Urban and rural differences in outcomes of head and neck cancer.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To assess for potential urban and rural disparities in head and neck cancer (HNC) outcomes within a single-payer healthcare system. STUDY DESIGN: A large retrospective population-based cohort analysis of consecutive HNC patients treated in British Columbia, Canada between 2001 and 2010 was conducted. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with HNC from 2001 to 2010 and referred to any one of five British Columbia Cancer Agency centers for management were reviewed. Based on census data, patients were classified into: 1) rural, 2) small urban, 3) moderate urban, and 4) large urban areas. Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression models were used to correlate site of residence with overall survival (OS), controlling for prognostic factors that included sociodemographic and other tumor and treatment-related characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 3,036 patients; the median age was 64 years, 26% were women, and 32% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0 or 1. The majority resided in large urban areas (55%) followed by rural (22%), moderate urban (13%), and small urban (10%). In regression analyses, smoking (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28-3.45, P < .001), ECOG 2 + (HR: 3.44, 95% CI: 2.26-5.22, P < .001), oral cavity (HR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.03-2.32, P = .04) and hypopharyngeal tumors (HR: 2.31, 95% CI: 1.42-3.77, P = .00), and large tumor size (HR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.08-2.64, P = .02) were correlated with inferior OS, but site of residence was not. When stratified by type of treatment, OS remained similar irrespective of urban or rural residence. CONCLUSIONS: Urban-rural differences in HNC survival outcomes were not observed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c. Laryngoscope, 128:852-858, 2018.

Asian and non-Asian disparities in outcomes of non-nasopharyngeal head and neck cancer.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate disparities in overall survival (OS) between Asian and non-Asian patients diagnosed with non-nasopharyngeal head and neck cancer (HNC). STUDY DESIGN: This was a population-based, retrospective study of patients diagnosed with non-nasopharyngeal HNC of squamous cell carcinoma histology between 2001 and 2010 in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: Using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression models, we examined the relationship between race and OS. RESULTS: A total of 3,036 patients were included in the study. Median age was 64 years, 74% were men, and 7% were Asians. Asians had worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status (29% vs. 23%, P = .07) and larger tumors (33% vs. 21%, P = .02), and were more likely to be diagnosed with oral cavity cancers (38% vs. 25%, P < .001) than non-Asians. Asians were also less likely to receive multimodality therapy than non-Asians (90% vs. 95%, P = .02). Asians were more likely to have never smoked (49% vs. 15%, P < .001) and to be married or with a partner (80% vs. 69%, P = .02). Multivariate models showed that Asians had better OS than non-Asians (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.25-0.99, P = .05). Three-year OS did not differ significantly between Asians and non-Asians (41% vs. 42%, P = .18); however, 5-year OS did (22% vs. 19% P = .03). Stratifying by treatment type, outcomes were comparable in both groups except for radiotherapy alone, where Asians showed significantly better OS (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.51-0.99, P = .04). Advanced age, worse ECOG, greater tumor size, and lack of treatment also correlated with inferior OS. CONCLUSIONS: Despite several worse prognostic features and less aggressive treatment, Asians tended to exhibit better OS than non-Asians. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c. Laryngoscope, 127:2528-2533, 2017.

Young adult cancer survivors' follow-up care expectations of oncologists and primary care physicians.

PURPOSE: Young adult cancer survivors face unique challenges associated with their illness. While both oncologists and primary care physicians (PCPs) may be involved in the follow-up care of these cancer survivors, we hypothesized that there is a lack of clarity regarding each physician's roles and responsibilities. METHODS: A self-administered survey was mailed to young adult cancer survivors in British Columbia, Canada, who were aged 20 to 39 years at the time of diagnosis and alive at 2 to 5 years following the diagnosis to capture their expectations of oncologists and PCPs in various important domains of cancer survivorship care. Multivariate logistic regression models that adjusted for confounders were constructed to examine for predictors of the different expectations. RESULTS: Of 722 young cancer survivors surveyed, 426 (59%) responded. Among them, the majority were White women with breast cancer. Oncologists were expected to follow the patient's most recent cancer and treatment-related side effects while PCPs were expected to manage ongoing and future cancer surveillance as well as general preventative care. Neither physician was perceived to be responsible for addressing the return to daily activities, reintegration to interpersonal relationships, or sexual function. Older survivors were significantly less likely to expect oncologists (p = 0.03) and PCPs (p = 0.01) to discuss family planning when compared to their younger counterparts. Those who were White were significantly more likely to expect PCPs to discuss comorbidities (p = 0.009) and preventative care (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Young adult cancer survivors have different expectations of oncologists and PCPs with respect to their follow-up care. Physicians need to better clarify their roles in order to further improve the survivorship phase of cancer care for young adults. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Young adult cancer survivors have different expectations of their oncologists and PCPs. Clarification of the roles of each physician group during follow-up can enhance the quality of survivorship care for young adults.

