Commission On Cancer Research Articles

How Well Are Surgical Quality Improvement Projects Planned? Review of 242 Surgical Improvement Efforts Across Five American College of Surgeons Quality Programs.

Structured preparation is necessary to conduct quality improvement (QI) strategies that are relevant to the problem, feasible, appropriately resourced, and potentially effective. Recent work suggests improvement efforts are sub-optimally conducted. Our goal was to determine how well preparation for surgical QI is undertaken, including detailing the problem, setting project goals, and planning an intervention. This retrospective cross-sectional study included QI efforts submitted in 2019 to the American College of Surgeons (ACS) during review for accreditation across five ACS Quality Programs: Children's Surgery Verification (CSV), the Commission on Cancer (CoC), the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgical Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP), the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC), and the Trauma Verification Program. Projects were scored for alignment with three components of the pre-conduct phase of the ACS Quality Framework: problem detailing, goal specification, and strategic planning. 242 projects satisfied inclusion criteria and were scored. Most projects in the final cohort were from MBSAQIP (36%), CoC (31%), or NAPBC (29%) programs. The average overall pre-conduct score was 52% (Standard Deviation (SD)=17). On average, projects performed best in the 'Goal Specification' component (65% SD=27), followed by 'Problem Detailing' (52% SD=16), and 'Strategic Planning' (44% SD=25). Within these components, identification of possible limitations (5%) and consideration of contextual issues (12%) were among the least frequently reported items. Thorough planning is a critical component of effective QI, and our study reflects significant opportunity for its improvement. The ACS Quality Framework may serve as a guide to improve QI planning, thereby promoting efficiency and effectiveness of these efforts.

Social Vulnerability and Receipt of Guideline-Concordant Care among Patients with Colorectal Cancer.

Cancer outcome disparities have been reported in highly vulnerable communities. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of social vulnerability with receipt of guideline-concordant care (GCC) and mortality risk for patients with colorectal cancer. This retrospective observational study identified patients with stage I-III colon or stage II-III rectal cancer between 2018 and 2020 from the National Program of Cancer Registries Database. Data were merged with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) at the county level. GCC was defined as stage-appropriate lymphadenectomy, radiation therapy, or systemic therapy. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression investigated associations of SVI, as a continuous and categorical variable stratified into quartiles, with GCC and 3-year cancer-specific mortality risk, respectively. Among 124,950 patients (colon, n=102,399; rectal, n=22,551), median SVI was 60.9 (IQR 35.0 to 79.5). Patients in the highest SVI quartile had 21% decreased odds of receiving GCC (95% CI 0.76 - 0.83). Treatment at Commission on Cancer (CoC) accredited hospitals was associated with increased GCC (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.72 - 1.85). Although there was an inverse, decreasing association between SVI and probability of GCC, probability at non-CoC-accredited hospitals declined faster than at CoC-accredited hospitals (p<0.05). After adjusting for receipt of GCC, highly vulnerable patients treated at CoC-accredited hospitals had decreased mortality risk (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.83 - 0.98). For highly vulnerable patients, treatment at CoC-accredited hospitals was associated with increased receipt of GCC and decreased mortality risk, which may reflect CoC-accreditation requirements for treatment guideline adherence, community engagement, and addressing barriers to care.

Hospital Accreditation Status and Treatment Differences Among Black Patients With Colon Cancer

