Rural Cancer Patients Research Articles

Living in Rural Areas and Receiving Cancer Treatment Away From Home: A Qualitative Study Foregrounding Temporality

We used explorative interviews to gauge (inter)personal, physiological, and emotional challenges of seven rural cancer patients who traveled long distances to cancer treatment centers. After a thematic analysis, we foregrounded experiences of temporality by using a phenomenologically inspired approach. The analysis resulted in three themes: (a) An epiphany of “what really matters in life”—time gains new meaning, (b) Feeling out of sync with others and own body—striving for coherence and simultaneity, and (c) Being torn between benefits of home and treatments site—time and distance as a tangible aspect of traveling and being away. Under these themes, 13 meaning units were generated, which reflected changes in temporality. During treatment, life primarily revolved around repeating circles of travel arrangements, staying on top of treatment schedule, and synchronizing a home life with a life away from home. Nurses should provide comprehensive care to enhance stability in cancer patients’ temporal experiences.

How cancer programs identify and address the financial burdens of rural cancer patients.

Financial toxicity is associated with negative patient outcomes, and rural populations are disproportionately affected by the high costs of cancer care compared to urban populations. Our objective was to (1) understand cancer programs' perceptions of rural-urban differences in cancer patients' experiences of financial hardship, (2) evaluate the resources available to cancer patients across the rural-urban continuum, and (3) determine how rural and urban health care teams assess and address financial distress in cancer patients. Seven research teams within the Cancer Prevention and Research Control Network conducted semi-structured interviews with cancer program staff who have a role in connecting cancer patients with financial assistance services in both rural and urban counties. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. We identified themes using descriptive content and thematic analysis. We interviewed 35 staffs across 29 cancer care programs in seven states, with roughly half of respondents from programs in rural counties. Participants identified differences in rural and urban patients' experiences of financial hardship related to distance required to travel for treatment, underinsurance, and low socioeconomic status. Insufficient staffing was an identified barrier to addressing rural and urban patients' financial concerns. Improved financial navigation services could mitigate the effects of financial toxicity experienced by cancer patients, particularly rural patients, throughout treatment and survivorship. Future research is needed to improve how cancer programs assess financial hardship in patients and to expand financial navigation services to better serve rural cancer patients.

Association of rurality and race with surgical treatment and outcomes for nonmetastatic colon cancer.

78 Background: Rural cancer patients face limited access to care due to greater travel distance and lack of specialty cancer care. Little is known about the intersection of rurality with well-documented racial disparities in colon cancer treatment and outcomes. Methods: We used fee-for-service Medicare claims to study patients age 65+ diagnosed with incident colon cancer without evidence of metastases who underwent cancer-directed surgery between 04/01/2016 and 09/30/2018. The primary exposure wasrurality of patient’s residence categorized as metropolitan (metro), micropolitan, and small town/rural. Outcomes were non-elective surgery (emergency department visit or transfer within 2 days prior to surgery), receipt of minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic or robotic), 90-day surgical complications, and 90-day mortality. Logistic regression adjusted for patient demographics, cancer side (right vs left), comorbidities, and Area Deprivation Index. We assessed effect modification by race/ethnicity. Results: Of 57,710 patients with incident non-metastatic colon cancer, 37,691 (65%) underwent surgery. In this surgical cohort, small town/rural and micropolitan residents were more likely to be older, white, and Medicare-Medicaid dual-eligible than metro residents. After risk adjustment, patients in small town/rural areas had higher odds of non-elective surgery (OR =1.24, 95% CI:1.13-1.36) and lower odds of minimally invasive surgery (OR = 0.75, 95% CI:0.71-0.80) than patients living in metro areas. Similar results were seen for micropolitan areas. White rural patients had lower mortality than white urban patients, whereas black rural patients had higher mortality than black metro patients (see Table). Increasing area deprivation was associated with higher odds of non-elective surgery, surgical complications and mortality, and lower odds of minimally invasive surgery, even after adjusting for race and rurality. Conclusions: Small town/rural-residing Medicare beneficiaries undergoing surgery for non-metastatic colon cancer were less likely to receive optimal surgical management and had worse outcomes, especially among non-white patients. The compounded effect of rurality, race/ethnicity, and social deprivation should be incorporated in developing policies and interventions to improve care for rural cancer patients.[Table: see text]

Feasibility of tele-chemotherapy administration to improve access to rural cancer patients.