Eligibility of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Patients for First-Line Palliative Intent nab-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine Versus FOLFIRINOX.

OBJECTIVES: The PRODIGE and MPACT trials showed superiority of FOLFIRINOX and nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NG) over gemcitabine alone, respectively. However, both had strict inclusion criteria. We sought to determine the characteristics of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) which inform the appropriateness of first-line chemotherapy FOLFIRINOX and NG in routine practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with MPC who initiated palliative chemotherapy with gemcitabine from 2000 to 2011 at the British Columbia Cancer Agency were identified. Clinicopathologic variables and outcomes were retrospectively collected and compared among groups. Eligibility criteria for each regimen were in accordance with the respective pivotal phase III trials. RESULTS: A total of 473 patients were included: 25% of the patients were eligible for FOLFIRINOX versus 45% for NG. Main reasons for FOLFIRINOX ineligibility were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS)≥2 (56.5%), age older than 75 years (19.0%), and bilirubin>1.5× upper limit of normal (18.6%), whereas those for NG ineligibility were bilirubin > upper limit of normal (24.5%), ECOG PS≥3 (14.6%), and cardiac dysfunction (13.8%). Univariate analyses revealed that FOLFIRINOX and NG-eligible patients had longer median overall survival than their respective ineligible group (8.6 vs. 4.7 mo, P<0.001; 6.7 vs. 4.9 mo, P=0.008, respectively). After accounting for ECOG PS in the multivariate model, however, eligibility for either FOLFIRINOX or NG no longer predicted for better overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with MPC are not candidates to either NG or FOLFIRINOX due to restrictive eligibility requirements. Specific trials addressing the unmet needs of protocol ineligible patients are warranted.

Impact of Travel Distance and Urban-Rural Status on the Multidisciplinary Management of Rectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Optimal treatment of rectal cancer (RC) requires multidisciplinary care. We examined whether distance to treatment center or community size impacts access to multimodality care and population-based outcomes in RC. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with stage II/III RC from 1999 to 2009 and treated at 1 of 6 regional cancer centers in British Columbia were reviewed. Distance to treatment center was determined for each patient. Communities were classified as rural, small, medium, and large population centers. Logistic and Cox regression models assessed associations of distance and community size with treatment received as well as cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 3,158 patients, 93.6% underwent surgery, 86.3% received radiotherapy, and 51.3% were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). Median time from diagnosis to oncologic consultation was longer for those >100 km from a treatment center or residing in medium/rural communities. Logistic regression demonstrated no correlation between distance or community size and receipt of treatment modality. Univariate analysis showed similar CSS (P = .18, .88) and OS (P = .36, .47) based on community size and distance, respectively. In multivariate analysis, distance >100 km had inferior CSS (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.39, 95% CI: 1.03-1.88; P = .031). There was no consistent trend between decreasing community size and outcomes; however, living in a small center was associated with improved OS (HR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.38-0.88; P = .011) and CSS (HR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.25-0.70; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, there were no urban-rural differences in access to multidisciplinary care, but increased distance may be associated with worse cancer-specific outcomes.

Compliance with adjuvant capecitabine in patients with stage II and III colon cancer: comparison of administrative versus medical record data.

