Cancer Care Delivery Research Articles

Global Disparities of Cancer and Its Projected Burden in 2050

Cancer prevention and care efforts have been challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic and armed conflicts, resulting in a decline in the global Human Development Index (HDI), particularly in low- and middle-income countries. These challenges and subsequent shifts in health care priorities underscore the need to continuously monitor cancer outcome disparities and statistics globally to ensure delivery of equitable and optimal cancer prevention and care in uncertain times. To measure the global burden of 36 cancers in 2022 by sex, age, and geographic location and to project future trends by 2050. This cross-sectional study used population-based data from 2022 in 185 countries and territories were obtained from the Global Cancer Observatory database. Data extraction and analysis were carried out in April 2024. Counts, rates, prevalence, mortality to incidence ratios (MIRs), and demography-based projections were used to characterize current and future cancer burden. This population-based study included 36 cancer types from 185 countries and territories. By 2050, 35.3 million cancer cases worldwide are expected, a 76.6% increase from the 2022 estimate of 20 million. Similarly, 18.5 million cancer deaths are projected by 2050, an 89.7% increase from the 2022 estimate of 9.7 million. Cancer cases and deaths are projected to nearly triple in low-HDI countries by 2050, compared to a moderate increase in very high-HDI countries (142.1% vs 41.7% for cancer cases and 146.1% vs 56.8% for cancer deaths). Males had a higher incidence and greater number of deaths in 2022 than females, with this disparity projected to widen by up to 16.0% in 2050. In 2022, the MIR for all cancers was 46.6%, with higher MIRs observed for pancreatic cancer (89.4%), among males (51.7%), among those aged 75 years or older (64.3%), in low-HDI countries (69.9%), and in the African region (67.2%). In this cross-sectional study based on data from 2022, cancer disparities were evident across HDI, geographic regions, age, and sex, with further widening projected by 2050. These findings suggest that strengthening access to and quality of health care, including universal health insurance coverage, is key to providing evidence-based cancer prevention, diagnostics, and care.

Perspectives on Telemedicine Visits Reported by Patients With Cancer.

The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed rapid adoption of telemedicine visits for cancer care delivery. However, patients' experiences with telemedicine remain poorly understood. To understand patients' satisfaction with telemedicine visits at a comprehensive cancer center. This survey study included patients with cancer at a US cancer center between 2020 and 2023. Eligible patients completed surveys in English conducted after their first telemedicine appointment via an online patient portal. Data were analyzed between January and June 2024. Patient surveys about telemedicine experiences, with a specific comparison with an in-person visit. Structured items elicited satisfaction with the specific visit, preferences for future use of telemedicine, and technical ease of use; unstructured free-text responses were also elicited. Proportion of patients who indicated that telemedicine visits were superior or preferred to in-person visits. Secondary outcomes included multivariable analysis of barriers to telemedicine use and variations in patient experiences by demographic characteristics over the observation period, and free-text analysis of unstructured responses describing the telemedicine experience using the BERTopic algorithm and a language model. A total of 27 435 telemedicine users completed surveys from May 2020 to October 2023 (median [IQR] age, 65 [55-72] years; 15 072 female [54.9%]; 1771 Asian [6.7%], 1339 Black [5.1%], 22 742 White [85.9%]). Overall, 18 025 of 24 418 patients (73.8%) rated their first telemedicine visit as good as or better than an in-person visit, and 4606 (18.9%) rated it superior to an in-person visit. The proportion of patients rating a telemedicine visit superior to an in-person visit evolved from 17% in 2020 to 20% in 2023. Structured questions revealed a positive view of telemedicine, while free-text analyses highlighted issues with technology. In this survey study of perspectives on telemedicine visits, a large majority of patients at a comprehensive cancer center expressed satisfaction with telemedicine visits in proportions that remained consistent beyond the end of the pandemic. These findings challenge health care systems to integrate telemedicine into routine cancer care and to overcome remaining technical challenges and barriers to ease of use.

