National Cancer Institute-designated Research Articles

Transforming patient-centered cancer care using telehealth: the MATCHES Center.

Modern cancer care is costly and logistically burdensome for patients and their families despite an expansion of technology and medical advances that create the opportunity for novel approaches to care. Therefore, there is a growing appreciation for the need to leverage these innovations to make cancer care more patient centered and convenient. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Making Telehealth Delivery of Cancer Care at Home Efficient and Safe Telehealth Research Center is a National Cancer Institute-designated and funded Telehealth Research Center of Excellence poised to generate the evidence necessary to inform the appropriate use of telehealth as a strategy to improve access to cancer services that are convenient for patients. The center will evaluate telehealth as a strategy to personalize cancer care delivery to ensure that it is not only safe and effective but also convenient and efficient. In this article, we outline this new center's research strategy, as well as highlight challenges that exist in further integrating telehealth into standard oncology practice based on early experiences.

Effect of Hospital Cancer Designation on use of Multimodal Therapy and Survival of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A State-Wide Analysis.

Stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC) often requires multidisciplinary approach. However, multimodal treatment options (receipt of >1 type of treatment) may not be uniformly delivered across health systems. We characterized the association between center-level cancer center designation and receipt of multimodal treatment and survival. The Texas Cancer Registry was used to identify patients diagnosed with stage IV CRC from 2004-2017. We identified those who received care at either: a National Cancer Institute-designated (NCI-D), an American College of Surgeons-Commission on Cancer-designated (ACS-D), or an undesignated facility. We used multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression for analysis to assess receipt of one or more treatment modality and 5-year overall survival. Of 19,355 patients with stage IV CRC, 2955 (15%) received care at an NCI-D facility and 5871 (30%) received multimodal therapy. Both NCI-D (odds ratio [OR] 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49-1.81) and ACS-D (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.27-1.48) were associated with increased likelihood of multimodal therapy compared with undesignated centers. NCI-D also was associated with significantly improved survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; 95% CI 0.70-0.78), although ACS-D was associated with a modest improvement in survival (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.92-0.99). Receipt of multimodal therapy was strongly associated with improved survival (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.59-0.63). In patients with stage IV CRC, treatment at ACS-D and NCI-D facilities was associated with increased use of multimodality therapy and improved survival. However, only a small proportion of patients have access to these specialized centers, highlighting a need for expanded access to multimodal therapies at other centers.

Paging Dr. Google: Characterizing Direct to Consumer Internet Advertisements from Oncology Treatment Centers

Patients increasingly use internet searches to compare treatment options and decide on oncology treatment centers. The objective of this study is to examine the type of oncology treatment centers that were advertised on web-based searches. A series of keyword searches were conducted using the Google search engine. Based on search trends, 3 of the top relevant search phrases were used ("best cancer doctor", "best cancer treatment", and "cancer treatment near me"). Modifiers were added to each search term to reflect the cancer categories with the highest prevalence: "breast", "prostate", and "lung". This yielded 12 search phrases that were used on a search hub that simulates Google searches from different geographic locations. The 30 most populous city locations were used. Of the four paid advertisements at the top of each search, the cancer treatment centers were categorized into centers that are National Cancer Institute-Designated (NCIs), Commission on Cancer (CoC) accredited, non-CoC accredited, and non-traditional treatment centers. Advertisements that weren't for cancer treatment centers were excluded. Of the 360 searches and 817 subsequent cancer treatment center advertisements, 51.2% were for NCI, 12.2% were CoC accredited, 26.9% were non-CoC accredited, and 9.7% were non-traditional treatment centers. The search phrase that yielded the highest ratio of NCI results was "best cancer doctor" at 74.4% and the phrase that yielded the lowest was "prostate cancer treatment near me" at 37.1%. Of the known 71 NCI centers in the country, 42 (59.2%) did not have any advertisements. Of the 35 NCI centers located in one of the target cities, 12 (34.3%) did not have any advertisements. Notably, two specific NCI centers accounted for 49.5% of the NCI advertisements. Similarly, one specific non-traditional treatment center accounted for 48.1% of the non-traditional center advertisements. Regarding non-traditional treatment centers, there was geographic variation with Boston having 38.1% of searches yielding non-traditional treatment center advertisements as opposed to six cities having 0%. The ratio of non-traditional treatment center advertisements by region were as follows: Northeast with 13.6%, West with 12.6%, South with 7.7%, and Midwest with 5.0%. These results indicate that most direct-to-consumer cancer advertisements come from CoC or NCI centers. Among advertisements coming from NCI centers, relatively few centers account for the majority of advertisements with most NCI centers having no advertising presence. Future research is needed to evaluate claims, costs, and the ethical considerations of direct-to-consumer marketing, where the potential for mischaracterizing the strength of the scientific evidence to vulnerable cancer populations requires more scrutiny.