We aimed to examine the frequency of treatment delays as well as the reasons and appropriateness of such delays in early stage colon cancer patients receiving adjuvant capecitabine by comparing data from pharmacy dispensing versus medical records. Patients diagnosed with stage II or III colon cancer from 2008 to 2012 and who received at least two cycle of adjuvant capecitabine were reviewed for treatment delays. Data from pharmacy dispensing and patient medical records were compared. Multivariate regression models were constructed to identify predictors of treatment delays. A total of 697 patients were analyzed: median age was 70 years (IQR 30-89), 394 (57%) were men, 598 (86%) reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0/1, and 191 (27%) had stage II disease. In this study cohort, 396 (57%) patients experienced at least 1 treatment delay during their adjuvant treatment. Upon medical record review, half of treatment delays identified using pharmacy administrative data were actually attributable to side effects, of which over 90% were considered clinically appropriate for patients to withhold rather than to continue the drug. The most prevalent side effects were hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea which occurred in 176 (44%) and 67 (17%) patients, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed a statistically significant association between stage and inappropriate treatment delays whereby patients with stage II disease were more likely to experience drug noncompliance (OR 1.79, 95% CI: 1.27-2.53, P < 0.001) than those with stage III disease. Compliance with adjuvant capecitabine was reasonable. Adherence ascertained from pharmacy administrative data differs significantly from that obtained from medical records.

Discussions about reproductive and sexual health among young adult survivors of cancer.

Fertility preservation and sexual health are increasingly important as more young cancer patients survive their disease. Our aims were to describe the frequency with which reproductive and sexual health discussions occur, and to identify clinical factors associated with these discussions. Medical records of patients aged 20-39 diagnosed with solid tumors from 2008-2010 who survived ≥2 years were retrospectively reviewed. Multivariate logistic models were used to explore the relationship between clinical factors and occurrence of discussions. We analyzed 427 survivors: median age was 35 years, 29% were men, 88% had baseline [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)] ECOG 0, and 79% were in a relationship. Only 58% and 7% of patients received discussions about reproductive and sexual health, respectively, at their initial oncology consultation, most of which were led by medical oncologists. There was a significant association between reproductive and sexual health conversations, in that those who engaged in dialog about one topic were more likely to participate in discussions about the other (P = 0.01). Patients with gynecologic malignancies (P < 0.0001) were more inclined to engage in sexual health discussions. Only a minority (19%) of patients took specific action toward fertility preservation, but the receipt of reproductive health discussions was a strong and independent driver for pursuing fertility preservation (P < 0.0001). The impact of cancer and its treatment on fertility and sexual health was inadequately addressed at the time of diagnosis among young cancer survivors. This warrants specific attention since having reproductive health discussions was strongly predictive of patients pursuing fertility preservation strategies.

A qualitative focus group study to identify the needs of survivors of stage II and III colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prior survivorship research has largely focused on issues faced by survivors of childhood tumors, breast cancers, or hematologic malignancies. Relatively little is known about the needs of other prevalent survivor groups. Our aim was to identify the specific concerns of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors in the key domains of physical functioning, psychological wellbeing, and social relationships. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with stage II and III CRC survivors who had completed their primary active anti-cancer treatments. Patients were asked to describe how their diagnosis and treatment impacted their lives, to outline deficiencies in the care that they received, and to suggest ways of addressing any unmet needs. A content analysis was subsequently conducted to identify major themes. RESULTS: Thirty CRC survivors participated in six focus groups. Individuals reported some degree of dissatisfaction with the amount and type of diagnostic and treatment information they received at their initial clinic visit. Distress from toxicities, such as peripheral neuropathy, was also common among the survivors. Similarly, the majority faced challenges adjusting to their lives and daily activities, especially in caring for their colostomy. Having survived CRC, many survivors expressed an interest in advocacy and health promotion of CRC. CONCLUSIONS: CRC survivors face many barriers after their cancer treatment. Issues with colostomy are unique to this survivor group. Interventions to improve CRC survivorship care should also incorporate opportunities for patient advocacy. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Impact of Weight Changes After the Diagnosis of Stage III Colon Cancer on Survival Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Weight modification after a diagnosis of colon cancer and its impact on outcomes remain unclear. Thus we aimed to examine the association of obesity and weight changes from baseline oncology consultation with recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with stage III colon cancer. METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years who were diagnosed with stage III colon cancer in British Columbia from 2008 to 2010 and who received adjuvant chemotherapy were included in the study. Cox proportional hazards regression models were fitted to evaluate the impact of different body compositions and degree of weight changes from baseline assessment with outcomes while controlling for potentially confounding covariates, such as age and sex. RESULTS: A total of 539 patients with stage III colon cancer were included: median age was 69 years (range, 26-94 years), 52% were men, and 53% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1. Those with weight gains of ≥ 10% had a median RFS of 37 months compared with 49 months in those with weight gains of < 10% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.59; P = .82). However, this finding was not significant. In Cox models, patients who exhibited weight losses of ≥ 10% experienced significantly inferior RFS (HR, 3.45; 95% CI, 1.44-8.13; P = .0046) and OS (HR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.04-6.67; P = .041) compared with those who experienced weight losses of < 10%. Weight gains, losses, or changes of equal or less magnitude did not show any significant associations with outcomes (all P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Weight losses of ≥ 10% from baseline evaluation bodes a worse prognosis among patients with stage III colon cancer.

