Trends in lung cancer diagnosis and care among visible minorities and non-visible minorities in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Identifying factors that influence the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer is an important public health initiative. Various sociodemographic factors, including race and ethnicity, may influence an individual's risk of developing lung cancer, as well as access to relevant diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. METHODS: Data from the 2006 Canadian long-form census were cross-linked with the Canadian Cancer Registry and hospital data to determine rates of lung cancer diagnosis among visible minorities and non-visible minorities in Canada, and to assess for differences in rates of hospital-based procedures pertaining to a lung cancer diagnosis based on visible-minority status. Individuals were allocated into six visible-minority categories, and separate results were generated nationally and across seven regions. Multivariate logistic regression controlled for relevant confounders. RESULTS: Rates of lung cancer were significantly lower among visible minorities versus non-visible minorities (329 versus 1108 cases per 100 000). This result is consistent across all visible-minority subgroups. Among those with a diagnosis of lung cancer, procedure rates were higher for all visible minorities nationally (53.4% [95% CI 53.2-53.6]). Multivariable analysis demonstrated higher procedure rates in general for visible minorities with a lung cancer diagnosis compared to non-visible minorities (OR 1.158 95% CI 1.053-1.273). INTERPRETATION: In Canada, visible minorities experience lower rates of lung cancer diagnosis than non-visible minorities. Among those with a lung cancer diagnosis, we did not identify any negative disparities in rates of relevant diagnostic or therapeutic procedures, based on visible-minority status.

Primary care use after cancer treatment: an analysis of linked administrative data.

Background: Primary care-led follow-up is a safe and acceptable alternative to oncologist-led follow-up. We sought to investigate patterns of primary care use during cancer follow-up care. Methods: We identified all persons in Nova Scotia, diagnosed with an invasive breast, prostate, colorectal, or gynecologic cancer between January 2006 and December 2013. We linked this dataset to cancer centre, hospital discharge abstracts, physicians' billing, and census data. We identified a survivor cohort (n = 12,201), then descriptively examined primary care use during follow-up care. Multivariate Poisson and negative binomial regression, respectively, were used to examine primary care use for two outcomes: total number of primary care provider (pcp) visits (all reasons) and total number of cancer-specific pcp visits. Results: The mean numbers of pcp visits (all reasons) and cancer-specific pcp visits per year for survivors who did not receive cancer centre follow-up (cc-fup) were 8.12 and 0.43 visits, respectively, and for survivors who continued to receive cc-fup were 8.75 and 0.63 visits, respectively. Age, cancer type, stage at diagnosis, comorbidity scores, year of diagnosis, and receipt of cc-fup were associated with both outcomes. Compared with prostate cancer survivors, breast, colorectal, and gynecologic cancer survivors had, respectively, 56%, 69%, and 56% fewer expected cancer-specific PCP visits. Receipt of cc-fup increased the expected number of pcp visits (all reasons) by 12% and cancer-specific pcp visits by 50%. Conclusions: Primary care use was higher in survivors who continued to visit their oncology teams for follow-up. This suggests that survivors who remain with their oncology teams after treatment continue to have high needs not met by these teams alone.