Hospital-level factors, such as hospital type or volume, have been demonstrated to play a role in treatment disparities for Black patients with cancer. However, data evaluating the association of hospital accreditation status with differences in treatment among Black patients with cancer are lacking. To evaluate the association of Commission on Cancer (CoC) hospital accreditation status with receipt of guideline-concordant care and mortality among non-Hispanic Black patients with colon cancer. This population-based cohort study used the National Program of Cancer Registries, which is a multicenter database with data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and covers 97% of the cancer population in the US. The participants included non-Hispanic Black patients aged 18 years or older diagnosed with colon cancer between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. Race and ethnicity were abstracted from medical records as recorded by health care facilities and practitioners. The data were analyzed from December 7, 2023, to January 17, 2024. CoC hospital accreditation. Guideline-concordant care was defined as adequate lymphadenectomy during surgery for patients with stages I to III disease or chemotherapy administration for patients with stage III disease. Multivariable logistic regression models investigated associations with receipt of guideline-concordant care and Cox proportional hazards regression models assessed associations with 3-year cancer-specific mortality. Of 17 249 non-Hispanic Black patients with colon cancer (mean [SD] age, 64.8 [12.8] years; 8724 females [50.6%]), 12 756 (74.0%; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [12.8] years) were treated at a CoC-accredited hospital and 4493 (26.0%; mean [SD] age, 65.1 [12.5] years) at a non-CoC-accredited hospital. Patients treated at CoC-accredited hospitals compared with those treated at non-CoC-accredited hospitals had higher odds of receiving guideline-concordant lymphadenectomy (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.89; 95% CI, 1.69-2.11) and chemotherapy (AOR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.97-2.72). Treatment at CoC-accredited hospitals was associated with lower cancer-specific mortality for patients with stages I to III disease who received surgery (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98) and for patients with stage III disease eligible for chemotherapy (AHR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.96). In this cohort study of non-Hispanic Black patients with colon cancer, patients treated at CoC-accredited hospitals compared with those treated at non-CoC-accredited hospitals were more likely to receive guideline-concordant care and have lower mortality risk. These findings suggest that increasing access to high-quality guideline-concordant care at CoC-accredited hospitals may reduce variations in cancer treatment and outcomes for underserved populations.

Evaluating Quality of Cancer Care in Delaware using Commission on Cancer (CoC) Quality Measures, 2018-2019.

American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) quality measures are used to monitor and evaluate metrics among their CoC-accredited programs, which include seven of Delaware's hospitals. The Delaware Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health (DPH) also utilizes these metrics to monitor and evaluate Delaware's overall performance on these standards of care as it relates to the health care provided to cancer patients. Delaware Cancer Registry (DCR) cases diagnosed in 2018 and 2019 were selected and were analyzed separately to calculate results for each selected measure by year: HT, nBX, LNoSurg, and RECRTCT. Results of the analysis showed that three out of the four CoC quality measures evaluated met the CoC standard of care for both 2018 and 2019 data. The three measures that met the CoC standards for 2018 were HT (90.4%), nBX (87.6%), and LNoSurg (93.3%). The RECRTCT measure did not meet the CoC standard for 2018 data with 71.4%. All four measures evaluated met the CoC standards for 2019 (HT - 91.6%; nBX - 85.2%; LNoSurg - 92.7%; RECRTCT - 92.3%). A majority of cases assessed met the CoC quality measure standards, meeting standards of cancer care and treatment. More discovery work needs to be done to assess the RECRTCT metric to explore reasons why cases did not meet the CoC quality measure standards. There was notable improvement seen for the HT measure over time, where cases had not met the CoC standard in previous years. When CoC quality measures are met, medical providers can ensure patients receive effective and targeted cancer care. This practice ultimately saves resources, reduces cancer burden, impacts survival, and improves public health outcomes.

Assessing Surgeon Familiarity with the Commission on Cancer Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery.

In response to growing evidence that proper performance of operative techniques during cancer surgery is associated with improved patient outcomes, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) implemented six operative standards as part of Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation. This study aimed to assess surgeon familiarity with these standards when first introduced and 2 years after their adoption. The ACS Cancer Surgery Standards Program distributed an anonymous 36-question survey to CoC-accredited cancer programs in 2021 and 2023. Questions specific to operative techniques determined the Surgery Score, and those specific to the accreditation standards determined the Standards Score. Mean scores were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t tests. The survey was completed by 376 surgeons in 2021 and 380 surgeons in 2023. The Surgery Scores were higher than the Standards Scores in 2021 and 2023. The surgeons who practiced at institutions with CoC accreditation had significantly higher Standards Scores than the surgeons at non-accredited institutions in 2021 (p = 0.005) and 2023 (p = 0.004), but not significantly different Surgery Scores. The baseline survey in 2021 demonstrated significant knowledge of technical aspects of cancer surgery among a broad surgeon base, but a need for greater understanding of the accreditation standards. The repeat survey distribution 2 years after rollout of the operative standards and associated educational programing showed increased awareness surrounding the operative standards in 2023 and a trend toward improvement in knowledge of the accreditation standards across all specialties. Further evaluation will be directed toward compliance with the accreditation standards.

The impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for major head and neck oncologic surgery on postoperative complications and adjuvant treatment delivery.

The Commission on Cancer (CoC) recently introduced a quality metric to optimize time between major head and neck surgery and adjuvant treatment (TAT) ≤6 weeks, as TAT delay adversely impacts patient survival. This study evaluates whether enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for this population reduces the rate of postoperative complications, length of stay (LOS), and TAT. Patients undergoing larynx or oral cavity resection with free flap reconstruction, ERAS, and adjuvant treatment after 2018 were compared to a historical pre-ERAS cohort. Patients underwent surgery at a single-institution tertiary referral center for complex head and neck oncology. Differences between groups were compared by chi-square, Fisher's exact, or Wilcoxon rank-sum test. TAT >6 weeks was evaluated with univariate and multivariable logistic regression. Thirty-nine pre-ERAS patients were compared to 39 ERAS patients. No demographic differences existed between groups. LOS was improved with ERAS (p = 0.005). ERAS patients were discharged to home and returned to their activities of daily living (ADL) earlier (p = 0.004, 0.001). ADL recovery was associated with on-time TAT ≤42 days on univariate analysis (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.13-1.63, p = 0.001). TAT delay was less frequent with ERAS (51.3% vs. 69.2%), but this was not significant after multivariable logistic regression (p = 0.11). ERAS decreases LOS and returns advanced head and neck cancer patients to their ADL sooner. Postoperative ADL recovery independently predicts on-time adjuvant treatment. Still, compliance beyond 50% with the TAT ≤6 weeks CoC quality metric remains a major treatment barrier.

Geographic distance to Commission on Cancer-accredited and nonaccredited hospitals in the United States.

The Commission on Cancer (CoC) establishes standards to support multidisciplinary, comprehensive cancer care. CoC-accredited cancer programs diagnose and/or treat 73% of patients in the United States. However, rural patients may experience diminished access to CoC-accredited cancer programs. Our study evaluated distance to hospitals by CoC accreditation status, rurality, and Census Division. All US hospitals were identified from public-use Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data, then merged with CoC-accreditation data. Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC) were used to categorize counties as metro (RUCC 1-3), large rural (RUCC 4-6), or small rural (RUCC 7-9). Distance from each county centroid to the nearest CoC and non-CoC hospital was calculated using the Great Circle Distance method in ArcGIS. Of 1,382 CoC-accredited hospitals, 89% were in metro counties. Small rural counties contained a total of 30 CoC and 794 non-CoC hospitals. CoC hospitals were located 4.0, 10.1, and 11.5 times farther away than non-CoC hospitals for residents of metro, large rural, and small rural counties, respectively, while the average distance to non-CoC hospitals was similar across groups (9.4-13.6 miles). Distance to CoC-accredited facilities was greatest west of the Mississippi River, in particular the Mountain Division (99.2 miles). Despite similar proximity to non-CoC hospitals across groups, CoC hospitals are located farther from large and small rural counties than metro counties, suggesting rural patients have diminished access to multidisciplinary, comprehensive cancer care afforded by CoC-accredited hospitals. Addressing distance-based access barriers to high-quality, comprehensive cancer treatment in rural US communities will require a multisectoral approach.