Negotiated Rates for Surgical Cancer Care in the Era of Price Transparency-Prices Reflect Market Competition.

To measure commercial price variation for cancer surgery within and across hospitals. Surgical care for solid-organ tumors is costly, and negotiated commercial rates have been hidden from public view. The Hospital Price Transparency Rule, enacted in 2021, requires all hospitals to list their negotiated rates on their website, thus opening the door for an examination of pricing for cancer surgery. This was a cross-sectional study using 2021 negotiated price data disclosed by US hospitals for the 10 most common cancers treated with surgery. Price variation was measured using within-hospital and across-hospital ratios. Commercial rates relative to cancer center designation and the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index at the facility level were evaluated with mixed effects linear regression with random intercepts per procedural code. In all, 495,200 unique commercial rates from 2232 hospitals resulted for the 10 most common solid-organ tumor cancers. Gynecologic cancer operations had the highest median rates at $6035.8/operation compared with bladder cancer surgery at $3431.0/operation. Compared with competitive markets, moderately and highly concentrated markets were associated with significantly higher rates (HHI 1501, 2500, coefficient $513.6, 95% CI, $295.5, $731.7; HHI >2500, coefficient $1115.5, 95% CI, $913.7, $1317.2). National Cancer Institute designation was associated with higher rates, coefficient $3,451.9 (95% CI, $2853.2, $4050.7). Commercial payer-negotiated prices for the surgical management of 10 common, solid tumor malignancies varied widely both within and across hospitals. Higher rates were observed in less competitive markets. Future efforts should facilitate price competition and limit health market concentration.

Assessment of price variation in colorectal cancer screening procedures at US hospitals.

6652 Background: Following the 2021 Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule, US hospitals were mandated to publish their insurer-negotiated prices. We identified factors contributing to price variability of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening procedures across the US. Methods: We compared prices of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography, fecal occult blood test, fecal immunochemical test, and Cologuard across U.S. hospitals using the Turquoise dataset (N = 6,378). Psychiatric, rehabilitation, and pediatric hospitals were excluded. Prices in the top and bottom 1% were also excluded to minimize the effect of outliers. Prices were adjusted by the Medicare Geographic Price Index to account for regional variability. We then compared prices across several subgroups, including National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated hospitals, teaching hospitals, and investor owned hospitals. Significance was assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. To quantify price variability across insurance plans within a hospital, we defined the within-center-ratio as the 90th percentile rate at a hospital divided by the 10th percentile rate. To quantify variability across hospitals, the across-center-ratio was defined as the 90th percentile median rate across all hospitals divided by the 10th percentile median rate. Results: 1,460 hospitals reported commercial prices for colonoscopy with a median commercial price of $1,867 (IQR: $1,208 - $2,689). For colonoscopy, the within center ratio was 2.5 (IQR: 1.5 – 3.8) and the across-center ratio was 6.2. Prices for other procedures are provided in the table. Compared to non-investor owned hospitals, prices of colonoscopy ($2,082 vs $1,787, P <0.001) and flexible sigmoidoscopy ($2,022 vs $1,289, P <0.001) were significantly higher at investor owned hospitals. Furthermore, across investor classes, hospitals with >5% ownership from private equity firms had the highest median price for both colonoscopy ($2,898), and flexible sigmoidoscopy ($2,697). We did not find significant differences in price by NCI designation, academic teaching center affiliation, overall hospital mortality, overall hospital readmission rate, or urban/rural location. Conclusions: CRC screening procedure prices vary significantly both within and across hospitals. Private equity and other investor owned hospitals had significantly higher prices compared to non-investor owned hospitals. [Table: see text]

Improved Survival in Cervical Cancer Patients Receiving Care at National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Centers

(Abstracted from Cancer 2022;128(19):3479–3486) For a cancer center to receive National Cancer Institute (NCI) designation, it must undergo a rigorous review process and demonstrate comprehensive cancer care and quality. Treatment at an NCI-designated cancer center (NCICC) has been shown to improve survival in lung, breast, gastrointestinal, ovarian, and bladder cancers.

