Incident Cases Captured in the National Cancer Database Compared with Those in U.S. Population Based Central Cancer Registries in 2012-2014.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) is a hospital-based cancer registry that includes diagnostic, staging, treatment, and outcomes data for newly diagnosed cancer patients in the United States. The NCDB data include 31 million records for patients diagnosed between 1985-2015. A Participant User File based on a subset of these data has been available to researchers at facilities accredited by the Commission on Cancer since 2010. This study aimed to compare the number of incident cancer cases in the NCDB with a national population cancer registry. METHODS: Incident cancer cases in the NCDB in 2012-2014 were compared with the number of cancer cases in the United States Cancer Statistics data for the 2012-2014 diagnosis years. Comparisons were made by primary site and other factors. RESULTS: In 2012-2014, the NCDB captured 72% of the cancer cases in the United States, which was slightly higher than the 67% and 69% reported respectively in two prior assessments. Among the top 10 major cancer sites, the highest coverage (80%) was found for breast cancer, and the lowest was found for melanoma of the skin (52%) and prostate (58%). Colon, bladder, and kidney and renal pelvis cancers had relatively high coverage of 71%, 70% and 78%, respectively, whereas lung and bronchus had slightly lower coverage (65%). CONCLUSIONS: The NCDB coverage of U.S. cancer cases has remained relatively high (72%), but differences remain by cancer site and other factors that should be taken into account by users of the NCDB data.

Using the National Cancer Database for Outcomes Research: A Review.

Importance: The National Cancer Database (NCDB), a joint quality improvement initiative of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer and the American Cancer Society, has created a shared research file that has changed the study of cancer care in the United States. A thorough understanding of the nuances, strengths, and limitations of the database by both readers and investigators is of critical importance. This review describes the use of the NCDB to study cancer care, with a focus on the advantages of using the database and important considerations that affect the interpretation of NCDB studies. Observations: The NCDB is one of the largest cancer registries in the world and has rapidly become one of the most commonly used data resources to study the care of cancer in the United States. The NCDB paints a comprehensive picture of cancer care, including a number of less commonly available details that enable subtle nuances of treatment to be studied. On the other hand, several potentially important patient and treatment attributes are not collected in the NCDB, which may affect the extent to which comparisons can be adjusted. Finally, the NCDB has undergone several significant changes during the past decade that may affect its completeness and the types of available data. Conclusions and Relevance: The NCDB offers a critically important perspective on cancer care in the United States. To capitalize on its strengths and adjust for its limitations, investigators and their audiences should familiarize themselves with the advantages and shortcomings of the NCDB, as well as its evolution over time.

Improving quality of cancer care at community hospitals: impact of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program pilot.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer treated at community hospitals may experience decreased quality of care compared with patients treated at higher-volume cancer hospitals. The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) pilot is designed to enhance research and improve cancer care at community hospitals. We assessed changes in quality of care among the 16 initial NCCCP sites versus 25 similar hospitals that did not participate in the NCCCP. METHODS: We compared changes in concordance with five National Quality Forum-approved quality of care measures (three for breast cancer, two for colon cancer) for patients diagnosed from 2006 to 2007 (pre-NCCCP initiation) versus 2008 to 2010 (post-NCCCP initiation) at NCCCP and comparison-group hospitals. Data were collected using the Commission on Cancer Rapid Quality Reporting System. Analyses were performed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Analyses included 18,608 patients with breast cancer and 7,031 patients with colon cancer. After NCCCP initiation, patient-level concordance rates for all five quality-of-care measures increased significantly among NCCCP and comparison-group hospitals. Increased quality of care among NCCCP sites was significantly greater than that among comparison-group hospitals for radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery and hormonal therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. In multivariate regressions, increases in hormonal therapy among NCCCP-site patients were significantly greater than those among comparison-group hospitals. CONCLUSION: Both NCCCP and comparison-group hospitals showed improved quality of care; however, NCCCP sites had significantly greater improvements for a subset of measures. This greater increase may reflect the multidisciplinary focus of the NCCCP. Because many individuals receive cancer treatment at community hospitals, facilitating high-quality care in these environments must be a priority.

Do hospital attributes predict guideline-recommended gastric cancer care in the United States?