Patterns of cancer centre follow-up care for survivors of breast, colorectal, gynecologic, and prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Rising demand on cancer system resources, alongside mounting evidence that demonstrates the safety and acceptability of primary care-led follow-up care, has resulted in some cancer centres discharging patients back to primary care after treatment. At the same time, the ways in which routine cancer follow-up care is provided across Canada continue to vary widely. The objectives of the present study were to investigate patterns of routine follow-up care at a cancer centre for breast, colorectal, gynecologic, and prostate cancer survivors; factors associated with receipt of follow-up care at a cancer centre; and changes in follow-up care at a cancer centre over time. METHODS: We identified all people diagnosed in Nova Scotia with an invasive breast, colorectal, gynecologic, or prostate cancer between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2013. We linked the resulting population-based dataset, at the patient level, to cancer centre or clinic data and to census data. We identified a nonmetastatic survivor cohort (n = 12,267) and developed decision rules to differentiate routine from non-routine visits during the follow-up care period (commencing 1 year after diagnosis). Descriptive statistics were computed to describe the patterns of routine follow-up care at a cancer centre. Negative binomial regression was used to examine factors associated with visits made and changes over time. RESULTS: Nearly half the survivors (48.4%) had at least 1 follow-up visit to the cancer centre, with variation by disease site (range: 30.2%-62.4%). Disease site and stage at diagnosis were associated with receipt of follow-up care at a cancer centre. For instance, compared with breast cancer survivors, survivors of gynecologic cancer had more visits [incidence rate ratio (irr): 1.48; 95% confidence interval (ci): 1.34 to 1.64], and survivors of colorectal cancer had fewer visits (irr: 0.45; 95% ci: 0.40 to 0.51). Year of diagnosis was associated with follow-up at a cancer centre, with each successive calendar year being associated with an 8% increase in visits made (irr: 1.08; 95% ci: 1.07 to 1.10). CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence that follow-up care can be effectively and safely delivered in primary care, and despite intensifying demands on oncology services, many survivors continue to receive routine follow-up care at a cancer centre.

Increasing our understanding of dying of breast cancer: Comorbidities and care.

Background: Screening and treatment for breast cancer have improved. However, attention to palliative support and non-cancer co-morbidities has been limited. This study identified types of care for and co-morbidities of persons dying of breast cancer compared to persons dying from all cancers and from non-cancer causes. Methods: Linked administrative data from population-based registries were used to examine 121,458 deaths in Nova Scotia from 1995 to 2009. Results: Breast cancer decedents' mean age was similar to that of all cancer decedents (72.0 versus 72.1 years), but their age spread was greater (20-59 years: 23.1% versus 16.7%; 90+ years: 11.2% versus 6.5%). Among women dying of breast cancer, 15.6% were enrolled in the diabetes registry and 15.1% in the cardiovascular registry, indicating that they had these non-cancer conditions prior to their death. Compared to all cancer decedents, breast cancer decedents were twice as likely to have dementia as a cause of death, and were less likely to die in hospital but more likely to die in a nursing home. Breast cancer decedents had place of death rates more similar to non-cancer than cancer decedents. Conclusions: Rates of dementia and diabetes among the breast cancer decedents were particularly note-worthy in this novel study given that these comorbidities have not received much attention in the breast cancer research literature. Further collaboration with non-cancer disease programs is advised. The extent of adequate comprehensive palliative support for the 20% of the breast cancer decedents who are nursing home residents requires investigation.

Poverty and the extent of child obesity in Canada, Norway and the United States.

The goal of this paper is to compare the extent of child obesity in Canada, Norway and the United States. As child poverty is an important correlate of child obesity, we wish to examine the potential role of international differences in child poverty in explaining international differences in the extent of child obesity. We use three representative microdata surveys containing parental reports of child height and weight collected in the mid-1990s in Canada, Norway and the US. We calculate both the prevalence and proportional severity of child obesity for 6-11-year-old children in each country, and represent the 'extent' of obesity diagrammatically. Differences in patterns of child poverty are similarly depicted. Obesity extent is also compared for poor and non-poor children in Canada and the US. Finally, child obesity in the three countries is compared using only non-poor children where we find that the extent of child obesity is much lower in Norway than in Canada or the US. The pattern apparent for obesity is remarkably similar to that found for child poverty. In Canada and especially in the US, we find a much greater extent of obesity for poor than non-poor children. However, when we compare only non-poor children in the three countries, although the magnitude of difference is smaller, it remains clear that Norwegian children are much less likely to be obese. Policy and research directed towards reducing the extent of child obesity in both Canada and the US should pay particular attention to issues of child poverty.