Making National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center Knowledge Accessible to Community Oncologists via an Online Tumor Board: Longitudinal Observational Study.

BackgroundExpert knowledge is often shared among multidisciplinary academic teams at tumor boards (TBs) across the country, but these conversations exist in silos and do not reach the wider oncology community.ObjectiveUsing an oncologist-only question and answer (Q&A) website, we sought to document expert insights from TBs at National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (NCI-CCCs) to provide educational benefits to the oncology community.MethodsWe designed a process with the NCI-CCCs to document and share discussions from the TBs focused on areas of practice variation on theMednet, an interactive Q&A website of over 13,000 US oncologists. The faculty translated the TB discussions into concise, non–case-based Q&As on theMednet. Answers were peer reviewed and disseminated in email newsletters to registered oncologists. Reach and engagement were measured. Following each Q&A, a survey question asked how the TB Q&As impacted the readers’ practice.ResultsA total of 23 breast, thoracic, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary programs from 16 NCI-CCC sites participated. Between December 2016 and July 2021, the faculty highlighted 368 questions from their TBs. Q&As were viewed 147,661 times by 7381 oncologists at 3515 institutions from all 50 states. A total of 277 (75%) Q&As were viewed every month. Of the 1063 responses to a survey question on how the Q&A affected clinicians’ practices, 646 (61%) reported that it confirmed their current practice, 163 (20%) indicated that a Q&A would change their future practice, and 214 (15%) reported learning something new.ConclusionsThrough an online Q&A platform, academics at the NCI-CCCs share knowledge outside the walls of academia with oncologists across the United States. Access to up-to-date expert knowledge can reassure clinicians’ practices, significantly impact patient care in community practices, and be a source of new knowledge and education.

List Prices for Proton Radiation Therapy

PurposeSome patients elect for self-pay proton radiation therapy (PT) in the United States, but price transparency is a significant concern. The U.S. government recently declared that hospitals must provide a comprehensive list of “standard” charges for all services. Yet, the proportion of compliant proton centers is unknown, as is the extent to which prices vary nationally. Methods and MaterialsWe obtained online chargemasters from U.S. proton centers. Technical charges for per fraction delivery of PT of varying complexity were obtained by billing code (77520, 77522, 77523, 77525) and keyword searches. Prices were adjusted for cost-of-living differences using the Medicare geographic cost price index. The relationship between prices for each PT billing code and cost of living was assessed. The interrelationship in cost between codes was examined. The effect of geographic region and other key variables on pricing was explored. ResultsThirty-six proton centers were identified. Twenty-eight (78%) had accessible chargemasters with 20 (56%) listing at least one PT charge. The median prices for billing codes 77520, 77522, 77523, 77525 were $4707, $4712, $5904, and $6690, respectively, with a trend toward greater cost for more complex therapy (77523, 77525; P = .056). Large ranges ($16,863, $16,059, $18,414, $22,143) resulted in ratios of maximum/minimum prices of 5 to 10x. Only prices for code 77522 were associated with cost of living (P = .039). Across institutions, prices for all 4 codes were positively interrelated (all P < .0001). Prices differed between regions (P < .0001) but not by National Cancer Institute designation. ConclusionsList prices for PT differ dramatically between institutions and regions without obvious explanation, raising the concerning possibility that such variation is largely arbitrary. Policy solutions that promote rationalized pricing would greatly benefit this patient population.

Analysis of hematology and oncology fellowship website content and diversity representation.