112 Background: Telehealth improves access to cancer care for patients with cancer in rural communities. It allows qualified infusion nurses to administer chemotherapy in smaller rural towns under supervision by health professionals from larger tertiary sites. Here we would like to share our institutional experience in tele-chemotherapy administration to patients in rural Utah. Methods: We collected patient data including treatment regimens administered at our tele health sites from March 2019 to February 2021. Results: A total of 133 unique patients received 1073 cycles of low to intermediate risk treatment regimens. 42 unique regimens including intravenous and oral chemotherapy drugs, immune therapy and targeted drugs were administered at four rural facilities including Cassia Regional Center, Sanpete Valley Hospital, Severe Valley Hospital and Heber Valley Hospital in Utah. 52 physicians located at tertiary sites were involved in tele-chemotherapy administration. In addition to Medicare, Medicaid, the tele chemotherapy was covered by four commercial payers including Blue Cross Blue Shield, Select Health, Tricare and United Healthcare. Conclusions: Tele chemotherapy administration is feasible and allows improved access to cancer patients in rural communities. We aim to expand current project to capture the patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes including treatment delays, dose modifications, infusion reactions, hospitalizations or emergency visits.

Clinicians’ perspectives on strategies to improve cross-institutional collaboration and coordination of pancreatic cancer care for rural patients.

e13532 Background: Rural pancreatic cancer patients often lack access to high-volume pancreatic cancer specialists. This lack of access can result in fragmented cancer care—when patients receive care at multiple institutions—and necessitates that specialists engage in cross-institutional collaboration. In the context of fragmented pancreatic cancer care, the strategies specialists use to facilitate collaboration across institutions are poorly understood. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with cancer specialists (medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists) from a high-volume pancreas cancer center (n = 9) and rural community cancer centers (n = 11) to examine specialists’ coordination practices related to treating and co-managing pancreatic cancer patients across their respective institutions. Using qualitative methods, two of the co-authors independently coded the interview transcripts to identify themes related to cross-institutional coordination practices, noting improvement opportunities and facilitative strategies. Results: Cancer specialists described multiple practices to coordinate cross-institutional care including one-on-one phone calls and using a shared electronic medical record or secure email to exchange clinical notes. In recognizing the limitations of these practices, specialists acknowledged the need to develop and implement communication systems that could facilitate real-time discussions and information sharing between high-volume and rural specialists to coordinate diagnostic and treatment plans. Cross-institutional virtual tumor boards were viewed as a potentially useful approach to foster shared clinical decision-making and treatment plan development across institutions, but specialists perceived that logistical, institutional, and technological challenges could limit the use of this approach. Regardless, specialists indicated that cross-institutional virtual tumor boards could help disseminate treatment recommendations as well as identify barriers to care for mutually-shared rural cancer patients. Specialists also indicated that a dedicated patient navigator could help facilitate cross-institutional coordination by bridging communication between specialists while also assisting cancer patients with issues related to housing, transportation, scheduling, and treatment finances. Conclusions: It is important for cancer specialists treating rural cancer patients to have strategies that support efficient communication and decision-making. Cross-institutional virtual tumor boards and dedicated patient navigators are two such strategies that may help facilitate collaboration between high-volume and rural cancer specialists. Future research should examine the impact of these strategies on patients receiving cancer care at multiple institutions.