Expectations for gynaecological cancer nursing guidance development: A qualitative exploration: Part 1 – Creating foundational support

PurposeNurses are acknowledged as essential in the delivery of best practice gynaecological cancer care however previous studies have identified challenges in these nursing roles. Recommendations include the development of nursing guidance focused on supporting people with a gynaecological cancer. This study aimed to explore perceptions and expectations for the development of a gynaecological cancer nursing guidance resource in Australia and investigate preferred design and content inclusion. This paper presents the findings on expectations for the resource purpose. MethodsUtilising an exploratory qualitative descriptive design, 20 nurses and seven people with lived experience of gynaecological cancer participated in focus groups or interviews following a semi-structured interview guide. Transcripts underwent inductive content analysis. ResultsAll 27 participants identified as female, lived in one of 5 Australian states, included representation from regional locations (n=9, 33%), and mostly identified as Australian or mixed Australian ethnicity (n=25, 93%). The major theme, “Foundational support resource for nurses”, described how participants require a resource to support the delivery of gynaecological cancer nursing care. Participants articulated their goals for the resource through four subthemes: reducing variation in care; acknowledging diversity in nursing roles; addressing barriers; supporting development. ConclusionThe development of a guidance resource for gynaecological cancer nursing is supported by Australian gynaecological cancer nurses and people with cancer lived experience. It is expected its implementation will assist to improve cancer outcomes, equitable access to quality care and support the development and sustainability of the gynaecological cancer nursing workforce.

Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Risk Prediction Model Development to Support Cancer Care Delivery: A Scoping Review.

The integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into electronic health records (EHRs) has enabled systematic collection of symptom data to manage post-treatment symptoms. The use and integration of PRO data into routine care are associated with overall treatment success, adherence, and satisfaction. Clinical trials have demonstrated the prognostic value of PROs including physical function and global health status in predicting survival. It is unknown to what extent routinely collected PRO data are used in the development of risk prediction models (RPMs) in oncology care. The objective of the scoping review is to assess how PROs are used to train risk RPMs to predict patient outcomes in oncology care. Using the scoping review methodology outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis, we searched four databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science) to locate peer-reviewed oncology articles that used PROs as predictors to train models. Study characteristics including settings, clinical outcomes, and model training, testing, validation, and performance data were extracted for analyses. Of the 1,254 studies identified, 18 met inclusion criteria. Most studies performed retrospective analyses of prospectively collected PRO data to build prediction models. Post-treatment survival was the most common outcome predicted. Discriminative performance of models trained using PROs was better than models trained without PROs. Most studies did not report model calibration. Systematic collection of PROs in routine practice provides an opportunity to use patient-reported data to develop RPMs. Model performance improves when PROs are used in combination with other comprehensive data sources.

Cancer care treatment attrition in adults: Measurement approaches and inequities in patient dropout rates – a rapid review

BackgroundCancer treatment attrition refers to the discontinuation of prescribed cancer therapies before completion. It can significantly impact patient outcomes and cancer survival rates making it a critical concern. There is growing evidence on inequalities in cancer care, the avoidable systematic differences in the health of different groups of people. Understanding the extent of treatment attrition, why it happens, for whom, and associated inequalities may improve cancer care delivery and patient outcomes.MethodsA rapid review was conducted to identify existing evidence on measures of cancer treatment attrition, definitions, reasons for attrition and potential inequalities. The review followed a systematic approach but with abbreviated processes to facilitate quicker evidence synthesis. Searches were restricted to MEDLINE and Embase databases from their inception dates to May 7, 2024. Additional searches were performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, and key grey literature from relevant organizations. Inclusion criteria were adults with any type of cancer undergoing treatment, with studies reporting quantitative or qualitative data on treatment attrition conducted outside of clinical trials. Exclusion criteria included studies on children or adolescents, clinical trials, non-English publications, and various non-research article types. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed using standardized tools, and studies were synthesized narratively.ResultsThe search retrieved 1,353 references, with 40 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Most studies were retrospective. Studies covered various cancer types and treatments, reporting measures of attrition and reasons for treatment drop-out. Factors influencing attrition included disease progression, death, clinical deterioration, treatment toxicity, and socioeconomic factors such as lower income or socioeconomic disadvantage.ConclusionsThis review highlights significant variability in how treatment attrition is measured and defined, and suggests potential inequalities in who discontinues treatment. Standardized measures of attrition and data collection on reasons for discontinuation are essential to improve cancer care outcomes and equity. Future research should focus on developing these standardized metrics and exploring interventions targeting identified disparities to support cancer patients to complete treatment and improve outcomes.

The Management of Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer in a Veteran Patient Population: Issues and Recommendations

The ability of the Veterans Health Administration System to care for veterans with bladder cancer is influenced by the increased complexity of both veterans and the system’s capacity to do so, which is determined by personnel and equipment allocation. Herein, we review the guidelines for bladder cancer management in the context of this population and highlight unique veteran characteristics that impact the delivery of bladder cancer care within the Veterans Health Administration System. There are opportunities for standardization and implementation, which can improve the quality of this care, and we summarize the questions for which coordinated research efforts may provide answers.