Risk and management of venous thromboembolisms in bevacizumab-treated metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Bevacizumab may potentiate the risk of venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) in cancer patients, who are already predisposed to pro-thrombotic states. We aimed to characterize the incidence of VTEs in a population-based cohort of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with bevacizumab, describe patient and treatment factors associated with VTEs, and examine how VTEs are managed. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with mCRC from 2006 to 2009 and offered bevacizumab were included. Descriptive statistics were used to describe VTE occurrences and management. Univariate and multivariate regression models were constructed to explore associations between clinical factors and VTEs. RESULTS: We identified 541 mCRC patients: 27 never started bevacizumab and 15 were lost to follow-up. Of the 499 evaluable patients, median age was 61, 59.3% were men, 88.1% had ECOG 0/1, and 5.2% reported previous VTEs. Mean number of bevacizumab doses was 13.3 cycles. After receiving bevacizumab, 81 patients developed 93 cases of VTEs, with 9 patients experiencing >1 event. Individuals who experienced VTEs were more likely to have had pre-existing cardiovascular disease (OR 2.259, p = 0.0245), resection of primary cancer (OR 3.262, p = 0.0269), pre-chemotherapy platelet count ≥350,000/µL (OR 2.295, p = 0.0293), and received >12 bevacizumab cycles (OR 2.172, p = 0.0158). Use of bevacizumab varied after occurrence of VTE where it was discontinued in 34.4%, continued in 34.4%, and temporarily held in 1.1%. CONCLUSIONS: VTE risk can be high, especially in patients with specific pre-treatment risk factors as well as in those who received more bevacizumab, suggesting a potential dose-related effect. Management of bevacizumab-related VTEs was variable.

Population-Based Cost-Minimization Analysis of CAPOX Versus Modified FOLFOX6 in the Adjuvant Treatment of Stage III Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) has efficacy similar to 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer. CAPOX is partly administered orally and associated with a 3-week rather than a 2-week treatment cycle. A population-based cost-minimization analysis was conducted from the health care payer and societal perspectives to evaluate the potential cost savings of replacing mFOLFOX6 with CAPOX. METHODS: We applied treatment and toxicity data from phase III trials of CAPOX and FOLFOX-based regimens to the adjuvant colon cancer population in British Columbia, Canada. In this cost-minimization analysis we compared the total costs associated with chemotherapy medications, drug administration and delivery, hospital and clinic visits, treatment-related toxicities, and central venous access devices. Costs to patients in terms of lost time and travel were also considered. It was assumed that patients would receive either 8 cycles of CAPOX or 12 cycles of mFOLFOX6. RESULTS: From the payer perspective, the use of CAPOX resulted in cost savings of $5339 CAD per patient compared with the use of mFOLFOX6. From a societal perspective, CAPOX was also associated with savings of $6080 CAD per patient. The greatest cost savings with CAPOX were attributed to fewer visits for chemotherapy treatment and decreased central venous access device usage. CAPOX was also associated with reduced loss of time and decreased travel for patients because of the requirement of fewer clinic visits. CONCLUSIONS: Replacement of mFOLFOX6 with CAPOX in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer might be associated with potential cost savings from the payer and societal perspectives.

