David K Blough’s research while affiliated with Fred Hutch Cancer Center and other places

Purpose: Patients with cancer are more likely to file for bankruptcy than the general population, but the impact of severe financial distress on health outcomes among patients with cancer is not known. Methods: We linked Western Washington SEER Cancer Registry records with federal bankruptcy records for the region. By using propensity score matching to account for differences in several demographic and clinical factors between patients who did and did not file for bankruptcy, we then fit Cox proportional hazards models to examine the relationship between bankruptcy filing and survival. Results: Between 1995 and 2009, 231,596 persons were diagnosed with cancer. Patients who filed for bankruptcy (n = 4,728) were more likely to be younger, female, and nonwhite, to have local- or regional- (v distant-) stage disease at diagnosis, and have received treatment. After propensity score matching, 3,841 patients remained in each group (bankruptcy v no bankruptcy). In the matched sample, mean age was 53.0 years, 54% were men, mean income was $49,000, and majorities were white (86%), married (60%), and urban (91%) and had local- or regional-stage disease at diagnosis (84%). Both groups received similar initial treatments. The adjusted hazard ratio for mortality among patients with cancer who filed for bankruptcy versus those who did not was 1.79 (95% CI, 1.64 to 1.96). Hazard ratios varied by cancer type: colorectal, prostate, and thyroid cancers had the highest hazard ratios. Excluding patients with distant-stage disease from the models did not have an effect on results. Conclusion: Severe financial distress requiring bankruptcy protection after cancer diagnosis appears to be a risk factor for mortality. Further research is needed to understand the process by which extreme financial distress influences survival after cancer diagnosis and to find strategies that could mitigate this risk.

Introduction: In this prospective study of localized prostate cancer patients and their partners, we analyzed how partner issues evolve over time, focusing on satisfaction with care, influence of cancer treatment, and its impact on relationship with patient, cancer worry, and personal activities. Aims: Our study aims were twofold: (i) to determine whether the impact of treatment on patients and partners moderate over time and (ii) if receiving surgery (i.e., radical prostatectomy) influences partner issues more than other treatments. Methods: Patients newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their female partners were recruited from three states to complete surveys by mail at three time points over 12 months. Main outcome measures: The four primary outcomes assessed in the partner analysis included satisfaction with treatment, cancer worry, and the influence of cancer and its treatment on their relationship (both general relationship and sexual relationship). Results: This analysis included 88 patient-partner pairs. At 6 months, partners reported that cancer had a negative impact on their sexual relationship (39%--somewhat negative and 12%--very negative). At 12 months, this proportion increased substantially (42%--somewhat negative and 29%--very negative). Partners were significantly more likely to report that their sexual relationship was worse when the patient reported having surgery (P = 0.0045, odds ratio = 9.8025, 95% confidence interval 2.076-46.296). A minority of partners reported significant negative impacts in other areas involving their personal activities (16% at 6 months and 25% at 12 months) or work life (6% at 6 months, which increased to 12% at 12 months). Conclusion: From partners' perspectives, prostate cancer therapy has negative impact on sexual relationships and appears to worsen over time.

Much has been written about the relationship between high medical expenses and the likelihood of filing for bankruptcy, but the relationship between receiving a cancer diagnosis and filing for bankruptcy is less well understood. We estimated the incidence and relative risk of bankruptcy for people age twenty-one or older diagnosed with cancer compared to people the same age without cancer by conducting a retrospective cohort analysis that used a variety of medical, personal, legal, and bankruptcy sources covering the Western District of Washington State in US Bankruptcy Court for the period 1995-2009. We found that cancer patients were 2.65 times more likely to go bankrupt than people without cancer. Younger cancer patients had 2-5 times higher rates of bankruptcy than cancer patients age sixty-five or older, which indicates that Medicare and Social Security may mitigate bankruptcy risk for the older group. The findings suggest that employers and governments may have a policy role to play in creating programs and incentives that could help people cover expenses in the first year following a cancer diagnosis.

Background: Breast cancer tumor markers are used by some clinicians to screen for disease recurrence risk. Since there is limited evidence of benefit, additional research may be warranted. Aim: To assess the potential value of a randomized clinical trial of breast tumor marker testing in routine follow-up of high-risk, stage II-III breast cancer survivors. Materials & methods: We developed a decision-analytic model of tumor marker testing plus standard surveillance every 3-6 months for 5 years. The expected value of sample information was calculated using probabilistic simulations and was a function of: the probability of selecting the optimal monitoring strategy with current versus future information; the impact of choosing the nonoptimal strategy; and the size of the population affected. Results: The value of information for a randomized clinical trial involving 9000 women was US$214 million compared with a cost of US$30-60 million to conduct such a trial. The probability of making an alternate, nonoptimal decision and choosing testing versus no testing was 32% with current versus future information from the trial. The impact of a nonoptimal decision was US$2150 and size of population impacted over 10 years was 308,000. The value of improved information on overall survival was US$105 million, quality of life US$37 million and test performance US$71 million. Conclusion: Conducting a randomized clinical trial of breast cancer tumor markers appears to offer a good societal return on investment. Retrospective analyses to assess test performance and evaluation of patient quality of life using tumor markers may also offer valuable areas of research. However, alternative investments may offer even better returns in investments and, as such, the trial concept deserves further study as part of an overall research-portfolio evaluation.