Association of rurality and race with surgical treatment and outcomes for nonmetastatic colon cancer.

e18536 Background: Rural cancer patients face limited access to care due to greater travel distance and lack of specialty cancer care. Little is known about the intersection of rurality with well-documented racial disparities in colon cancer treatment and outcomes. Methods: We used fee-for-service Medicare claims to study patients age 65+ diagnosed with incident colon cancer without evidence of metastases who underwent cancer-directed surgery between 04/01/2016 and 09/30/2018. The primary exposure was rurality of patient’s residence categorized as metropolitan (metro), micropolitan, and small town/rural. Outcomes were non-elective surgery (emergency department visit or transfer within 2 days of surgery), receipt of minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic or robotic), 90-day surgical complications, and 90-day mortality. Logistic regression adjusted for patient demographics, cancer side (right vs left), comorbidities, and Area Deprivation Index. We assessed effect modification by race/ethnicity. Results: Of 57,710 patients with incident non-metastatic colon cancer, 37,691 (65%) underwent surgery. In this surgical cohort, small town/rural and micropolitan residents were more likely to be older, white, and Medicare-Medicaid dual-eligible than metro residents. After risk adjustment, patients in small town/rural areas had higher odds of non-elective surgery (OR=1.24, 95% CI:1.13-1.36) and lower odds of minimally invasive surgery (OR=0.75, 95% CI:0.71-0.80) than patients living in metro areas. Similar results were seen for micropolitan areas. The association between rurality and 90-day outcomes differed by race/ethnicity (p-interaction=0.001 for surgical complications and mortality, see Table). Hispanics and other races had higher odds of 90-day surgical complications in non-metro versus metro areas but there was no notable difference for white patients. Likewise, compared to metro areas, racial/ethnic minorities had higher odds of 90-day mortality in small town/rural areas but white patients had lower odds. Conclusions: Small town/rural-residing Medicare beneficiaries undergoing surgery for non-metastatic colon cancer were less likely to receive optimal surgical management and worse outcomes, especially among non-white patients. The compounded effect of sociodemographic factors should be further studied to develop targeted policies and improve care for rural cancer patients.[Table: see text]

Improving recruitment to clinical trials for regional and rural cancer patients through a regionally based clinical trials network.

Medical Journal of AustraliaVolume 214, Issue 10 p. 453-454.e1 Perspectives Improving recruitment to clinical trials for regional and rural cancer patients through a regionally based clinical trials network Arun Muthusamy, Border Medical Oncology, Albury, NSWSearch for more papers by this authorDonna Long, Regional Trials Network Victoria, Albury, NSWSearch for more papers by this authorCraig R Underhill, Corresponding Author craig.underhill@bordermedonc.com.au orcid.org/0000-0001-9335-2678 Border Medical Oncology, Albury, NSW Rural Clinical School, UNSW, Albury, NSW Correspondence craig.underhill@bordermedonc.com.auSearch for more papers by this author Arun Muthusamy, Border Medical Oncology, Albury, NSWSearch for more papers by this authorDonna Long, Regional Trials Network Victoria, Albury, NSWSearch for more papers by this authorCraig R Underhill, Corresponding Author craig.underhill@bordermedonc.com.au orcid.org/0000-0001-9335-2678 Border Medical Oncology, Albury, NSW Rural Clinical School, UNSW, Albury, NSW Correspondence craig.underhill@bordermedonc.com.auSearch for more papers by this author First published: 14 May 2021 https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51078Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume214, Issue10June 2021Pages 453-454.e1 RelatedInformation

“Live your life cuz everybody's terminal”: Describing emotions and coping behaviors of rural advanced cancer patients

Culturally competent health care has led to increasing interest in how patients' identities influence the management of their health. The ways rural patients with advanced cancer process emotions and cope with their disease may be influenced by their rural context. The aims for this study were to (1) describe the emotions rural cancer patients experience, (2) describe how rural cancer patients manage their emotions within their rural context, and (3) interlace the themes related to coping with emotions. This paper is a subanalysis of a larger project focused on symptom management among rural patients living with advanced cancer. Using a qualitative descriptive design, authors read and coded patient interview transcripts to extract key perspectives related to managing emotions within a rural context. Sixteen participants, 10 men and 6 women, with a mean age of 68.75 years completed this study. Participants described a spectrum of emotional experiences. Some participants reported no distress, and some described high levels of distress. While previous writers described low levels of religious coping among rural patients, participants in this study often named their faith/spirituality as a major source of emotional coping. Participants also galvanized their social support network, particularly those in their religious community. Finally, participants in this study reported the use of medication as a last resort. Results from this study might be influenced from cultural variables found in the rural community; specifically, religiosity and close social networks. Future interventions need to be tailored to the unique responses of rural patients.

