Dataset Information

The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP): Sustaining Quality and Reducing Disparities in Guideline-Concordant Breast and Colon Cancer Care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) pilot was designed to improve quality of cancer care and reduce disparities at community hospitals. The NCCCP's primary intervention was the implementation of the Commission on Cancer Rapid Quality Reporting System (RQRS). The RQRS is a hospital-based data collection and evaluation system allowing near real-time assessment of selected breast and colon cancer quality of care measures. Building on previous NCCCP analyses, this study examined whether improvements in quality cancer care within NCCCP hospitals early in the program were sustained and whether improvements were notable for minority or underserved populations.

Methods

We compared changes in concordance with three breast and two colon cancer quality measures approved by the National Quality Forum for patients diagnosed at NCCCP hospitals from 2006 to 2007 (pre-RQRS), 2008 to 2010 (early-RQRS), and 2011 to 2013 (later-RQRS). Data were obtained from NCCCP sites participating in the Commission on Cancer Rapid Quality Reporting System. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of concordance with breast and colon cancer quality measures.

Results

The sample included 13,893 breast and 5,546 colon cancer patients. After RQRS initiation, all five quality measures improved significantly and improvements were sustained through 2013. Quality of care measures showed sustained improvements for both breast and colon cancer patients and for vulnerable patient subgroups including black, uninsured, and Medicaid-covered patients.

Conclusions

Quality improvements in NCCCP hospitals were sustained throughout the duration of the program, both overall and among minority and underserved patients. Because many individuals receive cancer treatment at community hospitals, facilitating high-quality care in these environments must be a priority.

Implications for practice

Quality improvement programs often improve practice, but the methods are not maintained over time. The implementation of a real-time quality reporting system and a network focused on improving quality of care sustained quality improvement at select community cancer centers. The NCCCP pilot increased numbers of patients receiving guideline-concordant care for breast and colon cancer in community settings, and initial improvements noted in earlier years of RQRS were sustained into later years, both overall and among minority and underserved patients. National initiatives that improve care for diverse patient groups are important for reducing and eliminating barriers to care.

SUBMITTER: Spain P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5553955 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeWe identified the frequency of racial disparities in guideline-concordant cancer care for select common disease sites in the United States and the impact of guideline concordance on mortality disparities.Methods and materialsUsing Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare data, we evaluated patients age >65 years of black or non-Hispanic white race who were diagnosed with stage III breast (n?=?3607), stage I (n?=?14,605) or III (n?=?15,609) non-small cell lung, or stage III prostate (n?=?3548) cancer between 2006 and 2011. Chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy (RT) treatments were identified using claims data. Pearson ?2 was used to test the associations between race and guideline concordance on the basis of National Comprehensive Cancer Network curative treatment guidelines. Mortality risks were modeled using Cox proportional hazards.ResultsBlack patients were less likely to receive guideline-concordant curative treatment than non-Hispanic white patients for stage III breast cancer postmastectomy RT (53% black, 61% white; P?=?.0014), stage I non-small cell lung cancer stereotactic radiation or surgery (61% black, 75% white; P?<?.0001), stage III non-small cell lung cancer chemotherapy in addition to RT or surgery (36% black, 41% white; P?=?.0001), and stage III prostate cancer RT or prostatectomy (82% black, 95% white; P?<?.0001). Disparities in guideline concordance impacted racial mortality disparities. Specifically, hazard ratios that demonstrated elevated all-cause mortality risks in black patients were lowered (and more closely approached hazard ratio of 1.00) after adjusting for guideline concordance. A similar impact for cause-specific mortality was observed.ConclusionsRacial disparities in the receipt of curative cancer therapy impacted racial mortality disparities across multiple cancer sites. Benchmarking adherence to guideline-concordant care could represent an opportunity to stimulate improvements in disparities in cancer treatment and survival.

Project description:Rationale: The level of adherence to lung cancer treatment guidelines in the United States is unclear. In addition, it is unclear whether previously identified disparities by racial or ethnic group and by age persist across all clinical subgroups.Objectives: To assess the level of adherence to the minimal lung cancer treatment recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines (guideline-concordant treatment) in the United States, and to assess the persistence of disparities by racial or ethnic group and by age across all clinical subgroups.Methods: We evaluated whether 441,812 lung cancer cases in the National Cancer Database diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 received guideline-concordant treatment. Logistic regression models were used to assess possible disparities in receiving guideline-concordant treatment by racial or ethnic group and by age across all clinical subgroups, and whether these persist after adjusting for patient, tumor, and health care provider characteristics.Results: Overall, 62.1% of subjects received guideline-concordant treatment (range across clinical subgroups = 50.4-76.3%). However, 21.6% received no treatment (range = 10.3-31.4%) and 16.3% received less intensive treatment than recommended (range = 6.4-21.6%). Among the most common less intensive treatments for all subgroups was "conventionally fractionated radiotherapy only" (range = 2.5-16.0%), as was "chemotherapy only" for nonmetastatic subgroups (range = 1.2-13.7%), and "conventionally fractionated radiotherapy and chemotherapy" for localized non-small-cell lung cancer (5.9%). Guideline-concordant treatment was less likely with increasing age, despite adjusting for relevant covariates (age ≥ 80 yr compared with <50 yr: adjusted odds ratio = 0.12, 95% confidence interval = 0.12-0.13). This disparity was present in all clinical subgroups. In addition, non-Hispanic black patients were less likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment than non-Hispanic white patients (adjusted odds ratio = 0.78, 95% confidence interval = 0.76-0.80). This disparity was present in all clinical subgroups, although statistically nonsignificant for extensive disease small-cell lung cancer.Conclusions: Between 2010 and 2014, many patients with lung cancer in the United States received no treatment or less intensive treatment than recommended. Particularly, elderly patients with lung cancer and non-Hispanic black patients are less likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment. Patterns of care among those receiving less intensive treatment than recommended suggest room for improved uptake of treatments such as stereotactic body radiation therapy for subjects with localized non-small-cell lung cancer.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Partnered status is an independent predictor of clinical outcomes, including overall survival, among patients with cancer. However, the mechanisms by which partnered status impacts survival are not fully understood and to the authors' knowledge the associations between partnered status and the specific attributes of chemotherapy have not been studied to date. METHODS:The current study was an observational study of patients with resected American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage III colon cancer diagnosed from 2008 through 2015 and recruited from an academic cancer center and 2 large community oncology practices. Outcome measures were specific attributes of adjuvant chemotherapy. Partnered status (partnered vs unpartnered) was the primary independent variable. Bivariate comparisons between independent variables and the primary outcomes were performed. Associations between partnered status and the outcomes also were analyzed using multivariable generalized estimating equations using a logit link. RESULTS:Data were collected from 436 patients. Of these patients, approximately 65% were from community oncology practices. Approximately 62% were partnered (married or living with a partner), and approximately 86% received adjuvant chemotherapy. Among these individuals, 87% received multiagent chemotherapy and 65% completed 6 months of therapy. Partnered patients were found to have a higher odds of completing chemotherapy (odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.04-3.77). CONCLUSIONS:In this innovative investigation of the associations between partnered status and specific attributes of curative-intent chemotherapy, approximately 35% of patients terminated chemotherapy early. Having a partner increased the odds of completing therapy, which may be one mechanism through which having a partner improves disease-specific outcomes among patients with colon cancer. Identifying those aspects of partner support that can be reproduced with community or clinical personnel may help unpartnered patients to complete the recommended course of curative-intent chemotherapy.