Little is known about how referrals to different cancer specialists influence cancer care for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Among Medicare enrollees, we identified factors of patients and their primary care physician that were associated with referrals to cancer specialists, and how the types of cancer specialists seen correlated with delivery of guideline-based therapies (GBTs). Data from patients with stages III and IV NSCLC included in the SEER-Medicare database were linked to their physicians in the American Medical Association Masterfile database. Using logistic regression, we (1) identified patient and physician factors that were associated with referrals to cancer specialists (medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons); (2) identified the types of referral to cancer specialists that predicted greater likelihood of receiving GBT (per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines). A total of 28,977 patients with NSCLC diagnosed from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2005 met eligibility criteria. Younger age, white race, higher income, and primary physician specialty other than family practice predicted higher likelihood of referrals to medical oncologists (P < .01 for all predictors). Seeing the three types of cancer specialists predicted higher likelihood of GBT (stage IIIA: odds ratio [OR] = 20.6; P < .001; IIIB: OR = 77.2; P < .001; and IV: OR = 1.2; P = .011), compared with seeing a medical oncologist only. Use of GBTs increased over the study period (42% to 48% from 2000 to 2005; P < .001). Referrals to all types of cancer specialists increased the likelihood of treatment with standard therapies, particularly in stage III patients. However, racial and income disparities still prevent optimal referrals to cancer specialists.

Personalizing intravenous (IV) busulfan doses in children using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is an integral component of hematopoietic cell transplant. The authors sought to characterize initial dosing and TDM of IV busulfan, along with factors associated with busulfan clearance, in 729 children who underwent busulfan TDM from December 2005 to December 2008. The initial IV busulfan dose in children weighing ≤12 kg ranged 4.8-fold, with only 19% prescribed the package insert dose of 1.1 mg/kg. In those children weighing >12 kg, the initial dose ranged 5.4-fold, and 79% were prescribed the package insert dose. The initial busulfan dose achieved the target exposure in only 24.3% of children. A wide range of busulfan exposures were targeted for children with the same disease (eg, 39 target busulfan exposures for the 264 children diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia). Considerable heterogeneity exists regarding when TDM is conducted and the number of pharmacokinetic samples obtained. Busulfan clearance varied by age and dosing frequency but not by underlying disease. The authors- group is currently evaluating how using population pharmacokinetics to optimize initial busulfan dose and TDM (eg, limited sampling schedule in conjunction with maximum a posteriori Bayesian estimation) may affect clinical outcomes in children.

Background: The safety of bevacizumab in older mCRC patients is poorly understood. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the prevalence, incidence, and risk factors for treatment-related AEs in older bevacizumab recipients. Patients and methods: Patients age ≥65 were identified from SEER-Medicare and categorized by mCRC diagnosis pre and post bevacizumab approval (2001-2003 vs. 2005-2007). Preexisting conditions known to increase bevacizumab-related AE risk were identified in the year before diagnosis. Factors associated with bevacizumab receipt were identified using logistic regression. Incidence rates for all AEs and specific serious AEs were determined. Risk factors for first AE were determined by competing risks regression. Results: Of 6821 patients, 3282 (48%) were diagnosed in 2005-2007 of whom 19% received first-line bevacizumab. Likelihood of bevacizumab receipt was lower in patients age ≥ 75 (odds ratio [OR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.47), nonwhite patients (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.55-0.81), patients with higher comorbidity index (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43-0.62), and patients with preexisting cerebrovascular disease (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33-0.73). AE incidence rate was not increased among first-line bevacizumab recipients relative to first-line chemotherapy recipients. In a competing risk regression adjusting for potential confounders, bevacizumab receipt (2005-2007) was not associated with an increased risk of first AE compared with chemotherapy alone (2001-2007) (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08). Conclusion: In an older mCRC population, bevacizumab receipt was less likely in older (age ≥ 75) nonwhite patients with preexisting cerebrovascular comorbidities. First-line bevacizumab was not associated with increased AE incidence or risk of first AE compared with chemotherapy alone.

Distance to provider might be an important barrier to timely diagnosis and treatment for cancer patients who qualify for Medicaid coverage. Whether driving time or driving distance is a better indicator of travel burden is also of interest. Driving distances and times from patient residence to primary care provider were calculated for 3,917 breast, colorectal (CRC) and lung cancer Medicaid patients in Washington State from 1997 to 2003 using MapQuest.com. We fitted regression models of stage at diagnosis and time-to-treatment (number of days between diagnosis and surgery) to test the hypothesis that travel burden is associated with timely diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Later stage at diagnosis for breast cancer Medicaid patients is associated with travel burden (OR = 1.488 per 100 driving miles, P= .037 and OR = 1.270 per driving hour, P= .016). Time-to-treatment after diagnosis of CRC is also associated with travel burden (14.57 days per 100 driving miles, P= .002 and 5.86 days per driving hour, P= .018). Although travel burden is associated with timely diagnosis and treatment for some types of cancer, we did not find evidence that driving time was, in general, better at predicting timeliness of cancer diagnosis and treatment than driving distance. More intensive efforts at early detection of breast cancer and early treatment of CRC for Medicaid patients who live in remote areas may be needed.