The role of communication in the successful implementation of the Slovenian NCCP

Abstract Issue Cancer remains a significant global public health challenge, necessitating comprehensive strategies for effective control and management. Slovenian National Cancer Control Programme (NCCP) addresses this challenge by prioritizing proactive communication with various stakeholders engaged in cancer care planning, delivery and advocacy. The communication strategy within this programme plays a pivotal role in its successful implementation. Description of the problem Active engagement and collaboration among stakeholders is crucial for achieving the programme’s objectives. NCCP seeks to address this challenge through various communication activities by fostering dialogue, sharing best practices, and facilitating networking opportunities among oncology professionals throughout Slovenia. Additionally, it seeks to strengthen partnerships with sectors beyond health and prioritizes engagement with cancer patient advocacy groups. Results The programme has devised a long-term communication strategy, guiding annual communication plans to engage stakeholders and foster support for its objectives. Notable communication activities in the period 2022-2024 include: organizing annual meetings for different oncology stakeholders including cancer patient associations, hosting impactful professional events, conducting visits to regional cancer hospitals, distributing e-newsletters and managing a NCCP website. Initial outcomes indicate strengthened communication and collaboration among professionals and institutions in the field of oncology nationwide. Engagement with patient advocacy groups has facilitated discussions on topics important to patients. Lessons Effective communication with diverse stakeholders is crucial for comprehensive cancer control. Collaborating across sectors enhances the impact of cancer control initiatives. Enhanced networking fosters innovation and synergy among oncology professionals, positioning Slovenia for greater success in cancer control. Key messages • Slovenia’s NCCP prioritizes proactive communication, fostering collaboration among stakeholders. Annual events, newsletter, and partnerships strengthen awareness and drive comprehensive cancer control. • Long-term communication strategy of Slovenia’s NCCP drives stakeholder engagement, and supports strategic objectives. This proactive approach strengthens comprehensive cancer control efforts.

Research Priorities of the Oncology Nursing Society: 2024-2027.

To define the Oncology Nursing Society Research Agenda for 2024-2027. An iterative, multiple data sources consolidation through the Research Agenda Project Team. Previous research priorities, literature review, stakeholder survey, and research priorities from other cancer care organizations and funding agencies. 10 evergreen statements articulated foundational values for oncology nurse scientists, and 5 topics emerged as research priorities for the upcoming three years: Advance patient-centric, precision symptom science; provide evidence for safe and effective cancer care delivery models and support of the oncology nursing workforce; describe the impact of the environment on cancer care outcomes; integrate patient navigation into cancer care across the trajectory; and advance the use of innovative methodologies in oncology nursing research. The Oncology Nursing Society Research Agenda is an effective resource for directing the organization's research vision. This foundational document directs funding awards and requests, mentorship, and policy initiatives.

Differences in Surgical Cancer Care Delivery and Outcomes Between Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Hospitals in the United States: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.

Studies evaluating the association of safety-net hospitals (SNHs) with outcomes of surgical care in cancer patients have demonstrated mixed results. We sought to systematically investigate the association of SNH status with measures of surgical cancer care delivery and outcomes. A comprehensive review of the literature identified from the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute's tool. The findings were synthesized qualitatively. Of the 1749 records identified, 33 retrospective studies were included, 79% of which investigated national databases. Risk of bias assessment revealed average score of 78%. Among studies assessing each outcome, lower likelihood of receiving appropriate surgical interventions in SNH patients was reported by 85%; longer intervals to surgery by 100%; and prolonged hospital stays by 73%. Most studies reported no differences in survival (65%) or readmission (67%). Results were mixed regarding complications and mortality. Patient characteristics and shortage of resources and interdisciplinary teams were frequently proposed factors for observed disparities. Cancer patients at SNHs may be less likely to undergo some surgical treatments and experience longer intervals to treatment but achieve largely comparable short- and long-term outcomes to non-SNH patients.

Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis: One Decade Later.

In 2012, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a committee charged with addressing the quality of cancer care in the United States and providing recommendations to policymakers and the cancer care community on strategies to improve cancer care delivery from the time of diagnosis through end-of-life. The resulting committee report, titled Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis (2013), presented a conceptual framework that included six interconnected components of care with corresponding recommendations. Over the past decade, the delivery of high-quality of cancer care has become more challenging and increasingly demanding on the workforce. In this manuscript, we review the goals and recommendations made in 2013, describe progress to date, and offer insights into future dedicated efforts and/or new strategies needed to achieve high-quality cancer care.

Cancer care delivery in prisons: From barriers to best practices.

