Concordance with clinical practice guidelines for adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage I-III colon cancer: experience in 2 Canadian provinces.
ABSTRACT Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer were published by the National Institutes of Health in 1991. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Care Ontario have recommended adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer. We evaluated differences in concordance with guidelines in the treatment of patients with stage I-III colon cancer in the Canadian provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario.
We assessed clinical data and treatment from January 1999 to December 2000 for 130 patients from Newfoundland and Labrador and 315 patients from Ontario who had stage I-III colon cancer. The primary outcome was concordance with guidelines for adjuvant treatment. We evaluated factors affecting the use of chemotherapy in patients with stage II disease.
No patients received adjuvant therapy for stage I disease. Forty-five of 52 patients (87%) in Newfoundland and Labrador and 108 of 115 patients (94%) in Ontario received adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer. Twenty of 55 patients (36%) in Newfoundland and Labrador and 44 of 116 patients (38%) in Ontario received adjuvant therapy for stage II disease. Eighteen of 41 patients (44%) in Newfoundland and Labrador and 30 of 53 patients (57%) in Ontario with high-risk features received adjuvant treatment, which was significantly higher than patients without high-risk features. There was a strong trend toward using chemotherapy in patients with stage II disease who were 50 years or younger, independent of high-risk status.
Concordance with CPGs for adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage II colon cancer was not optimal. This may reflect selection bias among referring surgeons, a paucity of level-I evidence and the belief that other factors such as age may play a role in predicting outcome.
SourceAvailable from: Kevin M. Gorey[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite evidence of chemotherapy's ability to cure or comfort those with colon cancer, nearly half of such Americans do not receive it. African Americans (AA) seem particularly disadvantaged. An ethnicity by poverty by health insurance interaction was hypothesized such that the multiplicative disadvantage of being extremely poor and inadequately insured is worse for AAs than for non-Hispanic white Americans (NHWA). California registry data were analyzed for 459 AAs and 3,001 NHWAs diagnosed with stage II to IV colon cancer between 1996 and 2000 and followed until 2011. Socioeconomic data from the 2000 census categorized neighborhoods: extremely poor (>= 30% of households poor), middle (5-29% poor) and low poverty (< 5% poor). Participants were randomly selected from these poverty strata. Primary health insurers were Medicaid, Medicare, private or none. Chemotherapy rates were age and stage-adjusted and comparisons used standardized rate ratios (RR). Logistic and Cox regressions, respectively, modeled chemotherapy receipt and long term survival. A significant 3-way ethnicity by poverty by health insurance interaction effect on chemotherapy receipt was observed. Among those who did not live in extremely poor neighborhoods and were adequately insured privately or by Medicare, chemotherapy rates did not differ significantly between AAs (37.7%) and NHWAs (39.5%). Among those who lived in extremely poor neighborhoods and were inadequately insured by Medicaid or uninsured, AAs (14.6%) were nearly 60% less likely to receive chemotherapy than were NHWAs (25.5%, RR = 0.41). When the 3-way interaction effect as well as the main effects of poverty, health insurance and chemotherapy was accounted for, survival rates of AAs and NHWAs were the same. The multiplicative barrier to colon cancer care that results from being extremely poor and inadequately insured is worse for AAs than it is for NHWAs. AAs are more prevalently poor, inadequately insured, and have fewer assets so they are probably less able to absorb the indirect and direct, but uncovered, costs of colon cancer care. Policy makers ought to be cognizant of these factors as they implement the Affordable Care Act and consider future health care reforms.BMC Health Services Research 03/2014; 14(1):133. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-14-133 · 1.66 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Rationale, aims and objectivesPopulation level data on colorectal cancer (CRC) management in Australia are lacking. This study assessed broad level patterns of care and concordance with guidelines for CRC management at the population level using linked administrative data from both the private and public health sectors across South Australia. Disparities in CRC treatment were also explored.Method Linking information from the South Australian Cancer Registry, hospital separations, radiotherapy services and hospital-based cancer registry systems provided data on the socio-demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics for 4641 CRC patients, aged 50-79 years, diagnosed from 2003 to 2008. Factors associated with receiving site/stage-specific treatments (surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy) and overall concordance with treatment guidelines were identified using Poisson regression analysis.ResultsAbout 83% of colon and 56% of rectal cancer patients received recommended treatment. Provision of neo-adjuvant/adjuvant therapies may be less than optimal. Radiotherapy was less likely among older patients (prevalence ratio 0.7, 95% confidence interval 0.5-0.8). Chemotherapy was less likely among older patients (0.7, 0.6-0.8), those with severe or multiple co-morbidities (0.8, 0.7-0.9), and those from rural areas (0.9, 0.8-1.0). Overall discordance with treatment guidelines was more likely among rectal cancer patients (3.0, 2.7-3.3), older patients (1.6, 1.4-1.8), those with multiple co-morbid conditions (1.3, 1.1-1.4), and those living in rural areas (1.2, 1.0-1.3).Conclusions Greater emphasis should be given to ensure CRC patients who may benefit from neo-adjuvant/adjuvant therapies have access to these treatments.Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 05/2014; 20(4). DOI:10.1111/jep.12183 · 1.58 Impact Factor