11004 Background: Fellowship in hematology and oncology (HO) is widely sought after but lags behind all other internal medicine subspecialties in attracting applicants underrepresented in medicine (URM). An approach to appealing to URMs involves preexisting in-person strategies but also adapting virtual tools to promote inclusion. Specifically, program websites serve as the first impressions of a program, as well as influence the perception of diversity and inclusion. We evaluated the content and diversity representation of HO program websites to facilitate a generally more informed and URM-considerate recruitment. Methods: The websites of 2019-2020 ACGME accredited HO programs were assessed between June 1st to July 1st, 2020. Data focused on 30 informational categories, derived from published methodology, along with three additional categories concerning diversity, based on suggestions for inclusive graduate medical education recruitment strategies, were compared using two-tailed t tests. We defined websites with 70% or more of the 30 informational categories as “comprehensive websites.” Affiliation with a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Designated Cancer Center, NCI Designated Cancer Center + National Cancer Center Network (NCCN) member institution, and a top 50 ranked cancer hospital by U.S. News was also considered in the analysis. Results: A total of 156 program websites were analyzed: 37.2% NCI; 19.9% NCCN; 29.5% U.S. News ranked. Only 31 (19.9%) were “comprehensive websites,” and 34 (21.8%) had information pertaining to at least one of the diversity categories. There was a significant association between inclusion of diversity content and being a “comprehensive website” (p = 0.001). Compared to those that were neither designated nor ranked, programs designated by NCI, NCCN, or ranked by U.S. News were more likely to have more complete information available (p &lt; 0.001, = 0.008, and &lt; 0.001, respectively). However, only programs ranked by U.S. News were more likely to include information about diversity on their websites (p = 0.006). Conclusions: The vast majority of HO fellowship program websites were not comprehensive, including a lack of diversity and inclusivity content. NCI designation, NCCN participation, and US News ranking were significantly associated with more complete fellowship websites. Given the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in which institution visitation is restricted, program websites may have elevated importance in recruitment. HO programs should direct resources to offering more complete and inclusive websites to better inform applicants, including URM residents.

First Person Profile: Cheryl Willman, MD: As director and CEO of the University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dr. Willman has led major health equity initiatives while making pioneering discoveries in precision medicine.

First Person Profile: Cheryl Willman, MD: As director and CEO of the University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dr. Willman has led major health equity initiatives while making pioneering discoveries in precision medicine.

Improvements needed in palliative care services.

Improvements needed in palliative care services.

Variation in long-term oncologic outcomes by type of cancer center accreditation: An analysis of a SEER-Medicare population with pancreatic cancer

BackgroundCancer center accreditation is designed to identify centers that provide high-quality cancer care. This also guides patients and referring physicians towards centers of excellence for specialized care. We sought to examine if cancer center accreditation was associated with improved long-term oncologic outcomes in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. MethodsUsing the SEER-Medicare database, we identified patients who underwent pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 1996 to 2013. Hospitals were categorized into three groups: National Cancer Institute-designated (NCI-designated) centers, Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited centers, and “non-accredited” (NA) centers. Multilevel mixed-effects models were used to calculate adjusted examined lymph nodes, disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS). ResultsWe identified 5,118 patients who underwent pancreatectomy at 632 hospitals (41.0% NA, 49.6% CoC, 9.4% NCI). NCI-designated centers had a greater median number of lymph nodes examined compared with CoC-accredited or NA centers (14 vs. 10 vs. 11.0 nodes, respectively; p < 0.001). Patients treated at NCI centers had a higher 5-year DSS compared to those treated at CoC or NA centers (31.2% vs. 23.6% vs. 23.0%, respectively; p < 0.001). Finally, patients treated at NCI centers had a higher 5-year OS compared to those treated at CoC or NA centers (23.5% vs. 18.9% vs. 17.9%, respectively; p < 0.001). The associations held true when adjusted analyses were performed. ConclusionPatients with resected pancreatic cancer treated at NCI-designated centers were associated with improved long-term oncologic outcomes. There was no difference between CoC-accredited centers compared with NA centers. Meticulous validation of accreditation is warranted globally prior to implementation.

Factors Associated With Use of High-Cost Agents for the Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Antineoplastic agents approved in recent decades are a marked advancement in cancer treatment, but they come at considerable cost. These drugs may widen survival disparities between patients who receive these agents and those who do not. We examine factors associated with the use of high-cost antineoplastic agents for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. We conducted a retrospective observational study using 2007-2015 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results-Medicare data supplemented with the Area Health Resource File. Patients were aged 66 years and older, were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare Part D, were diagnosed with a first primary diagnosis of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, and had received an antineoplastic agent. "High-cost agents" were defined as agents costing $5000 or more per month. Independent variables include race/ethnicity, urban or rural residency, census tract poverty, and treatment facility type (eg, National Cancer Institute designation). Patients who lived in areas of high poverty were 4 percentage points less likely to receive high-cost agents (two-sided P < .001). Patients who were not treated at a National Cancer Institute-designated center were 10 percentage points less likely to receive these agents (two-sided P < .001). A 27 percentage-point increase in the likelihood of receiving a high-cost agent was observed in 2015, as compared to 2007, highlighting the rapid change in practice patterns (two-sided P < .001). Potential policy and care delivery solutions involve outreach and support to community physicians who treat patients in remote areas. We estimate that widespread use of these agents conservatively cost approximately $3 billion per year for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer alone.