Health-related quality of life in head and neck cancer survivors: Evaluating the rural disadvantage.

Head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors often experience distress and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) impairment. Research suggests that rural cancer patients may have poorer outcomes than urban patients. This study examined whether HNC patient emotional and HRQOL outcomes differ in those living in a rural versus urban location at 6 and 12 months postdiagnosis. A total of 261 HNC patients were included from a longitudinal study of HNC outcomes. The majority were diagnosed with advanced stage cancer (51.3%); the most common cancer site was oral cavity (41.0%). Rurality was measured using the US Department of Agriculture Rural Urban Commuting Area codes. Depression was measured using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), general HRQOL using the Short Form-36 (SF-36), and HNC-specific HRQOL using the Head and Neck Cancer Inventory (HNCI). Analyses were 2 (group) × 3 (assessment) repeated measures ANCOVAs, controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics. Approximately 45% of the sample lived in a rural location. Follow-up comparisons of significant overall models indicated that rural patients reported significantly more nonsomatic depression symptoms at 6-month follow-up. Rural patients were also more likely to report significantly poorer general mental HRQOL at 12-month follow-up, significantly poorer HNC-specific HRQOL related to eating at 6- and 12-month follow-up, and marginally worse aesthetics at 12-month follow-up. These findings are consistent with suggestions that rural HNC patients may be at heightened risk for depression symptoms and decrements in HRQOL. Patients should be screened and regularly monitored for issues with depression and HNC-specific HRQOL throughout the survivorship period.

Understanding the strategies rural cancer patients and survivors use to manage financial toxicity and the broader implications on their lives.

To explore strategies rural Australians use to cope with the financial consequences of their cancer diagnosis and how that impacts on their lives. Twenty adult cancer patients/survivors residing in regional-remote areas of Australia were purposively sampled and participated in audio-recorded, semi-structured interviews. When data saturation was reached, thematic analysis was employed to analyse the data. Participants were 20-78 years (M=60), 70% female, 35% were undergoing treatment and the remaining 65% had finished treatment within the past 5 years. Three themes provide context to rural financial toxicity-related experiences (travelling to access cancer treatment away from home is expensive, being single or lacking family support exacerbates the financial strain, and no choice other than to adopt cost-saving strategies if wanted to access treatment). Strategies commonly employed to minimise financial toxicity include: accessing travel-related support, changes to lifestyle (buying cheaper food, saving on utilities), accessing savings and retirement funds, missing holidays and social activities, reduced car use and not taking a companion to cancer-related appointments at metropolitan treatment areas. Although cost-saving strategies can effectively increase the ability of rural people to cover cancer treatment-related and other costs, most have broader negative psychological, social and practical consequences for them and their families. Increasing rural cancer patients' and survivors' awareness of various cost-saving strategies and their impact (positive and negative) may decrease their risk of experiencing financial toxicity and unexpected unintended consequences of adopting cost-saving measures.

Optimizing Rural People's Access to Relevant Cancer Education and Support Using Peer-Led YouTube Films.