BACKGROUND: Hospital attributes have been shown to impact short- and long-term outcomes after cancer surgery. However, the effect of hospital attributes on processes of cancer care in terms of delivery of guideline recommended care has not been evaluated. We examined the impact of hospital attributes (volume and type) on guideline-recommended care in patients treated for gastric cancer. METHODS: We identified patients who were surgically treated for gastric cancer at Commission on Cancer (CoC) hospitals from 2001 to 2006. Patient, tumor, and treatment factors were compared separately by hospital volume and type. Multivariable analyses were used to evaluate the impact of hospital attributes on delivery of guideline recommended gastric cancer care: adequate lymphadenectomy (≥15 lymph nodes), and adjuvant multimodality therapy (for AJCC Ib-IVM0), controlling for covariates. RESULTS: More than 1,490 CoC hospitals performed 37,124 gastrectomies. High-volume and teaching CoC hospitals were more likely to treat younger patients, non-whites, patients with lower AJCC stage, and to perform adequate lymphadenectomy than low-volume and community CoC hospitals (p ≤ 0.001). Hospital volume and type, however, were not associated with receipt of adjuvant multimodality therapy. These associations persisted in our multivariable analyses to show that CoC hospital attributes were associated with adequate lymphadenectomy, but marginally predictive of receipt of adjuvant multimodality therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The strong association between CoC hospital volume or type and guideline-recommended care diminishes after gastric cancer surgery. Variations in referral, insurance, and documentation patterns are potential explanations for these findings. These results highlight some limitations of using hospital attributes as a sole predictor of optimal cancer care.

Variations in gastric cancer care: a trend beyond racial disparities.

BACKGROUND: Race is associated with patterns of presentation and survival outcomes of gastric cancer in the United States. However, the impact of race on the receipt of guideline-recommended care is not well characterized. By using current recommendations, the authors examined the association between race and guideline-recommended treatments and identified factors that are predictive of variations in gastric cancer care. METHODS: By using the National Cancer Database for 1998 through 2005, 106,002 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma were identified. Multivariate analysis techniques were used to examine the association between race, the receipt of guideline-recommended care, and survival after adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Although African-American and Hispanic patients were more likely to undergo adequate lymphadenectomy (> or =15 lymph nodes) and to receive care at comprehensive cancer centers and high-volume facilities (for all, P < or = .001), they were less likely to receive adjuvant multimodality therapy for American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IB through IV, lymph node-negative (M0) disease. Up to 60% of all patients who underwent gastrectomy failed to receive adequate lymphadenectomy and adjuvant multimodality therapy. The delivery of multimodality therapy varied significantly by stage and lymph node evaluation (P < or = .001). These findings persisted on our multivariate analyses, indicating that African-American and Hispanic patients received adequate lymph node evaluation (P < or = .001), whereas they were associated with receiving no adjuvant multimodality therapy (P < or = .025). CONCLUSIONS: There were significant variations in treatment for gastric cancer among ethnic groups in the United States. It was noteworthy that, although nonwhite race was associated with improved surgical care, gastric cancer care remained suboptimal overall. Cancer programs need to identify procedures to maximize the delivery of adequate gastric cancer care to all patients.

The impact of ethnicity on the presentation and prognosis of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. Results from the National Cancer Data Base.

BACKGROUND: Regional-based studies have indicated that ethnicity is associated with presentation and outcome in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. To validate this observation in a large cohort, the authors of this report used the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) to determine whether self-reported ethnicity influences presentation and survival in this patient population. METHODS: Patient demographics, tumor-related features, and treatment-related features were analyzed by ethnicity. Univariate analyses were performed using the chi-square test. Overall median and relative survival rates were examined by using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to identify the predictors of survival outcomes. RESULTS: Between 1995 and 2002, 81,095 cases of gastric adenocarcinoma were entered into the NCDB. There were 57,943 white patients (71.5%), 11,094 African-American patients (13.7%), 5665 Hispanic patients (7%), 4736 Asian/Pacific Islander (API) patients (5.8%), and 1657 patients of other ethnicities (2%). Significant differences were observed according to ethnicity among the variables that were compared (all P < .01). In patients with stage I and II disease, the 5-year relative survival rates for APIs (stage I, 77.2%; stage II, 48%) were more favorable than for whites (stage I, 58.7%; stage II, 32.8%), African Americans (stage I, 55.9%; stage II, 37.9%), and Hispanics (stage I, 60.8%; stage II, 39.3%). The overall median survival of APIs was more favorable than that of others (P < .01). Predictors of a better outcome were Asian race, female sex, younger age, earlier stage, lower grade, distal tumors, multimodality treatment, and care at a teaching hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnicity was associated with differences in presentation and outcome of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. APIs had a more favorable outcome than patients of other ethnicities. Further studies should target underlying biologic and socioeconomic factors to explain these differences.

Differences in the pattern of presentation and treatment of proximal and distal gastric cancer: results of the 2001 gastric patient care evaluation.