Cancer Survivorship Care in the United States at Facilities Accredited by the Commission on Cancer

Since 2021, American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation standards require providing a survivorship program for patients with adult-onset cancer treated with curative intent. Since more than 70% of all patients with cancer in the US are treated at CoC-accredited facilities, this presents an opportunity for a landscape analysis of survivorship care availability. To determine the prevalence, types, and outcomes of cancer survivorship services at CoC-accredited facilities. This survey study used an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey conducted from May 4 to 25, 2023. Participants were CoC-accredited facilities in the US representing diverse CoC program categories, institutional characteristics, geographic regions, and practice types. Department of Veterans Affairs cancer programs were excluded due to data usage restrictions. Data were analyzed from July to October 2023. CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8 was released in October 2019 and programs were expected to adhere to the Standard beginning January 1, 2021. Questions included self-reported survivorship program characteristics, availability of services aligned to CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8, and perceived program impacts. Response frequencies and proportions were determined in aggregate and by CoC program category. There were 1400 eligible programs, and 384 programs participated (27.4% response rate). All regions and eligible program categories were represented, and most had analytic caseloads of 500 to 4999 patients in 2021. Most survivorship program personnel included nurses (334 programs [87.0%]) and social workers (278 programs [72.4%]), while physical (180 programs [46.9%]) and occupational (87 programs [22.7%]) therapists were less common. Services most endorsed as available for all survivors were screening for new cancers (330 programs [87.5%]), nutritional counseling (325 programs [85.3%]), and referrals to specialists (320 programs [84.7%]), while treatment summaries (242 programs [64.7%]), and survivorship care plans (173 programs [43.0%]), sexual health (217 programs [57.3%]), and fertility (214 programs [56.9%]) were less common. Survivorship services were usually delivered by cancer treatment teams (243 programs [63.3%]) rather than specialized survivorship clinics (120 programs [31.3%]). For resources needed, additional advanced practice clinicians with dedicated survivorship effort (205 programs [53.4%]) and electronic health record enhancements (185 programs [48.2%]) were most endorsed. Lack of referrals and low patient awareness were endorsed as the primary barriers. A total of 335 programs (87.2%) agreed that Survivorship Standard 4.8 helped advance their programs. These findings of this survey study of CoC-accredited programs establish a benchmark for survivorship care delivery in the US, identify gaps in specific services and opportunities for intervention, contribute to longitudinal reevaluation for tracking progress nationally, and suggest the value of survivorship care standards.

Challenges in collecting information on sexual orientation and gender identity for cancer patients: perspectives of hospital and central cancer registry abstractors.

Sexual and gender minority(SGM) populations experience cancer treatment and survival disparities; however, inconsistent sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data collection within clinical settings and the cancer surveillance system precludes population-based research toward health equity for this population. This qualitative study examined how hospital and central registry abstractors receive and interact with SOGI information and the challenges that they face in doing so. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 abstractors at five Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)registries, as well as seven abstractors from commission on cancer(CoC)-accredited hospital programs in Iowa. Interviews were transcribed, cleaned, and coded using a combination of a priori and emergent codes. These codes were then used to conduct a descriptive analysis and to identify domains across the interviews. Interviews revealed that abstractors had difficulty locating SOGI information in the medical record: this information was largely never recorded, and when included, was inconsistently/not uniformly located in the medical record. On occasion, abstractors reported situational recording of SOGI information when relevant to the patient's cancer diagnosis. Abstractors further noticed that, where reported, the source of SOGI information (i.e., patient, physician) is largely unknown. Efforts are needed to ensure standardized implementation of the collection of SOGI variables within the clinical setting, such that this information can be collected by the central cancer registry system to support population-based equity research addressing LGBTQ + disparities.

Factors Influencing Implementation of the Commission on Cancer’s Breast Synoptic Operative Report (Alliance A20_Pilot9)

BackgroundThe technical aspects of cancer surgery have a significant impact on patient outcomes. To monitor surgical quality, in 2020, the Commission on Cancer (CoC) revised its accreditation standards for cancer surgery and introduced the synoptic operative reports (SORs). The standardization of SORs holds promise, but successful implementation requires strategies to address key implementation barriers. This study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to implementing breast SOR within diverse CoC-accredited programs.MethodsIn-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 health care professionals across diverse CoC-accredited sites. The study used two comprehensive implementation frameworks to guide data collection and analysis.ResultsSuccessful SOR implementation was impeded by disrupted workflows, surgeon resistance to change, low prioritization of resources, and poor flow of information despite CoC’s positive reputation. Participants often lacked understanding of the requirements and timeline for breast SOR and were heavily influenced by prior experiences with templates and SOR champion relationships. The perceived lack of monetary benefits (to obtaining CoC accreditation) together with the significant information technology (IT) resource requirements tempered some of the enthusiasm. Additionally, resource constraints and the redirection of personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic were noted as hurdles.ConclusionsSurgeon behavior and workflow change, IT and personnel resources, and communication and networking strategies influenced SOR implementation. During early implementation and the implementation planning phase, the primary focus was on achieving buy-in and initiating successful roll-out rather than effective use or sustainment. These findings have implications for enhancing standardization of surgical cancer care and guidance of future strategies to optimize implementation of CoC accreditation standards.

