Changes in Facility Share of Medicaid-insured Patients With Urologic Cancers Following Implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

OBJECTIVE: To examine Medicaid-insurance acceptance at facilities treating urologic cancers following implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, longitudinal study with a pre-post design. We accessed 2010-2017 data from the National Cancer Database, calculating the facility-level change in proportion of urologic cancer patients with Medicaid following implementation of the ACA. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess baseline clinical and demographic factors associated with changes in the proportion of patients at a facility insured through Medicaid. RESULTS: We identified 630 facilities, including 287 in Medicaid expansion states and 343 in non-expansion states associated with 436,082 urologic cancer patients. The mean facility-level change in proportion of patients with Medicaid was + 5.8% (95% CI 5.0%-6.5%) in expansion states versus + 0.6% (95% CI 0.2%-0.9%) in non-expansion states. There were 179 facilities that experienced a decrease in the post-ACA period, representing 13.6% of facilities in expansion states and 40.8% in non-expansion states (P <.001). Factors associated with a decrease in proportion of urologic cancer patients insured by Medicaid included non-expansion state status (OR 8.9, 95% CI 5.3-15.6, P <.001), higher baseline proportion of patients with Medicaid (highest quartile vs lowest: OR 4.6, 95% CI 2.3-9.4, P <.001) and high-income zip code (highest vs lowest quartile: OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.5-6.6, P <.001). CONCLUSION: Urologic cancer care for Medicaid-insured Americans remains unevenly distributed across cancer care centers, even in states that expanded coverage. Our findings suggest that this variation may reflect the effort of some facilities to reduce their financial exposure to increased numbers of Medicaid patients in the wake of ACA-supported state expansions.

'It Just Makes Sense to Me': A qualitative study exploring patient decision-making and experiences with prostate MRI during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Introduction: Although prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used in the diagnosis, staging and active surveillance of prostate cancer, little is known about patient perspectives on MRI. Methods: We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. Interviews focused on experiences with and knowledge of prostate MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy during active surveillance. We purposively sampled patients who received prostate MRI as part of their clinical care, conducted interviews until reaching thematic saturation and performed conventional content analysis to analyse data. Results: Twenty patients aged 51-79 years (mean = 68 years) participated in the study. At diagnosis, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and three (15%) had a grade group 2 tumour. Overall, participants viewed prostate MRI as a valuable tool that accurately localizes and monitors prostate cancer over time, and they considered prostate MRI central to active surveillance monitoring. We identified five thematic categories related to MRI use: (1) the experiential aspects of undergoing an MRI scan; (2) the experience of visualizing one's own prostate and prostate cancer; (3) adequacy of provider explanations of MRI results; (4) confidence in prostate MRI in decision-making; and (5) the role of prostate MRI in longitudinal follow-up, including an interest in using MRI to modify the timing of, or replace, prostate biopsy. Conclusion: Patients value prostate MRI as a tool that enhances their confidence in the initial diagnosis and monitoring of prostate cancer. This work can inform future studies to optimize patient experience, education and counselling during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Making Drug Approval Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty: Cumulative Evidence versus Value of Information.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the criticality and complexity of decision making for novel treatment approval and further research. Our study aims to assess potential decision-making methodologies, an evaluation vital for refining future public health crisis responses. METHODS: We compared 4 decision-making approaches to drug approval and research: the Food and Drug Administration's policy decisions, cumulative meta-analysis, a prospective value-of-information (VOI) approach (using information available at the time of decision), and a reference standard (retrospective VOI analysis using information available in hindsight). Possible decisions were to reject, accept, provide emergency use authorization, or allow access to new therapies only in research settings. We used monoclonal antibodies provided to hospitalized COVID-19 patients as a case study, examining the evidence from September 2020 to December 2021 and focusing on each method's capacity to optimize health outcomes and resource allocation. RESULTS: Our findings indicate a notable discrepancy between policy decisions and the reference standard retrospective VOI approach with expected losses up to $269 billion USD, suggesting suboptimal resource use during the wait for emergency use authorization. Relying solely on cumulative meta-analysis for decision making results in the largest expected loss, while the policy approach showed a loss up to $16 billion and the prospective VOI approach presented the least loss (up to $2 billion). CONCLUSION: Our research suggests that incorporating VOI analysis may be particularly useful for research prioritization and treatment implementation decisions during pandemics. While the prospective VOI approach was favored in this case study, further studies should validate the ideal decision-making method across various contexts. This study's findings not only enhance our understanding of decision-making strategies during a health crisis but also provide a potential framework for future pandemic responses. HIGHLIGHTS: This study reviews discrepancies between a reference standard (retrospective VOI, using hindsight information) and 3 conceivable real-time approaches to research-treatment decisions during a pandemic, suggesting suboptimal use of resources.Of all prospective decision-making approaches considered, VOI closely mirrored the reference standard, yielding the least expected value loss across our study timeline.This study illustrates the possible benefit of VOI results and the need for evidence accumulation accompanied by modeling in health technology assessment for emerging therapies.