National Cancer Institute Centers and Society of Surgical Oncology Cancer Research Synergy

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to examine the influence of Surgical Society Oncology (SSO) membership and National Cancer Institute (NCI) status on the academic output of surgical faculty. MethodsNCI cancer program status for each department of surgery was identified with publically available data, whereas SSO membership was determined for every faculty member. Academic output measures such as NIH funding, publications, and citations were analyzed in subsets by the type of cancer center (NCI comprehensive cancer center [CCC]; NCI cancer center [NCICC]; and non-NCI center) and SSO membership status. ResultsOf the surgical faculty, 2537 surgeons (61.9%) were from CCC, whereas 854 (20.8%) were from NCICC. At the CCC, 22.7% of surgeons had a history of or current NIH funding, compared with 15.8% at the NCICC and 11.8% at the non-NCI centers. The academic output of SSO members was higher at NCICC (52 ± 113 publications/1266 ± 3830 citations) and CCC (53 ± 92/1295 ± 4001) compared with nonmembers (NCICC: 26 ± 78/437 ± 2109; CCC: 37 ± 91/670 ± 3260), respectively, P < 0.05. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that SSO membership imparts an additional 22 publications and 270 citations, whereas NCI-designated CCC added 10 additional publications, but not citations. ConclusionsCCCs have significantly higher academic output and NIH funding. Recruitment of SSO members, a focus on higher performing divisions, and NIH funding are factors that non-NCI cancer centers may be able to focus on to improve academic productivity to aid in obtaining NCI designation.

First person: Derek Raghavan, MD, PhD: Renowned physician-scientist leads the creation of an innovative cancer center.

First person: Derek Raghavan, MD, PhD: Renowned physician-scientist leads the creation of an innovative cancer center.

Abstract A01: Standardizing tracking and evaluation in cancer disparities research: Utilizing REDCap to track training, education, and community engagement activities

Abstract The Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities (CRCHD) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) is dedicated to enhancing the diversity of the scientific workforce through training and education and supporting community engagement. The utilization of standardized tools to track and assist in the evaluation of outcomes from training, education, and community engagement programs is important to grants supported by the CRCHD. This case study describes the utilization of a readily available and secure web-based electronic tool, REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture), to broadly track and evaluate community engagement activities and training and education milestones in an Academic Cancer Center. Aim 1 describes the online survey tool created in REDCap to track all community engagement activities for the Cancer Center. Aim 2 describes methods and assessment tools created to track and evaluate mentoring relationships, training, educational activities, and career outcomes of trainees in an emerging cancer center seeking NCI designation. Training programs in the University of Illinois (UI) Cancer Center occur across the pipeline and target high school and undergraduate students, graduate and pre- and post-doctoral students, and early-stage investigators with a focus on populations under-represented in health disparities research. The utilization of REDCap will allow outcomes from NCI CRCHD funded programs and other training, education, and community engagement programs to uniformly track outcomes and assess efficacy to ensure alignment with NCI priorities for cancer centers in community engagement and training and education. Our case study supports the NIH's efforts to ensure longitudinal tracking of training and education programs for a minimum of 10 years and to ensure community engagement targeting the cancer center's catchment area. This case study can provide generalizable information to other cancer centers and NCI CRCHD awardees. Citation Format: Ifeanyi Beverly Chukwudozie, Karriem S. Watson, Stacey Rhodes, Ahlam Al-Kodmany, Erica Martinez, Christopher Gay, Marian L. Fitzgibbon, Paul Grippo, Robert A. Winn, Robert A. Winn. Standardizing tracking and evaluation in cancer disparities research: Utilizing REDCap to track training, education, and community engagement activities [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Tenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2017 Sep 25-28; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2018;27(7 Suppl):Abstract nr A01.