Improving delivery of smoking cessation assistance for patients with cancer: Results of the Beyond ASK quality improvement.

11011 Background: Smoking by cancer patients and survivors causes adverse health outcomes, and quitting smoking after a cancer diagnosis can improve survival. However, assistance with smoking cessation is not regularly provided to cancer patients. Reported are results of the national 2023 Beyond ASK quality improvement initiative to increase and sustain delivery of smoking cessation assistance across participating sites. Methods: In 2023, American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) accredited sites were invited to participate in the Beyond ASK quality improvement initiative to increase evidence-based smoking cessation assistance delivery to cancer patients who report current smoking. Participating sites were required to monitor and periodically report on provider performance (e.g., assist rate = number of patients assisted with smoking cessation / number of patients who smoke), resource utilization, barriers, and facilitators. Educational resources, webinars, toolkits, and online data collection were facilitated by CoC. Results: Among 306 participating programs who completed the Beyond ASK initiative (94% of baseline programs), high rates of asking patients about and documenting smoking status were maintained at 88-92% from the baseline to final survey. During the 12-month project period, overall rates of assisting with smoking cessation increased from 53% to 67%. Referral to state quitlines increased from 31% to 49%, and referral to ‘in house’ smoking cessation programs increased from 15% to 28%. Rates of providing brief in office counseling more than tripled from 20% at baseline to 66% at final. The most frequently reported components that contributed to programs’ success were educational webinars (30.6%), structured data collection (28.2%), and smoking cessation toolkit (21.2%). The leading logistical barriers were extracting clinical data from the EHR and making changes to the clinical workflow, reported by 36.5% and 28.2% of respondents, respectively. Overall, 95.3% of respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that identifying patients who smoke and assisting patients with cessation was sustainable. Conclusions: Increasing smoking cessation assistance through a national accreditation organization is feasible with substantial improvements in assisting patients. Results support delivery of smoking cessation as an achievable national quality component of cancer care.

System-level variation in evidence-based multidisciplinary cancer care delivery.

11064 Background: Widespread health system integration of hospitals continues to reshape the landscape of U.S. healthcare delivery. While complex cancer care has become centralized to high-volume centers, care for common cancers happens across the spectrum of hospital sizes, with known variation in receipt of evidence-based practice (EBP) based on system affiliation. Strategies are needed to evaluate system performance in order to identify system characteristics and processes that contribute to high-quality cancer care. Methods: Using a novel data linkage between the National Cancer Database and AHRQ Compendium of U.S. Health Systems, adult patients treated for breast, colon, melanoma, and thyroid cancers between 2010 and 2020 at Commission on Cancer (CoC) hospitals were identified. Systems were categorized based on number of CoC hospitals (small, 2-3; medium, 4-9; large, 10+). Eight EBP measures were developed using national multidisciplinary guidelines, and measure-specific cohorts were extracted to calculate system-level EBP performance and within-system variation using mixed effects multivariable logistic regression models. Systems were then ranked across all measures for performance and variation, and average rankings were compared by system size. Results: 3,052,453 patients with breast (60.0%), colon (17.0%), melanoma (14.0%), and thyroid (9.0%) cancers were treated at 866 CoC hospitals in 368 health systems. The 8-measure analytic cohort had 104 systems, most of which were small systems (n=74, 71.2%). Large systems (n=9, 8.7%) had worse average performance rankings compared to medium or small systems, though this was not statistically significant (p=0.1) (Table). A significant increase in within-system variation (as measured by average ranking of variability across EBP measures) was seen with increasing system size (p&lt;0.001). Conclusions: Significant variation in EBP performance for common cancers was noted based on health system size in this large, contemporary cohort, with greater within-system variation as system size increased. Future work will identify modifiable system characteristics associated with performance that could aid system leaders and policy makers to design, measure, and incentivize systems that employ effective cancer care delivery strategies. System rankings from 1 to 104 (best to worst), averaged over all measures; data presented as median (IQR). [Table: see text]

