Influence of NCI Cancer Center Attendance on Mortality in Lung, Breast, Colorectal, and Prostate Cancer Patients

The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH 03756, USA.
Medical Care Research and Review (Impact Factor: 2.62). 06/2009; 66(5):542-60. DOI: 10.1177/1077558709335536
Source: PubMed


Some evidence links cancer outcomes to place of service, but the influence of NCI (National Cancer Institute) cancer centers on outcomes has not been established. We compared mortality for NCI cancer center attendees versus nonattendees. This retrospective cohort study included individuals with incident cancers of the lung, breast, colon/rectum, or prostate from 1998 to 2002 (N = 211,084) from SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare linked data, with claims through 2003. We examined the relation of NCI cancer center attendance with 1- and 3-year all-cause and cancer-specific mortality using multilevel logistic regression models. NCI cancer center attendance was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of 1- and 3-year all-cause and cancer-specific mortality. The mortality risk reduction associated with NCI cancer center attendance was most apparent in late-stage cancers and was evident across all levels of comorbidities. Attendance at NCI cancer centers is associated with a significant survival benefit for the four major cancers among Medicare beneficiaries.

12 Reads
  • Source
    • "potential and realized spatial access). Some non-spatial factors such as education attainment, poverty rate, health insurance , language fluency, and cultural barriers should be considered when analyzing the utilization of CRC services (Dejardin et al., 2005; Halpern et al., 2009; Onega et al., 2009). This study did not intend to examine the interactions between spatial and non-spatial factors on CRC service utilization. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The usefulness of gravity-based spatial access models is limited because of the uncertainty introduced by the range of values of the impedance coefficient. To solve this problem, this paper proposes the concept of spatial access ratio (SPAR) derived from the enhanced 2-step floating catchment area (E2SFCA) method — a recent extension of the gravity model — to assess potential spatial access. First, a sensitivity assessment is conducted to verify the effectiveness of SPAR and its advantages in overcoming the uncertainty problem. Then, the E2SFCA method and the shortest travel time method are employed to measure potential spatial access to colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention and treatment services in Texas based on data at the census tract level. The socio-demographic and geographic distributions of potential spatial access to CRC services are also examined. The sensitivity assessment reveals substantial fluctuations in the values of the spatial access index calculated directly by the E2SFCA method under different values of the impedance coefficient. However, the values of SPAR remain stable under different values of the coefficient. A comparative analysis indicates that potential spatial access to primary care physicians (PCPs), CRC screening facilities, and oncologists varied among different racial/ethnic and socioeconomic population groups as well as in different geographic regions in Texas. Non-Hispanic blacks, Asians, and people in affluent areas had a geographical advantage in accessing CRC services than other groups. The urban/rural difference was more obvious and serious than those of different racial/ethnic groups and groups with different socio-economic statuses, as metropolitan residents had more than three times the potential spatial access than isolated rural residents.
    Applied Geography 03/2012; 32(2):291–299. DOI:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.05.001 · 3.08 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research-oriented cancer hospitals in the United States treat and study patients with a range of diseases. Measures of disease specific research productivity, and comparison to overall productivity, are currently lacking. Different institutions are specialized in research of particular diseases. To report disease specific productivity of American cancer hospitals, and propose a summary measure. We conducted a retrospective observational survey of the 50 highest ranked cancer hospitals in the 2013 US News and World Report rankings. We performed an automated search of PubMed and for published reports and registrations of clinical trials (respectively) addressing specific cancers between 2008 and 2013. We calculated the summed impact factor for the publications. We generated a summary measure of productivity based on the number of Phase II clinical trials registered and the impact factor of Phase II clinical trials published for each institution and disease pair. We generated rankings based on this summary measure. We identified 6076 registered trials and 6516 published trials with a combined impact factor of 44280.4, involving 32 different diseases over the 50 institutions. Using a summary measure based on registered and published clinical trails, we ranked institutions in specific diseases. As expected, different institutions were highly ranked in disease-specific productivity for different diseases. 43 institutions appeared in the top 10 ranks for at least 1 disease (vs 10 in the overall list), while 6 different institutions were ranked number 1 in at least 1 disease (vs 1 in the overall list). Research productivity varies considerably among the sample. Overall cancer productivity conceals great variation between diseases. Disease specific rankings identify sites of high academic productivity, which may be of interest to physicians, patients and researchers.
    PLoS ONE 03/2015; 10(3):e0121233. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0121233 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Show more