Prophylactic versus reactive treatment of acneiform skin rashes from epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: There are concerns regarding potential negative effects of prophylactic treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-inhibitor-related rashes on metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) outcomes. We aimed to characterize treatment patterns of EGFR-inhibitor-induced rashes and evaluate prophylactic versus reactive approaches to rash management in relation to overall survival (OS). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with KRAS wild-type mCRC from July 2010 to June 2012 in British Columbia and prescribed cetuximab or panitumumab were reviewed to describe patterns of use of oral antibiotics and steroid creams. Using Cox regression, the relationship between prophylactic versus reactive rash management and OS was characterized. RESULTS: A total 119 patients were analyzed: median age was 63 years, 61 % were male, 34 % received cetuximab, 66 % received panitumumab, and median number of EGFR inhibitor treatment was nine cycles. Rash occurred in >90 % of patients, and reactive was favored over prophylactic treatment (66 vs. 34 %). Older patients and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0/1 were more likely to receive prophylactic creams (44 vs. 20 % for age <60, p = 0.01) and oral antibiotics (62 vs. 12 % for ECOG ≥2, p = 0.01), respectively. Median OS was 7.0 months. The number of treatment cycles and OS were similar in both prophylactic and reactive groups (both p > 0.05). In Cox regression, ECOG >2 correlated with worse survival (hazard ratio (HR) 22.01, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 5.25-92.30, p < 0.01). However, survival outcomes were similar between patients prescribed antibiotics prophylactically versus reactively (HR = 1.10, 95 % CI 0.43-2.80, p = 0.85), and steroid creams prophylactically versus reactively (HR = 2.00, 95 % CI 0.58-6.92, p = 0.27). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic treatment of EGFR-inhibitor-related rashes is associated with similar outcomes compared to reactive rash treatment in mCRC.

Comparative adherence to oral hormonal agents in older women with breast cancer.

We aim to (1) compare compliance of anastrozole, letrozole, exemestane, and tamoxifen in women and (2) identify clinical factors associated with medication non-adherence and non-persistence. Female Medicare beneficiaries who were new users of anastrozole, letrozole, exemestane, or tamoxifen between 2007 and 2010 were analyzed. Multivariate-modified Poisson and Cox regression models were constructed to compare non-adherence and non-persistence, respectively, across the different oral agents. A total of 5,150 women were included: mean age was 76.4 years, 2352 initiated anastrozole, 1401 letrozole, 248 exemestane, and 1149 tamoxifen. Non-adherence and non-persistence were 41 and 49% respectively, with exemestane being associated with the worst non-adherence and non-persistence (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.37-1.80, p < 0.001; HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.63-2.30, respectively, p < 0.001), followed by letrozole (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.26-1.53, p < 0.001; HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.32-1.64, respectively, p < 0.001), and anastrozole (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.27, p = 0.003; HR 1.14, 95%CI 1.03-1.27, respectively, p = 0.011), whereas tamoxifen was associated with the best compliance. Use of statins and osteoporosis medications was correlated with improved adherence (RR 0.89, 95 % CI 0.82-0.96, p = 0.002 and RR 0.84, 95 % CI 0.76-0.92, p < 0.001, respectively, for non-adherence) and persistence (HR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.79-0.94, p < 0.001 and HR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.78-0.96, p = 0.005, respectively, for non-persistence), but chronic kidney disease was correlated with worse non-persistence (HR 1.15, 95 % CI 1.04-1.33, p = 0.04). Age ≥ 70 years was also associated with worse compliance. Compliance to oral hormonal therapy varied depending on the type of agent, age, and concurrent medications, highlighting specific opportunities to improve adherence and persistence in older women with breast cancer.

Impact of aprepitant on emesis control, dose intensity, and recurrence-free survival in a population-based cohort of head and neck cancer patients receiving high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Standard care for locally advanced head and neck cancer (HNC) patients consists of high-dose cisplatin with radiation to prolong recurrence-free survival (RFS). However, poorly controlled emesis can compromise optimal dose intensity (DI) and affect disease control. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of aprepitant on emesis control, DI, and RFS. METHODS: HNC patients treated at the British Columbia Cancer Agency were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier method and adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate RFS in aprepitant users. To control for selection bias, a propensity score analysis was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 192 HNC patients were included: 141 received aprepitant prophylaxis. The aprepitant-treated and untreated groups were comparable in mean age (56.3 vs 58.1 years), male gender (82.3% vs 86.3%), tumor location, and number of metastatic sites. However, more patients in the aprepitant group than in the untreated group had surgically resectable disease (31.2% vs 15.7%, respectively) and better performance status (ECOG 0/1, 87.9% vs 76.4%). Less emesis was reported in the aprepitant group (21.3% vs 28.0%). Patients in the treated group were also more likely to complete 3 cycles of high-dose cisplatin (OR, 2.3; P = .03). The propensity score adjusted Cox regression analysis suggested a reduced risk of disease recurrence in patients who received aprepitant (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.17- 1.28). LIMITATIONS: Potential confounders such as other diseases or treatments that may have influenced the presence of nausea/emesis symptoms. CONCLUSION: Aprepitant contributed to improved emesis control, enhanced DI, and better adherence to cisplatin chemotherapy.