The National Cancer Database Conforms to the Standardized Framework for Registry and Data Quality

BackgroundStandardization of procedures for data abstraction by cancer registries is fundamental for cancer surveillance, clinical and policy decision-making, hospital benchmarking, and research efforts. The objective of the current study was to evaluate adherence to the four components (completeness, comparability, timeliness, and validity) defined by Bray and Parkin that determine registries’ ability to carry out these activities to the hospital-based National Cancer Database (NCDB).MethodsTbis study used data from U.S. Cancer Statistics, the official federal cancer statistics and joint effort between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which includes data from National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) to evaluate NCDB completeness between 2016 and 2020. The study evaluated comparability of case identification and coding procedures. It used Commission on Cancer (CoC) standards from 2022 to assess timeliness and validity.ResultsCompleteness was demonstrated with a total of 6,828,507 cases identified within the NCDB, representing 73.7% of all cancer cases nationwide. Comparability was followed using standardized and international guidelines on coding and classification procedures. For timeliness, hospital compliance with timely data submission was 92.7%. Validity criteria for re-abstracting, recording, and reliability procedures across hospitals demonstrated 94.2% compliance. Additionally, data validity was shown by a 99.1% compliance with histologic verification standards, a 93.6% assessment of pathologic synoptic reporting, and a 99.1% internal consistency of staff credentials.ConclusionThe NCDB is characterized by a high level of case completeness and comparability with uniform standards for data collection, and by hospitals with high compliance, timely data submission, and high rates of compliance with validity standards for registry and data quality evaluation.

Impact of the Affordable Care Act on access to accredited facilities for cancer treatment.

To examine differential changes in receipt of surgery at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers (NCI-CCC) and Commission on Cancer (CoC) accredited hospitals for patients with cancer more likely to be newly eligible for coverage under Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance expansions, relative to those less likely to have been impacted by the ACA. Pennsylvania Cancer Registry (PCR) for 2010-2019 linked with discharge records from the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council (PHC4). Outcomes include whether cancer surgery was performed at an NCI-CCC or a CoC-accredited hospital. We conducted a difference-in-differences analysis, estimating linear probability models for each outcome that control for residence in a county with above median county-level pre-ACA uninsurance and the interaction between county-level baseline uninsurance and cancer treatment post-ACA to capture differential changes in access between those more and less likely to become newly eligible for insurance coverage (based on area-level proxy). All models control for age, sex, race and ethnicity, cancer site and stage, census-tract level urban/rural residence, Area Deprivation Index, and year- and county-fixed effects. We identified adults aged 26-64 in PCR with prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer who received cancer-directed surgery and had a corresponding surgery discharge record in PHC4. We observe a differential increase in receiving care at an NCI-CCC of 6.2 percentage points (95% CI: 2.6-9.8; baseline mean = 9.8%) among patients in high baseline uninsurance areas (p = 0.001). Our estimate of the differential change in care at the larger set of CoC hospitals is positive (3.9 percentage points [95% CI: -0.5-8.2; baseline mean = 73.7%]) but not statistically significant (p = 0.079). Our findings suggest that insurance expansions under the ACA were associated with increased access to NCI-CCCs.

Abstract SY15-02: Health insurance and outcome disparities in adolescents and young adults with cancer

Abstract SY15-02: Health insurance and outcome disparities in adolescents and young adults with cancer

National Estimates of the Participation of Patients With Cancer in Clinical Research Studies Based on Commission on Cancer Accreditation Data.