Ten Essential Practices for Developing or Reforming a Biostatistics Core for a NCI Designated Cancer Center.

There are 69 National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated Cancer Centers (CCs) in the United States. Biostatistical collaboration is pivotal in cancer research, and support for a cancer biostatistics shared resource facility (C-BSRF) is included in the award. Although the services and staff needed in a C-BSRF have been outlined in general terms and best practices for biostatistical consultations and collaboration in an academic health center have been agreed upon, implementing these practices in the demanding setting of cancer centers interested in pursuing or maintaining NCI designation remains challenging. We surveyed all C-BSRF websites to assess their organizational charts, governance, size, services provided, and financial models and have identified 10 essential practices for the development of a successful C-BSRF. Here, we share our success with, and barriers to, implementation of these practices. Showcasing development plans for these essential practices resulted in an NCI score of “Excellent to Outstanding” for our C-BSRF in 2015, and performance metrics in 2016–2017 demonstrated notable improvement since our original Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG) application in 2014. We believe that the essential practices described here can be adapted and adjusted, as needed, for CCs of various sizes and with different types of cancer research programs.

Industry Funding Among Leadership in Medical Oncology and Radiation Oncology in 2015

To quantify and determine the relationship between oncology departmental/division heads and private industry vis-à-vis potential financial conflict of interests (FCOIs) as publicly reported by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. We extracted the names of the chairs/chiefs in medical oncology (MO) and chairs of radiation oncology (RO) for 81 different institutions with both RO and MO training programs as reported by the Association of American Medical Colleges. For each leader, the amount of consulting fees and research payments received in 2015 was determined. Logistic modeling was used to assess associations between the 2 endpoints of receiving a consulting fee and receiving a research payment with various institution-specific and practitioner-specific variables included as covariates: specialty, sex, National Cancer Institute designation, PhD status, and geographic region. The majority of leaders in MO were reported to have received consulting fees or research payments (69.5%) compared with a minority of RO chairs (27.2%). Among those receiving payments, the average (range) consulting fee was $13,413 ($200-$70,423) for MO leaders and $6463 ($837-$16,205) for RO chairs; the average research payment for MO leaders receiving payments was $240,446 ($156-$1,234,762) and $295,089 ($160-$1,219,564) for RO chairs. On multivariable regression when the endpoint was receipt of a research payment, those receiving a consulting fee (odds ratio [OR]: 5.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.22-13.65) and MO leaders (OR: 5.54; 95% CI: 2.62-12.18) were more likely to receive research payments. Examination of the receipt of consulting fees as the endpoint showed that those receiving a research payment (OR: 5.41; 95% CI: 2.23-13.99) and MO leaders (OR: 3.06; 95% CI: 1.21-8.13) were more likely to receive a consulting fee. Leaders in academic oncology receive consulting or research payments from industry. Relationships between oncology leaders and industry can be beneficial, but guidance is needed to develop consistent institutional policies to manage FCOIs.

Time to Treatment Initiation Predicts Overall Survival in Hospitalized Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Patients: A California Population-Based Study