Systemic Anticancer Therapy and Overall Survival in Patients With Very Advanced Solid Tumors.

Importance: Two prominent organizations, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Quality Forum (NQF), have developed a cancer quality metric aimed at reducing systemic anticancer therapy administration at the end of life. This metric, NQF 0210 (patients receiving chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life), has been critiqued for focusing only on care for decedents and not including the broader population of patients who may benefit from treatment. Objective: To evaluate whether the overall population of patients with metastatic cancer receiving care at practices with higher rates of oncologic therapy for very advanced disease experience longer survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide population-based cohort study used Flatiron Health, a deidentified electronic health record database of patients diagnosed with metastatic or advanced disease, to identify adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with 1 of 6 common cancers (breast cancer, colorectal cancer, non-small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and urothelial cancer) treated at health care practices from 2015 to 2019. Practices were stratified into quintiles based on retrospectively measured rates of NQF 0210, and overall survival was compared by disease type among all patients treated in each practice quintile from time of metastatic diagnosis using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to July 2023. Exposure: Practice-level NQF 0210 quintiles. Main Outcome and Measure: Overall survival. Results: Of 78 446 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.3 [11.1] years; 52.2% female) across 144 practices, the most common cancer types were NSCLC (34 201 patients [43.6%]) and colorectal cancer (15 804 patients [20.1%]). Practice-level NQF 0210 rates varied from 10.9% (quintile 1) to 32.3% (quintile 5) for NSCLC and 6.8% (quintile 1) to 28.4% (quintile 5) for colorectal cancer. No statistically significant differences in survival were observed between patients treated at the highest and the lowest NQF 0210 quintiles. Compared with patients seen at practices in the lowest NQF 0210 quintiles, the hazard ratio for death among patients seen at the highest quintiles varied from 0.74 (95% CI, 0.55-0.99) for those with renal cell carcinoma to 1.41 (95% CI, 0.98-2.02) for those with urothelial cancer. These differences were not statistically significant after applying the Bonferroni-adjusted critical P = .008. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients with metastatic or advanced cancer treated at practices with higher NQF 0210 rates did not have improved survival. Future efforts should focus on helping oncologists identify when additional therapy is futile, developing goals of care communication skills, and aligning payment incentives with improved end-of-life care.

Differential Effect of Consolidative Thoracic Radiation Therapy in Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Based on Sex.

Purpose: The landmark randomized trial on chest irradiation in extensive disease small cell lung cancer (CREST) demonstrated that consolidative thoracic radiation therapy (cTRT) improved overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) after initial chemotherapy (chemo) in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer, with potentially increased benefit in women compared with men. It is unknown whether similar findings would apply after chemoimmunotherapy became the standard first-line treatment. In this analysis, we report national practice patterns and survival outcomes of cTRT according to patient sex. Methods and Materials: We included patients from de-identified electronic health record-derived database diagnosed with stage IV small cell lung cancer (2014-2021) who completed 4 to 6 cycles of first-line systemic therapy (platinum-doublet chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy). We evaluated OS and PFS using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression with receipt of cTRT as an independent variable and stratified by sex. As a sensitivity analysis, we weighted the models by the inverse probability of receiving cTRT. Results: A total of 1227 patients were included (850 chemotherapy, 377 chemoimmunotherapy). There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between patients who did and did not receive cTRT. Among women, cTRT was associated with superior OS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87) and PFS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.82) compared with those not receiving cTRT. Conversely, no OS or PFS benefit with cTRT was observed in men (OS HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.80-1.31; PFS HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.85-1.47). Findings were similar in weighted analyses. Conclusions: The survival efficacy of cTRT may be moderated by sex, with female patients appearing more likely to benefit than male patients. These findings reflect sex-based survival trends with similar effect sizes to those observed in the CREST trial. Although the underpinnings of this association need to be elucidated, stratification by sex should be considered for randomized-controlled trials studying cTRT in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