National estimates of cancer clinical trial participation are nearly two decades old and have focused solely on enrollment to treatment trials, which does not reflect the willingness of patients to contribute to other elements of clinical research. We determined inclusive, contemporary estimates of clinical trial participation for adults with cancer using a national sample of data from the Commission on Cancer (CoC). The data were obtained from accreditation information submitted by the 1,200 CoC programs, which represent more than 70% of all cancer cases diagnosed in the United States each year. Deidentified, institution-level aggregate counts of annual enrollment to treatment, biorepository, diagnostic, economic, genetic, prevention, quality-of-life (QOL), and registry studies were examined. Overall, study-type estimates for the period 2013-2017 were estimated. Multiple imputation by chained equations was used to account for missing data, with summary estimates calculated separately by type of program (eg, National Cancer Institute [NCI]-designated cancer centers) and pooled. The overall estimated patient participation rate to cancer treatment trials was 7.1%. Patients with cancer participated in a wide variety of other studies, including biorepository (12.9%), registry (7.3%), genetic (3.6%), QOL (2.8%), diagnostic (2.5%), and economic (2.4%) studies. Treatment trial enrollment was 21.6% at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers, 5.4% at academic (non-NCI-designated) comprehensive cancer programs, 5.7% at integrated network cancer programs, and 4.1% at community programs. One in five patients (21.9%) participated in one or more cancer clinical research studies. In a first-time use of national accreditation information from the CoC, enrollment to cancer treatment trials was 7.1%, higher than historical estimates of <5%. Patients participated in a diverse set of other study types. Contributions of adult patients with cancer to clinical research is more common than previously understood.

Renovating the Commission on Cancer's Quality Measure Portfolio.

Nearly 75% of newly diagnosed cancer patients in the United States will receive care from a hospital that is accredited by the Commission on Cancer (CoC). To support hospitals in their quality assurance efforts, the CoC maintains a portfolio of quality measures to give hospitals compliance data with select best practices for cancer care. As the CoC quality measures have evolved over recent years, many clinicians may lack awareness of the intent and content of the measure portfolio, as well as the mechanism by which new measures originate. The CoC quality measures are based on data that hospitals submit to the National Cancer Database, allowing the CoC to track compliance with a subset of consensus best practices. Each year, new measures are designed by diverse teams of specialists in the different treatment modalities for the tumor types covered by the portfolio. These proposed measures are then subjected to a range of vetting, refinement, and prioritization steps before being voted into the portfolio by the Quality Assurance and Data Committee of the CoC. Over the past 4 years, the CoC has worked to renovate not only the portfolio but also the process used to create and launch new measures, revise existing measures, and retire obsolete measures. In the following overview, we outline the current measure process, highlight important changes to the portfolio, and share opportunities to further increase the impact.

Advancing survivorship at a comprehensive cancer center: integrating clinical care, education and research initiativesat NorthwesternMedicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The unprecedented and growing number of cancer survivors requires comprehensive quality care that includes cancer surveillance, symptom management, and health promotion to reduce morbidity and mortality and improve quality of life. However, coordinated and sustainable survivorship care has been challenged by barriers at multiple levels. We outline the survivorship programs at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center that have evolved over two decades. Our current survivorship clinics comprise STAR (Survivors Taking Action and Responsibility) for adult survivors of childhood cancers; Adult Specialty Survivorship for survivors of breast, colorectal and testicular cancers, lymphomas, and leukemias; and Gynecologic Oncology Survivorship. Care provision models align with general, disease/treatment-specific, and integrated survivorship models, respectively. Reimbursement for survivorship services has been bolstered by institutional budget allocations. We have standardized survivor education, counseling, and referrals through electronic health record (EHR)-integrated survivorship care plan (SCP) templates that incorporate partial auto-population. We developed EHR-integrated data collection tools (e.g., dashboards; SmartForm, and registry) to facilitate data analytics, personalized patient referrals, and reports to the Commission on Cancer (CoC). We report to the CoC on SCP delivery, dietitian encounters, and DEXA scans. For the last decade, our Cancer Survivorship Institute has aligned the efforts of clinicians, researchers, and educators. The institute promotes evidence-based care, high-impact research, and state-of-the-science educational programs for professionals, survivors, and the community. Future plans include expansion of clinical services and funding for applied research centered on the unique needs of post-treatment cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The survivorship programs at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Centerunderscore the imperative for comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable survivorship care to address the needsof increasing numbers of cancer survivors, with a focus on evidence-based clinical practices, associated research,and educational initiatives.

