The role of rurality in cancer treatment disruptions among patients with cancer diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2: An analysis of the ASCO Survey on COVID-19 in Oncology Registry.

Abstract

6554 Background: U.S. rural cancer patients experience multifactorial barriers to cancer treatment; however, little is known about the impact of the pandemic on cancer treatment delays or discontinuations (TDD) in the rural context. Our objective was to evaluate the role of rurality at both the patient and clinic level on cancer TDD among patients living with cancer with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: We used data from the ASCO Survey on COVID-19 in Oncology Registry (March 2020-July 2021), which includes cancer patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 (n = 3193). Data included patient demographics, SARS-CoV-2 treatment, cancer characteristics, and modifications to cancer treatment plans. Cancer-related TDD was defined as any treatment postponed > two weeks from the original scheduled date. Rurality was defined using the USDA Rural-Urban Commuting Area schema. We compared cancer characteristics, COVID-19 outcomes, and TDD by rurality of cancer patients, and TDD by rurality of oncology practices. We computed adjusted odds ratios (aOR) using multivariable logistic regression to evaluate rurality with TDD adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, sex, comorbidities, ECOG score, cancer extent, pandemic time period based on case peaks ( < 06/2020, 06-12/2020, 01-07/2021), and COVID-19 severity. Results: Rural cancer patients (n = 499, 16%) with SARS-CoV-2 were mostly over 50 years (87%), female (57%), and NH-White (81%) with solid tumors (76%). Most rural patients received oncology treatment in urban areas (65%, p < 0.001). Rural patients were less likely to receive care through telemedicine (18%) compared to urban patients (26%) (p < 0.001). At SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, rural patients were scheduled to receive drug-based therapy (72%), radiation therapy (8%), surgery (4%), or transplant (1%). Rural versus urban cancer patients with SARS-CoV-2 were less likely to experience TDD (41% vs. 51%) (p < 0.001). Among patients treated at rural oncology clinics, urban cancer patients were more likely to experience TDD (65%) compared with rural patients (47%) (p < 0.001). Similarly, among patients treated at urban oncology clinics, urban cancer patients were also more likely to experience TDD (51%) compared with rural patients (38%) (p < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, rural cancer patients were 28% less likely to experience TDD (aOR:0.72, 95% CI: 0.55-0.94) than urban cancer patients. Oncology practice rurality was not associated with TDD (aOR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.81-1.76). Conclusions: Rural cancer patients were less likely to experience TDD than urban patients supporting the urban-rural paradox i.e., geographic distance to cancer care facilities is not consistently associated with treatment delivery in expected ways. Future work should focus on area-level factors of the rural cancer patient experience to disentangle potential reasons for TDD during the pandemic.