Rural cancer patients have inferior cancer outcomes and unique unmet information needs. This paper explores the value of rural people affected by cancer delivering cancer-related education and support to their peers via 3-5min online YouTube films. In part 1, 14 rural Australians affected by cancer (10 survivors, 4 carers), 50% (7/14) female, 55-79years, "storytellers", were purposively invited to be filmed sharing their cancer-related experience and advice for others facing similar challenges. They then reflected on their storytelling experience during semi-structured interviews with an independent researcher. In part 2, 11 rural South Australians affected by cancer (8 survivors, 3 carers), 82% (9/11) female, 32-75years, "viewers", who had watched at least three of the videos, were interviewed. When data saturation was reached, thematic analysis was employed. Storytellers were found to be highly satisfied with the film-making process and product. They valued rapport building prior to filming and the opportunity to help others. They also found storytelling cathartic and the films useful in communicating their cancer experience to family and friends. Rural viewers appreciated the honesty, authenticity, relatability and believability of the storytellers, the practical advice on rural-specific psychosocial issues, acknowledgment of the impact of isolation and the opportunity to understand others' cancer experiences. The film's short duration and professional film-making added appeal. Inclusion of younger storytellers and methods of delivery other than YouTube were suggested. This study highlights the value of this approach for storytellers and viewers. It may be particularly beneficial for isolated rural cancer survivors who feel that their unique challenges are not adequately addressed by mainstream cancer education resources However, further quantitative research to test acceptability and impact in representative rural samples is required.

Differences in rural versus urban cancer patients’ perception of care coordination.

114 Background: Although advances in anticancer treatment have improved survival of patients with cancer overall, cancer mortality rates remain disproportionately high in rural areas. Disparities in rural cancer health outcomes are partially attributed to challenges with care coordination in rural areas. However, little is known about rural-urban differences in patients’ perception of cancer care coordination. In this exploratory study, we compared rural and urban cancer patients’ perception of care coordination (CC) using a Care Coordination Instrument (CCI), a validated self-report measure. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data from two community-based cancer care delivery studies from 2018 and 2019 focused on cancer patients’ perception of CC. Patients receiving active therapy for any cancer completed a 29-item CCI. The CCI assesses overall perceptions of CC (Total) and across 3 domains: Communication, Navigation, and Operational. The rural patient cohort was derived from the American Cancer Society Hope Lodge Hawaii, which provides lodging for patients from neighbor islands (rural) receiving cancer care on Oahu (urban). The urban comparison group included patients residing on Oahu. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to compare rural and urban patients’ perception of CC with adjustment for age, gender, and cancer type. Results: Data from 243 patients were analyzed; 23 (9.5%) were rural and 220 (90.5%) were urban. The rural and urban groups were similar with respect to patient demographics (age, gender) and clinical status. Rural patients reported significantly lower overall mean CCI scores than urban patients (54.7 vs 61.6; p = .02). Rural-urban differences in patients’ perception of CC were found for Communication (29.5 vs 35.1; p = .004) and Operational (19.7 vs 22.0; p = .02) domains. There were no rural-urban differences for Navigation. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that rural patients had significantly poorer perception of care coordination overall than urban patients. Specifically, the observed rural vs urban differences in patients’ perception of care coordination were related to communication and operational challenges. Required coordination with a patient navigator to facilitate access to Hope Lodge may have confounded analysis in the Navigation domain. These findings highlight the need for interventions to address communication and operational CC challenges for rural patients in order to improve the quality of cancer care and reduce health disparities for rural cancer patients.

Effect of time to treatment and comprehensive care at commission on cancer-accredited practices on survival in rural patients with colorectal cancer.

109 Background: Rural cancer care in the United States has unique challenges from variable access to care. This study examined differences in time to first treatment (TTT), a surrogate for access, and predictors of overall survival (OS) between rural and non-rural colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Methods: Patients with stage I-III CRC from 2004-2012 in the National Cancer Database of Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited facilities were included and categorized into rural and non-rural groups. Differences in demographic, disease characteristics, socioeconomic (SE) factors and TTT (< 4 weeks, 4-8 weeks and > 8 weeks) between rural and non-rural patients were assessed by Chi-square test. The effect of demographics, SE factors, and TTT on OS were assessed using Cox models. Results: The study population comprised 605,913, 11,649 (2%) of whom were rural. Compared to non-rural patients, rural patients were more likely to be age > 65, male, Caucasian, receive care at non-academic centers, have government insurance, have lower income and less education (p<0.0001 for all). Significant demographic and SE differences are shown in Table. Rural patients had similar mean TTT compared to non-rural patients (2.76 vs. 2.84 weeks, p = 0.35). Slightly more rural patients had TTT < 4 weeks (77% vs. 75%, p <0.0001). Shorter TTT (both <4 weeks vs. 8 weeks and 4-8 weeks vs. > 8 weeks) was associated with improved OS (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.85-0.89, p<0.0001 and HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.73-0.76, p<0.0001, respectively). After adjusting for demographic, disease and SE factors, rural status was associated with modestly better OS compared to non-rural status (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.92-0.99, p=0.006). Conclusions: Despite several adverse demographic and socioeconomic factors, rural CRC patients had modestly better OS compared to non-rural patients. Rural and non-rural CRC patients had similar TTT in this cohort. These data suggest the comprehensive cancer care delivered by CoC-accredited practices is associated with rapid TTT and improved OS in rural CRC patients. It is unclear whether our data apply to non-CoC-accredited facilities in rural United States. [Table: see text]