Impact of Hispanic ethnicity on immunotherapy outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma: Insights from the National Cancer Database.

438 Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fastest-growing cancer in the US with more age-adjusted incident cases in Hispanics compared to non-Hispanics. Immunotherapies are considered integral part of treatment for most unresectable HCC. Recent multinational phase III trials suggest the benefit of immunotherapies may differ based on geographic region and underlying etiology of HCC. We hypothesized that Hispanic ethnicity might influence responses to immunotherapy in HCC. Methods: We analyzed the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to assess the impact of immunotherapy on overall survival (OS) in Hispanic patients with HCC. The database was queried for liver cancer from 2004 to 2020. Kaplan Meier method was used to assess OS and a log-rank test was used to compare survival distribution between Hispanic and non-Hispanic groups. Cox regression analysis was performed to estimate the adjusted effect of ethnicity on OS based on immunotherapy status. NCDB is a joint project of the Commission on Cancer (CoC) of the American College of Surgeons and the American Cancer Society. The CoC's NCDB and the hospitals participating in the CoCÕs NCDB are the source of the de-identified data used herein. Results: A total of 225079 patients were identified of whom 2036 patients (0.9%) received immunotherapy as first-line treatment. Patients with non-Hispanic ethnicity, male sex, who received treatment at academic/research institutions, and were insured were more likely to receive immunotherapy. In the entire cohort, there was no difference (p=0.94) in survival between those who did not receive immunotherapy (median OS,11.63 months; IQR: 2.79, 34.83) vs. those who did (median OS, 10.68 months, IQR: 5.19, 23.29[DA2]). There were more Hispanics in the cohort who did not receive immunotherapy (12.28% vs. 10.61%). In the adjusted Cox analysis, Hispanics had a reduced risk of death than non-Hispanics among patients who did not receive immunotherapy (HR: 0.873, 95%CI, 0.858-0.889; p&lt;0.001). Among patients with immunotherapy, there was no OS difference between ethnicities (HR 0.904, 95% CI, 0.755-1.082; p 0.271). Conclusions: Hispanics were less likely to receive immunotherapy than non-Hispanics. Although Hispanics had a better OS than non-Hispanics among patients without immunotherapy, the differences no longer persist among patients who received immunotherapy. These findings suggest that Hispanic ethnicity may influence responses to immunotherapy. As compared to non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics with HCC have significantly more nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and alcohol-related liver disease as contributing factors. A better understanding of the impact of immunotherapies on alcoholic and nonalcoholic liver disease-related HCC is needed.

Rates of newly diagnosed breast cancer at commission on cancer facilities during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The objective of this study was to examine the impact of the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of newly diagnosed breast cancer cases at Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited facilities relative to the United States (U.S.) population. We examined the incidence of breast cancer cases at CoC sites using the U.S. Census population as the denominator. Breast cancer incidence was stratified by patient age, race and ethnicity, and geographic location. A total of 1,499,806 patients with breast cancer were included. For females, breast cancer cases per 100,000 individuals went from 188 in 2015 to 203 in 2019 and then dropped to 176 in 2020 with a 15.7% decrease from 2019 to 2020. Breast cancer cases per 100,000 males went from 1.7 in 2015 to 1.8 in 2019 and then declined to 1.5 in 2020 with a 21.8% decrease from 2019 to 2020. For both females and males, cases per 100,000 individuals decreased from 2019 to 2020 for almost all age groups. For females, rates dropped from 2019 to 2020 for all races and ethnicities and geographic locations. The largest percent change was seen among Hispanic patients (-18.4%) and patients in the Middle Atlantic division (-18.6%). The stage distribution (0-IV) for female and male patients remained stable from 2018 to 2020. The first year of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a decreased number of newly diagnosed breast cancer cases at Commission on Cancer sites.