BACKGROUND: While the overall incidence of gastric cancer has declined in the United States of America, the incidence of proximal gastric cancers has increased. The purpose of this analysis was to highlight key differences between proximal and distal gastric cancer as they relate to presentation and treatment. METHODS: Data on 6,099 patients diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma were collected as a patient care evaluation under the auspices of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. The chi-square (chi (2)) test was used for comparisons of proportions across levels of categorical variables by site. RESULTS: The proximal cancer group included 1,924 patients (87% cardia, 13% fundus) and the distal cancer group included 1,311 patients (85% antrum, 15% pylorus). Proportionately, proximal cancer cases were male (P < 0.01), younger (P < 0.01), and White (P < 0.01); whereas, distal gastric cancer cases were Black (P < 0.01), Hispanic (P < 0.01), and Asian (P = 0.01). Surgery alone (without adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation) was utilized more frequently in distal disease (39.5%) compared to proximal disease (25.7%) (P < 0.01). Preoperative adjuvant therapy was utilized more frequently in proximal disease (41.7%) compared to distal disease (2.1%) (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The populations that developed proximal verses distal gastric cancer differed with respect to sex, age, and racial background. Cancer-directed treatments also differed based upon tumor location. Understanding these differences may someday enable us to identify important high-risk populations, prevention strategies, and ultimately best treatment strategies. Long-term survival differences will be explored when follow-up data become available.

Treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma may differ among hospital types in the United States, a report from theNational Cancer Data Base.

The concept that complex surgical procedures should be performed at high-volume centers to improve surgical morbidity and mortality is becoming widely accepted. We wanted to determine if there were differences in the treatment of patients with gastric cancer between community cancer centers and teaching hospitals in the United States. Data from the 2001 Gastric Cancer Patient Care Evaluation Study of the National Cancer Data Base comprising 6,047 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma treated at 691 hospitals were assessed. The mean number of patients treated was larger at teaching hospitals (14/year) when compared to community centers (5-9/year) (p<0.05). The utilization of laparoscopy and endoscopic ultrasonography were significantly more common at teaching centers (p<0.01). Pathologic assessment of greater than 15 nodes was documented in 31% of specimen at community hospitals and 38% at teaching hospitals (p<0.01). Adjusted for cancer stage, chemotherapy and radiation therapy were utilized with equal frequency at all types of treatment centers. The 30-day postoperative mortality was lowest at teaching hospitals (5.5%) and highest at community hospitals (9.9%) (p<0.01). These data support previous publications demonstrating that patients with diseases requiring specialized treatment have lower operative mortality when treated at high-volume centers.

Laryngeal cancer in the United States: changes in demographics, patterns of care, and survival.

BACKGROUND: Survival has decreased among patients with laryngeal cancer during the past 2 decades in the United States. During this same period, there has been an increase in the nonsurgical treatment of laryngeal cancer. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to identify trends in the demographics, management, and outcome of laryngeal cancer in the United States and to analyze factors contributing to the decreased survival. STUDY DESIGN: The authors conducted a retrospective, longitudinal study of laryngeal cancer cases. METHODS: Review of the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) revealed 158,426 cases of laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (excluding verrucous carcinoma) diagnosed between the years 1985 and 2001. Analysis of these case records addressed demographics, management, and survival for cases grouped according to stage, site, and specific TNM classifications. RESULTS: This review of data from the NCDB analysis confirms the previously identified trend toward decreasing survival among patients with laryngeal cancer from the mid-1980s to mid-1990s. Patterns of initial management across this same period indicated an increase in the use of chemoradiation with a decrease in the use of surgery despite an increase in the use of endoscopic resection. The most notable decline in the 5-year relative survival between the 1985 to 1990 period and the 1994 to 1996 period occurred among advanced-stage glottic cancer, early-stage supraglottic cancers, and supraglottic cancers classified as T3N0M0. Initial treatment of T3N0M0 laryngeal cancer (all sites) in the 1994 to 1996 period resulted in poor 5-year relative survival for those receiving either chemoradiation (59.2%) or irradiation alone (42.7%) when compared with that of patients after surgery with irradiation (65.2%) and surgery alone (63.3%). In contrast, identical 5-year relative survival (65.6%) rates were observed during this same period for the subset of T3N0M0 glottic cancers initially treated with either chemoradiation or surgery with irradiation. CONCLUSIONS: The decreased survival recorded for patients with laryngeal cancer in the mid-1990s may be related to changes in patterns of management. Future studies are warranted to further evaluate these associations.