Multidisciplinary care for rural pancreatic cancer patients: Providers’ perspectives about patients’ challenges navigating between rural healthcare settings and high-volume centers.

116 Background: Multidisciplinary care from high-volume centers (HVCs) improves outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer (PC). However, rural PC patients lack access to high-volume PC specialists, resulting in the need for them to travel to distant HVCs for specialized treatment. The barriers and challenges rural PC patients face when seeking care at distant HVCs is poorly understood. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with PC specialists (medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists, n = 9) at a HVC (The Ohio State University) actively treating and co-managing rural PC patients with rural physicians. Using rigorous qualitative methods, two coders independently coded the interview transcripts to develop a thematic account of challenges rural PC patients encounter when receiving care at distant HVCs. Results: PC specialists commonly identified transportation as a major barrier they believed their rural PC patients experienced, and noted both the distance these patients needed to travel and difficulties patients reported in navigating major cities to receive care at HVCs. Similarly, providers commented that rural PC patients and their families reported having difficulty finding affordable lodging near HVCs sometimes resulting in the need for frequent and inconvenient back-and-forth travel between the HVC and the patient’s home. One interviewee stressed the importance of health literacy and the need for providers to improve physician-patient communication as well as provide resources to help rural PC patients better understand their condition and recommended treatment plan. PC specialists also indicated that some rural PC patients had expressed discomfort about contacting physicians outside their in-person clinic visits. They also reported that the possible duplication of services such as diagnostic imaging that could occur may result in increased financial stress for their patients. Conclusions: PC specialists noted several challenges they perceived their rural PC patients may face when navigating care between rural healthcare settings and HVCs. Notably, these challenges may both impact the delivery of high-quality multidisciplinary care and cause additional stress for rural PC patients. Future studies should examine how interventions (e.g., patient navigators, support groups, educational resources) aimed specifically at addressing barriers to multidisciplinary PC care for rural PC patients can be designed and implemented.

Differences in Electronic Personal Health Information Tool Use Between Rural and Urban Cancer Patients in the United States: Secondary Data Analysis.

BackgroundStudies have previously shown that rural cancer patients are diagnosed at later stages of disease. This delay is felt throughout treatment and follow-up, reflected in the fact that rural patients often have poorer clinical outcomes compared with their urban counterparts.ObjectiveFew studies have explored whether there is a difference in cancer patients’ current use of health information technology tools by residential location.MethodsData from 7 cycles of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS, 2003-2017) were merged and analyzed to examine whether differences exist in managing electronic personal health information (ePHI) and emailing health care providers among rural and urban cancer patients. Geographic location was categorized using Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCCs). Bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression were used to determine whether associations existed between rural/urban residency and use of health information technology among cancer patients.ResultsOf the 3031 cancer patients/survivors who responded across the 7 cycles of HINTS, 797 (26.9%) resided in rural areas. No difference was found between rural and urban cancer patients in having managed ePHI in the past 12 months (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.43-1.40). Rural cancer patients were significantly less likely to email health care providers than their urban counterparts (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.84).ConclusionsThe digital divide between rural and urban cancer residents does not extend to general ePHI management; however, electronic communication with providers is significantly lower among rural cancer patients than urban cancer patients. Further research is needed to determine whether such disparities extend to other health information technology tools that might benefit rural cancer patients as well as other chronic conditions.