Background:The impact of time from diagnosis to chemotherapy initiation (time to treatment, TTT) for AML has been a topic of ongoing debate. A prior study reported that TTT ≥5 days adversely impacted overall survival in younger (<60 years of age), but not older (≥60 years of age), patients. However, subsequent studies found either no effect of TTT on overall survival, regardless of age, or an adverse impact of TTT on overall survival for both younger (>10 days) and older patients (>5 days). Prior data also showed no impact of TTT on early mortality. Given these conflicting findings, consensus on the impact of TTT on survival is lacking and warrants further study. Using prospectively collected population-based data, we analyzed a large cohort of adult AML patients to examine the effect of TTT on overall survival.Methods:Using data from the California Cancer Registry and Patient Discharge Dataset between 1999-2012, patients≥15years diagnosed with de novo AML and who received inpatient treatment between 1-90 days from diagnosis were identified (n=5337). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with TTT>5 days vs 1-5 days with data presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The effect of TTT on overall and 60-day survival was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression with TTT (1-5, 6-10,>10 days)considered as a time-dependent variable. Patients were stratified by age group (<60,≥60 years) for all analyses.Multivariable models accounted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, number of comorbidities, marital status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, health insurance type, treatment at National Cancer Institute designated (NCI) vs non-NCI designated facility, use ofleukapheresis, and year of diagnosis.Results:Of the 2659 patients <60 years of age, 61.0% were treated within 5 days and 79.7% within 10 days of diagnosis, compared to 43.8% and 65.0%, respectively, of the 2678 patients≥60 years of age. Patients≥60 years were more likely to have 3+ comorbidities compared to the younger age group (43.3% vs 25.9%, P<0.001). The likelihood of TTT>5 days increased with age in both younger and older patients. Across both age groups, patients requiringleukapheresis(age<60: OR 0.19, CI 0.10-0.34; age≥60: OR 0.23, CI 0.12-0.45), treated at a non-NCI (vs NCI) center (age<60: OR 0.62, CI 0.52-0.73; age≥60: OR 0.64, CI 0.52-0.78) and with 1-2 (vs 0) comorbidities (age<60: OR 0.81, CI 0.67-0.98; age≥60: OR 0.69, CI 0.54-0.88) or 3+ (vs 0) comorbidities (age<60: OR 0.77, CI 0.62-0.97; age≥60: OR 0.52, CI 0.41-0.66) had a lower odds of TTT>5 days. Younger (age<60) African Americans (vs non-Hispanic whites) had a higher odds of TTT >5 days (OR 1.43, CI 1.04-1.97). Delaying chemotherapy >10 days (vs 1-5 days) adversely impacted overall survival in both age groups (age<60: HR 1.26, CI 1.11-1.43; age≥60: HR 1.17, CI 1.06-1.28) (Table). However, TTT of 6-10 days (vs 1-5 days) affected overall survival in young (age<60: HR 1.15, CI 1.02-1.31), but not older patients. A TTT of 6-10 days (vs 1-5 days) adversely impacted 60-day survival in both age groups (age<60: HR 1.70, CI 1.24-2.33; age≥60: HR 1.27, CI 1.05-1.54); 60-day survival results were similar for a TTT >10 days (vs 1-5 days) (Table).Conclusions:In a large cohort of patients with de novo AML, TTT of up to 10 days did not have a negative impact on overall survival in patients over the age of 60. In younger patients (<age 60), TTT >5 days was associated with decreased overall survival. Delaying chemotherapy over 5 days adversely impacted 60-day survival in both age groups. Our observation that patients were more likely to have a shorter TTT at non-NCI designated hospitals may relate to delays associated with transfer to or clinical trial enrollment at NCI centers. Our results suggest that waiting to get results of ancillary testing, such as cytogenetic and molecular mutation analyses, in order to inform treatment decisions for AML patients, may be feasible in some patients with AML. In an era of rapidly evolving prognostic and treatment landscapes for AML, our findings may have implications for personalized therapy, including novel targeted therapies, and clinical trial design for patients withAML. [Display omitted] DisclosuresNo relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Hospital Characteristics Associated with Stage II/III Rectal Cancer Guideline Concordant Care: Analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare Data

BackgroundEvidence suggests that high-volume facilities achieve better rectal cancer outcomes. MethodsLogistic regression was used to evaluate association of facility type with treatment after adjusting for patient demographics, stage, and comorbidities. SEER-Medicare beneficiaries who were diagnosed with stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma at age ≥66 years from 2005 to 2009 and had Parts A/B Medicare coverage for ≥1 year prediagnosis and postdiagnosis plus a claim for cancer-directed surgery were included. Institutions were classified according to National Cancer Institute (NCI) designation, presence of residency program, or medical school affiliation. ResultsTwo thousand three hundred subjects (average age = 75) met the criteria. Greater proportions of those treated at NCI-designated facilities received transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-pelvis (62.1 vs. 29.9 %), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (63.9 vs. 41.8 %), and neoadjuvant radiation (70.8 vs. 46.3 %), all p < 0.0001. On multivariate analysis, odds ratios (95 % confidence intervals) for receiving TRUS or MRI, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or neoadjuvant radiation among beneficiaries treated at NCI-designated facilities were 3.51 (2.60–4.73), 2.32 (1.71–3.16), and 2.66 (1.93–3.67), respectively. Results by residency and medical school affiliation were similar in direction to NCI designation. ConclusionsThose treated at hospitals with an NCI designation, residency program, or medical school affiliation received more guideline-concordant care. Initiatives involving provider education and virtual tumor boards may improve care.