49 Background: Cancer is the leading cause of death in US prisons. Incarcerated patients with cancer have 92% higher 5-year mortality than the general population with cancer, but little is known about how to improve cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment in this high-risk population. Methods: We conducted interviews with state prison medical directors and primary care clinicians, and medical, radiation and gynecologic oncologists who coordinate or provide cancer care for individuals incarcerated in prison. Participants were recruited via 1) email invitation to participants at a correctional health conference, 2) purposeful sampling using targeted emails to clinicians in prison systems selected for diversity in size, geography and correctional health model (e.g., contracted care), and 3) snowball sampling of individuals from research and participant networks. Participants were interviewed about 1) logistics of cancer care delivery from screening and treatment through end-of-life care, 2) barriers and facilitators to cancer care delivery, and 3) evidence-based strategies to facilitate cancer care in prisons, including best practices. Interview transcripts were analyzed using mixed inductive/deductive thematic content analysis to identify emerging themes. Results: 34 participants from 16 prison systems were interviewed (10 medical directors, 6 PCPs, 14 oncologists, 4 other). Participants reported prison clinicians coordinate most cancer care (e.g., screening, diagnosis and symptom management), while cancer treatment largely occurs in community or academic facilities outside of prison. Common barriers identified included underscreening / delays in diagnosis, complex logistical coordination, poor communication (between patients and oncologists, and prison clinicians and oncologists), inadequate symptom management, dehumanizing practices, loss-to-follow-up after release and that patients often come from marginalized populations. Common facilitators were better access to insurance, cancer screening, and general medical and cancer care than incarcerated patients might receive before/after incarceration. Participants identified multiple ways to improve cancer screening (creating enforceable standards, increasing continuing medical education, implementing electronic medical record reminders, reducing logistical barriers), cancer treatment (implementing navigators within prisons and cancer centers, prioritizing care with oncologist input, keeping care in prisons, decarceration), and transitions to the community (Medicaid activation prior to release, community partnerships to facilitate care transitions). Conclusions: Incarceration imposes multiple barriers to cancer care delivery, but clinicians identified numerous tools to improve cancer care in prison. Future studies should test and optimize these strategies to improve cancer outcomes for incarcerated patients.

Influence of an AYA cancer program on cancer care delivery.

4 Background: Adolescent and young adults (AYAs, aged 13-39) with cancer face barriers to care and stagnant survival outcomes. The University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill's AYA Cancer Program, established in 2015, aims to address these challenges. The program operates through both consultations and targeted outreach based on patient risk-stratification, offering services such as fertility counseling, enhanced access to clinical trial enrollment, a dedicated sarcoma palliative care collaborative, survivorship clinic, and psychosocial support. AYA program providers work with patients to create tailored care plans that meet AYAs' psychosocial and medical needs. To better understand the reach and impact of this novel care delivery approach, we performed a retrospective cohort study over the 8-year period of program development. Methods: Using linked electronic health record (EHR) and State Cancer Registry data, we performed a retrospective cohort study of AYA patients at UNC from 2014-2022, comparing sociodemographic and clinical criteria between those with and without AYA Cancer Program contact. Our analysis included outcomes of care utilization, complications, and supportive care measures. Using SMR propensity weighting with multivariable log binomial modeling, we evaluated associations between outcomes and AYA program contact. Factors such as age at diagnosis, race, sex, insurance status, cancer site, metastatic disease, and receipt of systemic therapy were considered in the weighting scheme. Results: Of 4,016 AYAs receiving cancer care at UNC, 670 had contact with our program. Program-engaged patients were younger at diagnosis, more likely to be Black, and had higher rates of metastatic disease or hematologic malignancies. In weighted model analyses, program patients were more likely to receive guideline recommended care, including enrollment in a clinical trial, receipt of fertility counseling and palliative care, and documented advanced care planning. Over time, our program's reach expanded from 6% to more than 25% of the total AYA population. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that AYAs contacted by our program through a consult-based, targeted outreach model represent a distinct population with higher clinical needs. Despite this complexity, they were more likely to receive guideline-recommended care, including clinical trial enrollment, fertility counseling, and palliative care. Care delivery outcomes by program contact. No Program Contact (n= 3346) Program Contact (n=670) Clinical Trial Enrollment 882 (26.4%) 301 (44.9%) 1.31 (1.14, 1.49) Fertility Counseling 77 (2.3%) 119 (17.8%) 2.09 (1.56, 2.80) Palliative Care 102 (3.0%) 125 (18.7%) 3.46 (2.44, 4.91) Advanced Care Planning 176 (5.3%) 91 (13.6%) 1.55 (1.14, 2.11)

Disparities in the utilization of supportive care medications among older adults with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