SMAD2 rs4940086 heterozygosity increases the risk of cervical cancer development among the women in Bangladesh.

SMAD2 is a critical signal transducer molecule in the TGFβ- SMAD pathway which is also known for its tumor suppressor role. Genetic variations in SMAD2 render cells insensitive to its anti-proliferative signals leading to tumor formation. In this study, we demonstrate the impact of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of SMAD2 (rs4940086 and rs8085335) on cervical cancer risk development in Bangladeshi population. 132 cervical cancer patients and 98 control volunteers were enrolled in the study and genotyped utilizing polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) method. The association between cervical cancer susceptibility and the chosen SNPs were evaluated through multiple logistic regression. SMAD2 rs4940086 heterozygous genotype (T/C) was associated with a 3.89 times higher risk of cervical cancer development (P = 0.001, AOR 3.89, 95% CI 1.777-8.513). The T/C and C/C genotypes in combination also significantly elevated cervical cancer risk (P = 0.035, AOR 1.876, 95% CI 1.047-3.364). Urban cancer patients had a significantly higher chance of carrying the rs4940086 polymorphism as compared to rural cancer patients (P = 0.045, OR 2.59 95% CI 1.02-6.59). SMAD2 rs8085335 heterozygous variant (A/G) demonstrated modest effects in increasing cervical cancer susceptibility (P = 0.594, AOR 1.247, 95% CI 0.554-2.809). Our results suggest that polymorphic variations in SMAD2, particularly rs4940086, can potentially elevate cervical cancer susceptibility in Bangladeshi women.

Abstract PR10: Fewer rural cancer patients treated with antineoplastic agents

Abstract Approximately one-fifth of the U.S. population lives in rural areas. Cancer in rural areas is characterized by late-stage diagnosis, care that is inconsistent with recommended guidelines, and higher mortality. To our knowledge, no research to date has examined the use of systemic agents in rural patients. We investigated whether rural patients are treated with newer, high-cost antineoplastic agents. We defined high-cost antineoplastic agents as those with costs above the median monthly cost in 2014 dollars, approximately $5,500 (https://www.mskcc.org/research-programs/health-policy-outcomes/cost-drugs). Most of these agents were approved in 2002 and later, while most lower-cost agents were approved prior to 2000. The most common high-cost agents identified in the study included oxaliplatin, bevacizumab, irinotecan, cetuximab, and panitumumab. Our study population comprised stage III and IV colorectal cancer patients identified in the 2011-2013 SEER-Medicare data. Rurality was defined as less urban and rural areas combined relative to large metropolitan areas. There were 4,383 patients who met our inclusion criteria. Of these, approximately 21% (N=901) lived in less urban and rural areas. Patients residing in rural areas were less likely to receive any antineoplastic treatment than their more urban counterparts (50% compared to 54%, p=0.01). Among those who received antineoplastic treatment, 71% of urban patients were prescribed newer, more costly agents relative to 68% of rural patients. Urban patients also had better survival, with a median survival time of 20 months compared to 16 months for rural patients (p<0.05). In a multivariate logistic regression, we examined the receipt of any antineoplastic treatment and the receipt of high-cost agents, controlling for patient sex, race, stage, and rurality. When controlling for these factors, rural patients were significantly less likely to receive any antineoplastic treatment (odds ratio = 0.808, p<0.01), although there was no significant difference in receipt of high-cost agents. Newer, high-cost antineoplastic agents are becoming the standard of care. Because peer exposure is associated with the likelihood of technology adoption, physicians in rural areas may not benefit from close peer relationships and thus may be reluctant to adopt new treatment approaches. Contextual factors such as poverty, social deprivation, health care resources, and distance traveled mediate outcomes in rural communities. In ongoing research, we are investigating the role each of these factors has in the use of new agents. Collectively understanding these determinants can shape policies and investments to reduce widening disparities. This abstract is also being presented as Poster B077. Citation Format: Cathy J. Bradley, Marcelo Coca Perraillon. Fewer rural cancer patients treated with antineoplastic agents [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2018 Nov 2-5; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(6 Suppl):Abstract nr PR10.