Characterization of time toxicity in older patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Recognizing that receiving healthcare can be time intensive and burdensome, time toxicity has been conceptualized as the time spent by patients seeking healthcare. This study investigates the association between age at diagnosis and time toxicity for patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC) and identifies major components of care that confer the greatest time toxicity. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among patients with MBC aged 67 or older using the SEER-Medicare database. We assessed time toxicity using the number of encounter days patients interacted with the healthcare system per 100 days, within the first year of starting cancer treatment. We used a Poisson model to analyze the association between age and encounter days, adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors. We stratified the mean encounter days for each age cohort by treatment types. FINDINGS: The final sample included 2949 patients; 51.4% were between 70 and 79 years old, and 81.3% were white. Although unadjusted analysis showed an association between older age and more encounter days (Rate Ratio (RR) 1.12; 95% CI 1.02, 1.22), there was no significant association after adjusting for comorbidities and treatment type. Patients with more than three comorbidities had significantly higher encounter days compared to those without comorbidities [RR 1.36 (95% CI 1.26, 1.46)]. Receipt of radiotherapy [RR: 1.45 95% CI (1.37, 1.54)] was associated with more encounter days compared to not receiving radiotherapy, while receipt of bone-modifying agents was associated with fewer encounter days compared to not using Bone modifying agents [RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.70, 0.79)]. CONCLUSION: Our study identified comorbidities and cancer treatment modality, including radiotherapy, as the factors affecting time toxicity in older patients with MBC. Assessment of an individual's comorbid medical conditions and types of treatment planned are crucial to understanding age-related impacts on encounter days and to support shared decision making in older patients.

Immunotherapy utilization patterns in patients with advanced cancer and autoimmune disease.

PURPOSE: Immunotherapy has been shown to improve cancer survival, but there are no consensus guidelines to inform use in patients with both cancer and autoimmune disease (AD). We sought to examine immunotherapy utilization patterns between cancer patients with and without AD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized data from a de-identified nationwide oncology database. Patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma were included. Outcomes of interest included first-line immunotherapy, overall immunotherapy, and number of immunotherapy cycles. We used logistic and Poisson regression models to examine associations between AD and immunotherapy utilization patterns. RESULTS: A total of 25,076 patients were included (796 with AD). Patients with AD were more likely to be female, White, receive care at academic centers, and have ECOG ≥ 3. Controlling for demographic and clinical variables, AD was associated with lower odds of receiving first-line (odds ratio [OR] = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.82) and overall (OR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.67-0.94) immunotherapy. Among patients who received at least one cycle of immunotherapy, there was no difference in mean number of cycles received between patients with and without AD (11.3 and 10.5 cycles respectively). The incident rate of immunotherapy cycles received for patients with AD was 1.03 times that of patients without AD (95% CI 1.01-1.06). DISCUSSION: Patients with AD were less likely to receive immunotherapy as first-line and overall therapy for treatment of their advanced cancer. However, among those who did receive at least one cycle of immunotherapy, patients with AD received a similar number of cycles compared to patients without AD. This not only indicates that AD is not an absolute contraindication for immunotherapy in clinical practice but may also demonstrate overall treatment tolerability and net benefit in patients with AD.