51 Background: Inequities in cancer care delivery can profoundly affect access to high-quality treatments and patient outcomes. Supportive care medication use is important for preserving quality of life in older adults with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Whether there are differences in supportive care medication use by race and sex is unknown. Our objectives were to assess the racial/ethnic and biological sex inequities in use of treatments for pain, depression, and pancreatic insufficiency-related treatments (PERT) among older adults with PDAC. Methods: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database, to identify Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older diagnosed with metastatic PDAC from January 2008 to December 2019. We included those continuously enrolled in Medicare prescription drug benefits in the 6 months before and month of diagnosis. Any use of opioid pain medications, antidepressants, and PERT was identified from diagnosis to the end of the study period (at death, disenrollment, or 12 months). Multivariable regression was used to compare supportive care medications use by racial/ethnic and biological sex groups. Results: There were 29,509 individuals in our sample, with12.9% Black patients, 3.9% Hispanic patients, and 83.2% White patients. The mean age was 76.5 (SD: 7.4) years. Mean follow-up time was 135.4 (SD:117.7) days overall, with the shortest follow-up among Black patients 124 (SD:111.1) days and longest for White patients 137.5 (SD: 118.8) days. Antidepressants were used by 23.8%, opioids by 60.3%, and PERT by 12.4% overall. Within race groups there were limited differences in medication use by sex. However, we observed differences in supportive care treatment use by race and ethnicity. Specifically, relative to White individuals, those who identified as Black were 20% less likely (adjusted risk ratio [aRR]: 0.8, 95% CI:0.74-0.85) to receive antidepressants, 14% less likely to receive opioids (aRR: 0.86, 95% CI:0.84-0.89), and 41% less likely to receive PERT (aRR: 0.59, 95% CI:0.53-0.65). Similar patterns were observed for patients of Hispanic ethnicity, with those individuals being 12% less likely (adjusted risk ratio[aRR]: 0.88, 95% CI:0.89-0.98) to receive antidepressants, 9% less likely to receive opioids (aRR: 0.91, 95% CI:0.87-0.96), and 42% less likely to receive PERT (aRR: 0.58, 95% CI:0.47-0.70). Conclusions: Our preliminary data showed differences in the uptake of supportive care drugs among Black and Hispanic patients relative to White patients. Specifically, these individuals were less likely to start opioid pain medications, antidepressants, and pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy compared to their White counterparts. These findings highlight potential gaps in treatment use that may better support patients facing life-limiting illnesses.

Baseline practice-level financial screening processes and resources among Children’s Oncology Group National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Programs (NCORP).

34 Background: Financial toxicity is an increasingly recognized and prevalent adverse effect during cancer treatment. Systematic financial screening is recommended for families of children with cancer, and emerging data support the importance of system-level support and interventions to mitigate financial toxicity. Financial distress is a key, measurable domain of financial toxicity. Methods: To inform interventions for pediatric oncology settings, we are conducting ACCL20N1CD, a Children’s Oncology Group (COG) prospective, multilevel observational study among NCORP practices in the US, to determine the risk and trajectory for financial distress in guardians of children with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia. We analyzed baseline survey data from COG NCORP practices that enrolled at least one parent. Data were collected via REDCap following the practice’s first parent enrollment. We describe practice participation patterns, current approaches to financial screening, and available resources to address identified needs including navigation. Results: Of 50 eligible COG NCORP practices, 40 (80%) activated the study, and 28 (56%) enrolled at least 1 participant and thus, completed the survey. Most (61%) of these practices treated 50-99 new pediatric oncology patients annually; 10 (36%) enrolled at least 5 participants in ACCL20N1CD. Twenty (71%) reported that their practice routinely conducted financial screening in addition to insurance assessment; 15 (75%) of these 20 practices conducted financial screening at more than one timepoint. Social workers were primarily responsible for screening (16/20; 80%). Only three practices (3/28; 11%) used a standardized financial screening tool. Most practices had access to a private foundation/organization (25/28, 89%), institutional support (23/28, 82%), or local referrals to organizations (22/28, 78%) that provided financial support for patients/families. Fewer practices had patient navigators (9/28, 32%), financial navigators (8/28, 28%), or legal advocates (3/28, 11%) available to assist families. Conclusions: Though most COG practices treating children of parents enrolled in 20N1CD conduct financial screening, processes are not standardized, and resources available to address identified needs and potentially mitigate financial toxicity vary. Further, these data represent enrolling sites which may overestimate screening practices within COG NCORP practices. Variations in financial screening procedures and lack of individual-level resources to facilitate screening may impact delivery of equitable high-quality cancer care across NCORP COG practices. Clinical trial information: NCT04928599 .

Addressing Latinx cancer care equity program for long-term united skills building (ALCANCE-PLUS): Updated results from an ongoing implementation.