Beyond patient-level barriers: Evaluation of rural residency and area-level deprivation and clinical trial (CT) participation.

e19068 Background: Residents of rural and socioeconomically deprived areas have worse cancer outcomes and are less likely to participate in CTs. It is unknown whether these area-level attributes predict CT participation after accounting for individual sociodemographic variables. Methods: We combined data from two SWOG national survey studies. S0316, a multi-center prospective survey, was combined with data from a large web-based survey. Both studies examined CT treatment decision making from diagnosis in patients with common cancers. Zip codes of residences were classified as rural or urban using Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (urban, 1-3, vs. rural, 4-9) and a 3-level ordinal variable (urban, 1-3, vs. rural, 4-7, vs. very rural, 8-9). We identified socioeconomically deprived areas (SDAs) as those with an Area Deprivation Index (ADI) in the upper quartile. We also examined areas by ADI quartile. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association of rural residency and area-level socioeconomic deprivation with CT participation after adjusting for important individual-level factors (age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, and education), stratified by study and cancer type. Results: Among 7080 patients, 1299 (18.5%) were from rural areas, 653 (9.4%) were from SDAs; and 715 (10.1%) participated in a CT. Patients had breast (56.1%), prostate (21.8%), lung (13.6%), and colorectal (8.4%) cancer. In univariate analysis, rural patients were 23% less likely to participate in a CT (OR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.62-0.95, p=.016); in multivariate analysis, results were similar (OR=0.80, 95% CI: 0.64-0.99, p=.037). Very rural residents were 34% less likely to participate than urban patients (OR=0.66, 95% CI, 0.55-0.80, ordinal p=.031). There was no statistically significant association between residence in SDAs and CT participation (p>.30). Rural patients were more likely to have >1 comorbid conditions (45.4% vs. 39.5%, p=.001), to be concerned about how to pay for their care (40.6% vs. 32.4%, p<.0001), and to travel farther for care (median 50.0 vs. 12.0 miles, p<.0001). Conclusions: Our findings are the first to show that rural residents are less likely to participate in CTs even after accounting for confounding individual factors. These results agree with prior observations that rural patients must travel longer distances for care, including for CT care. Reducing the travel burden for rural cancer patients could improve their CT participation and the generalizability of CT results to all patients.

Developing a Survivorship Care Transition Model for Rural and Underserved Low Risk Breast and Gynecologic Cancer Patients

Developing a Survivorship Care Transition Model for Rural and Underserved Low Risk Breast and Gynecologic Cancer Patients

Rural-urban differences in the association between individual, facility, and clinical characteristics and travel time for cancer treatment

BackgroundGreater travel time to cancer care has been identified as a potential barrier to care as well as associated with worse health outcomes. While rural cancer patients have been shown to travel farther for care, it is not known what patient, facility, and clinical characteristics may differentially be associated with greater roundtrip travel times for cancer patients by rurality of residence. Identifying these factors will help providers understand which patients may be most in need of resources to assist with travel.MethodsUsing 2010–2014 Pennsylvania Cancer Registry data, we examined the association between patient, facility, and clinical characteristics with roundtrip patient travel time using multivariate linear regression models. We then estimated separate models by rural residence based on the Rural-Urban Continuum Code (RUCC) of a patient’s county of residence at diagnosis to understand how the association of each factor with travel time may vary for patients separated into metro residents (RUCC 1–3); and two categories of non-metro residents (RUCC 4–6) and (RUCC 7–9).ResultsIn our sample (n = 197,498), we document large differences in mean roundtrip travel time—mean 41.5 min for RUCC 1–3 patients vs. 128.9 min for RUCC 7–9 patients. We show cervical/uterine and ovarian cancer patients travel significantly farther; as do patients traveling to higher volume and higher-ranked hospitals.ConclusionsTo better understand patient travel burden, providers need to understand that factors predicting longer travel time may vary by rurality of patient residence and cancer type.