Functional decline in older breast cancer survivors treated with and without chemotherapy and non-cancer controls: results from the Hurria Older PatiEnts (HOPE) prospective study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess whether physical functional decline in older women with early-stage breast cancer is driven by cancer, chemotherapy, or a combination of both. METHODS: We prospectively sampled three groups of women aged ≥ 65: 444 with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy (BC Chemo), 98 with early-stage breast cancer not receiving chemotherapy (BC Control), and 100 non-cancer controls (NC Control). Physical function was assessed at two timepoints (T1 [baseline] and T2 [3, 4, or 6 months]) using the Physical Functioning Subscale (PF-10) of the RAND 36-item Short Form. The primary endpoint was the change in PF-10 scores from T1 to T2, analyzed continuously and dichotomously (Yes/No, with "yes" indicating a PF-10 decline > 10 points, i.e., a substantial and clinically meaningful difference). RESULTS: Baseline PF-10 scores were similar across all groups. The BC Chemo group experienced a significant decline at T2, with a median change in PF-10 of -5 (interquartile range [IQR], -20, 0), while BC Control and NC Control groups showed a median change of 0 (IQR, -5, 5; p < 0.001). Over 30% of BC Chemo participants had a substantial decline in PF-10 vs. 8% in the BC Control and 5% in the NC Control groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of older adults with early-stage breast cancer, the combination of breast cancer and chemotherapy contributes to accelerated functional decline. Our findings reinforce the need to develop interventions aimed at preserving physical function, particularly during and after chemotherapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The high prevalence of accelerated functional decline in older women undergoing breast cancer chemotherapy underscores the urgency to develop interventions aimed at preserving physical function and improving health outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL: NCT01472094, Hurria Older PatiEnts (HOPE) with Breast Cancer Study.

Area Vulnerability and Disparities in Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Importance: Area-level measures of sociodemographic disadvantage may be associated with racial and ethnic disparities with respect to receipt of treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but have not been investigated previously, to our knowledge. Objective: To assess the association between area-level measures of social vulnerability and racial and ethnic disparities in the treatment of US Medicare beneficiaries with mRCC from 2015 through 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who were diagnosed with mRCC from January 2015 through December 2019 and were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare Parts A, B, and D from 1 year before through 1 year after presumed diagnosis or until death. Data were analyzed from November 22, 2022, through January 26, 2024. Exposures: Five different county-level measures of disadvantage and 4 zip code-level measures of vulnerability or deprivation and segregation were used to dichotomize whether an individual resided in the most vulnerable quartile according to each metric. Patient-level factors included age, race and ethnicity, sex, diagnosis year, comorbidities, frailty, Medicare and Medicaid dual enrollment eligibility, and Medicare Part D low-income subsidy (LIS). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were receipt and type of systemic therapy (oral anticancer agent or immunotherapy from 2 months before to 1 year after diagnosis of mRCC) as a function of patient and area-level characteristics. Multivariable regression analyses were used to adjust for patient factors, and odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regression and relative risk ratios (RRRs) from multinomial logistic regression are reported. Results: The sample included 15 407 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [6.8] years), of whom 9360 (60.8%) were men; 6931 (45.0%), older than 75 years; 93 (0.6%), American Indian or Alaska Native; 257 (1.7%), Asian or Pacific Islander; 757 (4.9%), Hispanic; 1017 (6.6%), non-Hispanic Black; 12 966 (84.2%), non-Hispanic White; 121 (0.8%), other; and 196 (1.3%), unknown. Overall, 8317 patients (54.0%) received some type of systemic therapy. After adjusting for individual factors, no county or zip code-level measures of social vulnerability, deprivation, or segregation were associated with disparities in treatment. In contrast, patient-level factors, including female sex (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.84) and LIS (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), were associated with lack of treatment, with particularly limited access to immunotherapy for patients with LIS (RRR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.43). Associations between individual-level factors and treatment in multivariable analysis were not mediated by the addition of area-level metrics. Disparities by race and ethnicity were consistently and only observed within the most vulnerable areas, as indicated by the top quartile of each vulnerability deprivation index. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of older Medicare patients diagnosed with mRCC, individual-level demographics, including race and ethnicity, sex, and income, were associated with receipt of systemic therapy, whereas area-level measures were not. However, individual-level racial and ethnic disparities were largely limited to socially vulnerable areas, suggesting that efforts to improve racial and ethnic disparities may be most effective when targeted to socially vulnerable areas.