151 Background: Addressing Latinx Cancer Care Equity - Program for Long-term United Skills Building (ALCANCE-PLUS) is an ongoing community-academic partnership between the Stanford University School of Medicine Partnerships to Advance Care and Pacific Cancer Care (PCC). The partnership began in 2019 and is comprised of several community-identified multi-level interventions to improve cancer health equity in an undeserved, rural migrant farm-working community. The intervention components are delivered by trained community health workers to low-income and racial and ethnic minoritized patients receiving active cancer treatment and include: 1) precision medicine education using literacy- and language-concordant educational tools; 2) food insecurity screening and intervention with plans to cross-train > 150 CHW's across the county to expand cancer screening and care delivery in the county. Here, we describe the characteristics of participants and the program's impact to date on metrics identified by the community. Methods: ALCANCE-PLUS eligibility includes: all patients with cancer actively receiving cancer-directed treatment at PCC who are ≥ 18 years old and speak English or Spanish. Community identified metrics of success include: % treatment adherence (completion), no-show rate, days from diagnosis to treatment, and % who received clinical trials education as compared to baseline (prior to program start). We used descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests to compare metrics of participants in the program to baseline. Results: At baseline, 62% of low-income and racial and ethnic minoritized patients in the county completed treatment, 35% had no-shows to clinic or infusion appointments with an average of 82.7 days from diagnosis to treatment and only 15% received clinical trial education. From July 2022 to May 2024, a total of 164 patients participated in the program. Mean ages were 60.88 ± 14.55, 68 (41.5%) identified as male, 104 (63.4%) as Hispanic or Latino, 2 (1.2%) African American or Black, 12 (7.3%) Asian American, 2 (1.2%) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders, and 60 (36.6%) White. Insurance types included 63 (25.6%) patients with Medicaid, 56 (22.6) with Medicare, 13 (5.2%) with both, 72 (29%) with private insurance, and 7 (2.8%) with other insurance or uninsured. As of January 2024, treatment adherence was 100% for the 157 program participants, the average time from diagnosis to treatment dropped from 82.7 days county-wide pre-program to 30 days among enrolled participants, all participants received clinical trial education, and 38 (24.2%) were actively participating in a clinical trial. Conclusions: Community-academic partnerships to co-design and implement approaches to overcome community-identified needs for marginalized populations are essential to achieve cancer health equity.

Interventions to reduce racial/ethnic disparities across the breast cancer care continuum.

160 Background: In the United States, racial/ethnic disparities in adoption of breast cancer evidence-based practices (EBPs) persist along the cancer care continuum. This scoping review applied an implementation science lens to describe the current evidence base for interventions to reduce disparities, synthesizing evidence on effective interventions while highlighting gaps in the literature. Methods: A formalized search strategy identified USA-based interventional studies aiming to improve adoption of an EBP along the breast cancer care continuum among racially/ethnically minoritized patients. Relevant articles from 1/2010 - 8/2022 (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus) were included. For each article, two reviewers screened and extracted data, with a third resolving discrepancies. The PRISMA-ScR checklist and JBO Manual for Evidence Synthesis framework were followed. Results: Our search strategy yielded 45,215 articles. After applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, 59 articles were retained, targeting screening (85%, 50 of 59), treatment (12%, 7 of 59), and survivorship (5%, 3 of 59) (2 targeted multiple areas). No articles targeted end-of-life care. Of these, 49% (29 of 59) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Among 24 screening RCTs, the most common interventions—and fraction with statistically significant improved screening uptake—were patient navigation (100%, 11 of 11) and patient education (80%, 4 of 5). Among 4 treatment RCTs, 3 targeted adjuvant chemotherapy uptake. Of these, 1 had significant improvements and used patient navigation. The 2 studies without significant improvements used a patient tracking tool/alert system or patient education. Among 2 survivorship RCTs, one used email interventions, resulting in significantly improved physical activity and dietary health. A second used a nurse-facilitated internet support group, resulting in significantly improved physical/psychological symptoms. Early to mid-stage implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, or fidelity) were commonly measured (81%, 48 of 59). No study measured later stage implementation outcomes (sustainability or costs). Conclusions: In multiple studies, patient navigation and education improved breast cancer screening among racially/ethnically minoritized populations. In one study, patient navigation improved completion of adjuvant treatment. Despite these studies, patient navigation is not reimbursed for cancer screening, and adoption has not been widespread. Future studies should focus on evaluating and improving later stage implementation outcomes (sustainability and costs). Based on these results, insurance reimbursement mechanisms for screening-related navigation may be warranted. Future breast cancer care delivery disparities research should also be expanded to include treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life care.

