Impact of insurance type on survivor-focused and general preventive health care utilization in adult survivors of childhood cancer: the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS).

BACKGROUND: Lack of health insurance is a key barrier to accessing care for chronic conditions and cancer screening. The influence of insurance type (private, public, none) on survivor-focused and general preventive health care in adult survivors of childhood cancer was examined. METHODS: The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study is a retrospective cohort study of childhood cancer survivors diagnosed between 1970 and 1986. Among 8425 adult survivors, the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of receiving survivor-focused and general preventive health care were estimated for uninsured (n = 1390) and publicly insured (n = 640), compared with for the privately insured (n = 6395) RESULTS: Uninsured survivors were less likely than those privately insured to report a cancer-related visit (adjusted RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.91) or a cancer center visit (adjusted RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98). Uninsured survivors had lower levels of utilization in all measures of care in comparison with privately insured. In contrast, publicly insured survivors were more likely to report a cancer-related visit (adjusted RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.11-1.35) or a cancer center visit (adjusted RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.18-1.70) than were privately insured survivors. Although publicly insured survivors had similar utilization of general health examinations, they were less likely to report a Papanicolaou test or a dental examinations CONCLUSIONS: Among this large, socioeconomically diverse cohort, publicly insured survivors utilize survivor-focused health care at rates at least as high as survivors with private insurance. Uninsured survivors have lower utilization of both survivor-focused and general preventive health care.

Association between receipt and timing of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival for patients with stage III colon cancer in Alberta, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy has been standard treatment for stage III colon cancer since 1990. However, to date, clinical trials have not been conducted to determine the definitive outer time limit by which adjuvant chemotherapy should be received for optimal survival benefit. The objective of the current study was to assess the association between the receipt/timing of adjuvant chemotherapy and patient survival in clinical practice. METHODS: Residents of Alberta who were diagnosed with stage III colon adenocarcinoma in years 2000 to 2005 who underwent surgery were included in the study. Patients were identified from the Alberta Cancer Registry and were linked to hospital data and neighborhood-level socioeconomic data from the 2001 Canadian Census. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios of death according to the timing of chemotherapy. RESULTS: There were 1053 patients in the study; 648 (61%) initiated adjuvant chemotherapy within 16 weeks of surgery. There was no difference in overall survival or colon cancer-specific survival between those who received adjuvant chemotherapy from 8 to 12 weeks postsurgery compared with those who received it within 8 weeks. However, those who received chemotherapy 12 to 16 weeks after surgery and those who either received it >16 weeks after surgery or received no treatment had a 43% and 107% greater risk of dying, respectively, than those who received chemotherapy within 8 weeks of surgery (hazard ratio, 1.43 [95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.13] and hazard ratio, 2.07 [95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.76], respectively). Analyses were controlled for age, year, and region of residence at diagnosis; sex; neighborhood-level socioeconomic factors; and number of comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study were consistent with current guideline recommendations in Alberta that patients with stage III adenocarcinoma should receive chemotherapy within 12 weeks of surgery.

An exploratory study of body composition as a determinant of epirubicin pharmacokinetics and toxicity.

PURPOSE: Although body composition has emerged as an important predictor of drug efficacy and toxicity, explanations for this association are unclear. Our goal was to investigate relationships between lean body mass (LBM), liver size/function and epirubicin pharmacokinetics (PK) and toxicity. METHODS: Data from a clinical study (n = 24) of patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant intravenous FE(100)C chemotherapy were used to examine relationships between LBM, liver size, and epirubicin clearance. Muscle tissue and liver mass were measured by analysis of computerized tomography cross-sectional images, and an extrapolation of muscle mass to total LBM compartment was employed. Population PK analysis of epirubicin was undertaken to test effects of body composition on epirubicin clearance and area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Estimated LBM was extremely variable in this cohort ranging from 32.9 to 67.3 kg. LBM was associated with neutrophil nadir (r = 0.5, P = 0.023), and mean LBM was lower for patients presenting with toxicity compared to those where toxicity was absent (41.6 vs. 56.2 kg, P = 0.002); 33% of variance in clearance was explained by LBM and aspartate aminotransferase (AST). Liver mass was not related to epirubicin clearance likely due to larger livers presenting with larger fat content, but liver attenuation (degree of fat infiltration) and AST were associated with AUC. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine relationships between LBM, liver mass/function and epirubicin PK and toxicity. This exploratory work investigates the notion of organs and tissues having distinctive contributions to the distribution and metabolism of antineoplastic drugs.