Updated Analysis of Comparative Toxicity of Proton and Photon Radiation for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Previous comparative effectiveness studies have not demonstrated a benefit of proton beam therapy (PBT) compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. An updated comparison of GI and genitourinary (GU) toxicity is needed. METHODS: We investigated the SEER-Medicare linked database, identifying patients with localized prostate cancer diagnosed from 2010 to 2017. Procedure and diagnosis codes indicative of treatment-related toxicity were identified. As a sensitivity analysis, we also identified toxicity based only on procedure codes. Patients who underwent IMRT and PBT were matched 2:1 on the basis of clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. We then compared GI and GU toxicity at 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. RESULTS: The final sample included 772 PBT patients matched to 1,544 IMRT patients. The frequency of GI toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 3.5% versus 2.5% at 6 months (P = .18), 9.5% versus 10.2% at 12 months (P = .18), and 20.5% versus 23.4% at 24 months (P = .11). The frequency of only procedure codes indicative of GI toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was too low to be reported and not significantly different. The frequency of GU toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 6.8% versus 5.7% (P = .30), 14.3% versus 12.2% (P = .13), and 28.2% versus 25.8% (P = .21) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. When looking only at procedure codes, the frequency of GU toxicity for IMRT was 1.0% at 6 months, whereas it was too infrequent to report for PBT (P = .64). GU toxicity for IMRT versus PBT was 3.3% versus 2.1% (P = .10), and 8.7% versus 6.7% (P = .10) at 12 and 24 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this observational study, there were no statistically significant differences between PBT and IMRT in terms of GI or GU toxicity.

Patient experiences with tissue-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Background: Tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests provide estimates of prostate cancer aggressiveness and are increasingly used for patients considering or engaged in active surveillance. However, little is known about patient experiences with genomic testing and its role in their decision-making. Methods: We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- or favourable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. We purposively sampled to include patients who received biopsy-based genomic testing as part of clinical care. The interview guide focused on experiences with genomic testing during patients' decision-making for prostate cancer management and understanding of genomic test results. We continued interviews until thematic saturation was reached, iteratively created a code key and used conventional content analysis to analyse data. Results: Participants' (n = 20) mean age was 68 years (range 51-79). At initial biopsy, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and 3 (15%) had a grade group 2 prostate cancer. The decision to undergo genomic testing was driven by both participants and physicians' recommendations; however, some participants were unaware that testing had occurred. Overall, participants understood the role of genomic testing in estimating their prostate cancer risk, and the test results increased their confidence in the decision for active surveillance. Participants had some misconceptions about the difference between tissue-based gene expression tests and germline genetic tests and commonly believed that tissue-based tests measured hereditary cancer risk. While some participants expressed satisfaction with their physicians' explanations, others felt that communication was limited and lacked sufficient detail. Conclusion: Patients interact with and are influenced by the results of biopsy-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer, despite gaps in understanding about test results. Our findings indicate areas for improvement in patient counselling in order to increase patient knowledge and comfort with genomic testing.

Integrating 4 methods to evaluate physical function in patients with cancer (In4M): protocol for a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate, patient-centred evaluation of physical function in patients with cancer can provide important information on the functional impacts experienced by patients both from the disease and its treatment. Increasingly, digital health technology is facilitating and providing new ways to measure symptoms and function. There is a need to characterise the longitudinal measurement characteristics of physical function assessments, including clinician-reported outcome, patient-reported ported outcome (PRO), performance outcome tests and wearable data, to inform regulatory and clinical decision-making in cancer clinical trials and oncology practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this prospective study, we are enrolling 200 English-speaking and/or Spanish-speaking patients with breast cancer or lymphoma seen at Mayo Clinic or Yale University who will receive intravenous cytotoxic chemotherapy. Physical function assessments will be obtained longitudinally using multiple assessment modalities. Participants will be followed for 9 months using a patient-centred health data aggregating platform that consolidates study questionnaires, electronic health record data, and activity and sleep data from a wearable sensor. Data analysis will focus on understanding variability, sensitivity and meaningful changes across the included physical function assessments and evaluating their relationship to key clinical outcomes. Additionally, the feasibility of multimodal physical function data collection in real-world patients with breast cancer or lymphoma will be assessed, as will patient impressions of the usability and acceptability of the wearable sensor, data aggregation platform and PROs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received approval from IRBs at Mayo Clinic, Yale University and the US Food and Drug Administration. Results will be made available to participants, funders, the research community and the public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05214144; Pre-results.