Insurance coverage for AYAs at cancer diagnosis: A claims-based analysis.

105 Background: Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs), aged 15-39, experience unique challenges in cancer care. Frequent health insurance gaps for this population due to age, employment, and living changes hinder effective care and outcome assessments. Uninsured AYAs have lower survival rates, and insurance disparities are notable among Black, Hispanic, and rural patients; however, patterns of enrollment among AYAs have not been well described. Our study examined these patterns using insurance claims data to better inform AYA cancer care and outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study with the Cancer Information and Population Health Resource (CIPHR), a linkage of cancer registry data and private and public payer data in North Carolina, including Medicaid and over 70% of the private insurance market. We included patients aged 15-39 diagnosed with common AYA cancers (leukemia, lymphoma, breast cancer, melanoma, sarcoma, germ cell tumors) from 2003-2019, linked to claims from 2003-2020. We analyzed insurance coverage patterns, comparing continuous enrollment 1) from two months pre-diagnosis to 12 months post-diagnosis and 2) from the month of diagnosis through 12 months. We compared demographics, clinical characteristics, and insurance types across scenarios. Results: The full cancer registry cohort included 21,060 AYAs; 11,024 (52.3%) had no link to Medicaid or private insurance in the year of cancer diagnosis. Continuous enrollment was 4,707 (22.4%) from two months prior through 12 months after, increasing to 5,912 (28.1%) for month of diagnosis through 12 months, particularly among Medicaid beneficiaries (from 10.8% to 15.6% of total cohort). Less restrictive criteria increased representation among Black (from 29.1% to 38.5%) and rural patients (from 25.2% to 33.1%) and those with leukemia (25.2% to 33.8%) and lymphoma (24.0% to 31.0%). Conclusions: AYAs face substantial hurdles with discontinuous insurance coverage around their cancer diagnosis. Claims-based research can characterize cancer care delivery, and use of less restrictive eligibility criteria expands the generalizability of findings to a more diverse cohort of AYAs. Increasing health insurance coverage over time may be due to the Affordable Care Act. Medicaid expansion within our state is likely to further improve access for AYAs. Continued efforts are essential to help AYAs with cancer secure necessary insurance coverage. Characteristics of AYAs by insurance enrollment criteria. Registry Cohort (n = 21,060) Continuous Enrollment –2 mos to 12 mos (n= 4,707) Continuous Enrollment 0 to 12 mos (n = 5,912) Cancer Type Breast 5817 1345 (23.1%) 1754 (30.2%) Sarcoma 1833 429 (23.4%) 532 (29.0%) Lymphoma 4436 1064 (24.0%) 1374 (31.0%) Leukemia 2393 604 (25.2%) 809 (33.8%) Race/Ethnicity Black 3951 1150 (29.1%) 1521 (38.5%) White 14620 3153 (21.6%) 3886 (26.6%) Hispanic 1296 164 (12.7%) 210 (16.2%) Location Urban 16277 Rural 4728 1190 (25.2%) 1565 (33.1%)

Barriers to Implementing a Quality Improvement Program in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Adequacy of Resources.

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) report disproportionally worse cancer mortality. Current global cancer control efforts focus predominantly on expanding access to multimodality treatment for patients, whereas less attention has been spent on implementing strategies to ensure sustained quality assessment and improvement across the cancer care continuum. The goal of this focused review was to examine specific resource barriers to the development and implementation of quality improvement programs in LMICs. In this article, we use a nonsystematic review process to discuss the existing literature on four resource barriers within the context of cancer care delivery in LMICs, focusing on staff, time allocated for quality improvement work, research infrastructure, and funding. We provide possible solutions to address these barriers and share examples of specific quality improvement initiatives implemented across different world regions. Possible solutions to address these resource barriers include investment in human resources by increasing recruitment and training of the workforce, engagement of medical trainees and patients in quality improvement work, establishment of cancer registries and electronic medical records, and prioritization by large international funding agencies to invest in quality improvement research in LMICs. This review highlights four prevalent resources barriers to quality improvement in LMICs. Using examples from Botswana, Colombia, India, and Rwanda, we demonstrate solutions that may help overcome these barriers.

Effect of streamlining prior authorization processes for systemic cancer treatments on efficiency and financial losses.

