and dose reductions, and no-show rates in AYAs with sarcoma. Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed on adult AYA patients (18-39 years) with sarcoma seen at least once in 2019 at the University of Wisconsin, identifying documentation of tobacco, marijuana, and other illicit drug use and comparing to pre-identified cancer outcomes including days from symptom onset to tissue diagnosis (with delay defined as > 120 days from symptoms to diagnosis), chemotherapy delays > 1 week and dose reductions, and appointment no-show rates. Current substance use was defined as use following cancer diagnosis. Results: We identified 46 AYAs with sarcoma, with documented tobacco use in 20% as current (9/46), 13% as former (6/46) and 67% as none (31/46). Marijuana and illicit drug use were less frequent at 17% (8/46) and 7% (3/46) respectively. Delayed diagnoses were more common in patients with current tobacco use (6/9, 67%) as compared with former or non-smokers (12/37, 32%, p = 0.12) and were seen in all patients with illicit drug use (3/3, 100%), as compared with only 35% without illicit drug use (15/43, p = 0.05). Of the 24 patients who received chemotherapy, chemotherapy delays and dose reductions were more common in current tobacco users at 86% (6/7) and 29% (2/7) respectively, as compared with patients with former or no tobacco use at 71% (12/17) and 18% (3/17) respectively. Chemotherapy dose reductions were also more common in patients with illicit drug use (2/3, 67%) versus no illicit drug use (3/21, 14%, p = 0.10). Appointment no-show rates were higher in current tobacco users versus former or non-smokers, with 44% (4/9) versus 27% (10/37) with a no-show rate > 5%. In patients with documented substance use, oncology providers documented 93% of tobacco use (14/15) but only 38% marijuana use (3/8) and 33% illicit drug use (1/3) and no oncology providers documented a cessation plan. Conclusions: Current tobacco and illicit drug use in AYAs with sarcoma were associated with delays in diagnosis, increased chemotherapy delays and dose reductions, and higher no-show rates, highlighting modifiable risk factors. Even more strikingly, oncology providers had low rates of documentation of marijuana and illicit drug use in AYAs and no documentation of plans for cessation, highlighting a lost opportunity and the need for more standardized substance use assessment and evidence-based cessation interventions for AYAs with cancer.