412 Background: Prior authorizations (PAs) for systemic cancer treatments are a barrier to timely quality cancer care delivery. The high administrative burden to complete peer to peer’s (P2P) and appeals leads to care delays and revenue losses. At our tertiary academic cancer center, in partnership with our cancer registry and Epic teams, we shifted the clerical work required for PAs from clinicians to certified tumor registrars (CTRs) to increase authorization efficiency and decrease financial losses from denials. Methods: Clinicians place the treatment plan order which goes to the CTR work queue. We leveraged the Epic staging smart form to consolidate and auto-populate common elements needed for PA. The CTRs then complete and validate the form prior to the authorization specialists obtaining the PA. We compared the pre (1/2022-9/2022) and post-implementation (11/2022-4/2024) periods on our primary outcomes: average monthly number of PAs pending review (including P2P, appeals and authorizations requiring clarifying clinical documentation), average monthly denial rate and average time spent on PAs by the authorization specialists. We compared the financial losses from denied PAs from calendar year 2022 to 2023. Analyses were conducted using descriptive statistics. Results: There was a 1.4% reduction in the average monthly number of PA’s pending review (350 vs 345). The average monthly authorized rate was steady from the beginning of the intervention (94%) to present time (95%). The average monthly denial rate was 2.9% at the beginning of the intervention and 0.9% at present time. There was a consistent decrease in the average time a PA was spent in pending review status: 118 hours in 2022, 102 hours in 2023 and 79 hours in quarter 1 of 2024. Despite the overall increase in volume of authorizations submitted, there was an overall cost savings of $27,392,894 from 2022 ($49,964,703) to 2023 ($22,571,809) from the decrease in denials. In 2022, 6.2% of total approved charges were denied and this decreased to 2.7% in 2023. Conclusions: By leveraging the EHR and optimizing existing non-clinical staff workflows, we maintained sustained average authorized and denial rates despite overall volume going up due to improved authorization efficiency and reduced financial losses due to denials. Additionally, there were overall cost savings for the institution due to the decreased percent of denials of total approved charges. Future work will include further refinement of treatment and disease specific optimizations.

Factors associated with colon cancer fragmentation in the Keystone state.

120 Background: Fragmentation of cancer care delivery across multiple providers can impact care quality and patient outcomes. Management of non-metastatic colon cancer often involves adjuvant chemotherapy, which increases the risk of potentially deleterious care dispersion. This study assesses the extent of care fragmentation across different inpatient facilities and examines patient characteristics associated with inpatient care fragmentation. Methods: We adapt the modified Herfindahl-Hirschman market concentration index to construct a Fragmentation Index (FI) capturing the distribution of a patient’s care across inpatient facilities. For patients who underwent oncologic surgery for colon cancer from 2010-2016, we calculate FI for the 15 months post-diagnosis if at least 2 admissions occur during the study period. We use Pennsylvania Cancer Registry data linked to all-payer statewide facility discharge records to estimate the relationship between FI and patient demographics, rurality, area deprivation index (ADI), and payer status using adjusted multivariable linear regression models. Results: For the operative cohort (28.6% Stage I, 34.7% Stage II, 36.7% Stage III, n = 7803), 86% of patients lived in urban areas, 9.5% in large towns and 5% in rural areas. 60% had Medicare, 6.1% Medicaid and 7.1% were uninsured or had unknown payer status. 52% of patients were female and 87% were non-Hispanic White. The overall mean FI was 0.192; 60% (n = 4693) had an FI of 0, indicating all admissions were at the same hospital, and among those with FI> 0 (n = 3110), mean FI was 0.483. The mean FI for patients potentially eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy (Stage II, III) was 0.188: 61% of patients had an FI of 0 and among those with FI > 0 (n = 2173), mean FI was 0.482. Stratification by stage reveals similar proportions of FI > 0.5 (stage I: 24.6%, stage II: 22.3%, stage III: 21.3%). Increased care dispersion was observed in patients from large towns (ΔFI 0.04, CI 0.03—0.06) or rural areas (ΔFI 0.04, CI 0.02—0.08) relative to urban areas, as well as for patients with relatively higher number of hospitalizations (ΔFI 0.04, CI 0.03—0.04). Less care dispersion was seen in patients with stage III disease (relative to stage I ΔFI -0.02, CI -0.03 — -0.01), uninsured status (relative to private insurance ΔFI -0.03, CI -0.05 – -0.01) or residence in the most disadvantaged ADI quartile (relative to Q1 ADI ΔFI -0.02, CI -0.04 — 0.00). Conclusions: Among patients with operatively managed colon cancer, slightly more than half did not experience inpatient care fragmentation. As expected, a higher number of total admissions and non-urban residence were associated with increased inpatient care dispersion. However, our findings of more concentrated care among patients with stage III disease, higher levels of relative economic disadvantage, and uninsured status suggest potentially complex and divergent forces driving hospital selection, to be explored in future work.