Search

How care delivery influences urban-rural disparities in cancer outcomes is unclear. We sought to understand community oncologists' practice settings to inform cancer care delivery interventions.We conducted secondary analysis of a national dataset of providers billing Medicare from June 1, 2019 to May 31, 2020 in 13 states in the central United States. We used Kruskal-Wallis rank and Fisher's exact tests to compare physician characteristics and practice settings among rural and urban community oncologists.We identified 1,963 oncologists practicing in 1,492 community locations; 67.5% practiced in exclusively urban locations, 11.3% in exclusively rural locations, and 21.1% in both rural and urban locations. Rural-only, urban-only, and urban-rural spanning oncologists practice in an average of 1.6, 2.4, and 5.1 different locations, respectively. A higher proportion of rural community sites were solo practices (11.7% vs 4.0%, P.001) or single specialty practices (16.4% vs 9.4%, P.001); and had less diversity in training environments (86.5% vs 67.8% with2 medical schools represented, P.001) than urban community sites. Rural multispecialty group sites were less likely to include other cancer specialists.We identified 2 potentially distinct styles of care delivery in rural communities, which may require distinct interventions: (1) innovation-isolated rural oncologists, who are more likely to be solo providers, provide care at few locations, and practice with doctors with similar training experiences; and (2) urban-rural spanning oncologists who provide care at a high number of locations and have potential to spread innovation, but may face high complexity and limited opportunity for care standardization.

Older age is associated with poorer outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, although the heterogeneity of ageing results in some older adults being at greater risk than others. The objective of this study was to quantify the association of a novel geriatric risk index, comprising age, modified Charlson comorbidity index, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, with COVID-19 severity and 30-day mortality among older adults with cancer.In this cohort study, we enrolled patients aged 60 years and older with a current or previous cancer diagnosis (excluding those with non-invasive cancers and premalignant or non-malignant conditions) and a current or previous laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) multinational, multicentre, registry between March 17, 2020, and June 6, 2021. Patients were also excluded for unknown age, missing data resulting in unknown geriatric risk measure, inadequate data quality, or incomplete follow-up resulting in unknown COVID-19 severity. The exposure of interest was the CCC19 geriatric risk index. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity and the secondary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality; both were assessed in the full dataset. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were estimated from ordinal and binary logistic regression models.5671 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were included in the analysis. Median follow-up time was 56 days (IQR 22-120), and median age was 72 years (IQR 66-79). The CCC19 geriatric risk index identified 2365 (41·7%) patients as standard risk, 2217 (39·1%) patients as intermediate risk, and 1089 (19·2%) as high risk. 36 (0·6%) patients were excluded due to non-calculable geriatric risk index. Compared with standard-risk patients, high-risk patients had significantly higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR 7·24; 95% CI 6·20-8·45). 920 (16·2%) of 5671 patients died within 30 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis, including 161 (6·8%) of 2365 standard-risk patients, 409 (18·5%) of 2217 intermediate-risk patients, and 350 (32·1%) of 1089 high-risk patients. High-risk patients had higher adjusted odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted OR 10·7; 95% CI 8·54-13·5) than standard-risk patients.The CCC19 geriatric risk index was strongly associated with COVID-19 severity and 30-day mortality. Our CCC19 geriatric risk index, based on readily available clinical factors, might provide clinicians with an easy-to-use risk stratification method to identify older adults most at risk for severe COVID-19 as well as mortality.US National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: Many older patients with advanced lung cancer have functional limitations and require skilled nursing home care. Function, assessed using activities of daily living (ADL) scores, may help prognostication. We investigated the relationship between ADL impairment and overall survival among older patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving care in nursing homes. METHODS: Using the SEER-Medicare database linked with Minimum Data Set assessments, we identified patients age 65 years and older with NSCLC who received care in nursing homes from 2011 to 2015. We used Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival curves to examine the relationship between ADL scores and overall survival among all patients; among patients who received systemic cancer chemotherapy or immunotherapy within 3 months of NSCLC diagnosis; and among patients who did not receive any treatment. RESULTS: We included 3,174 patients (mean [standard deviation] age, 77 [7.4] years [range, 65-102 years]; 1,664 [52.4%] of female sex; 394 [12.4%] of non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity), 415 (13.1%) of whom received systemic therapy, most commonly with carboplatin-based regimens (n = 357 [86%] patients). The median overall survival was 3.1 months for patients with ADL score < 14, 2.8 months for patients with ADL score between 14 and 17, 2.3 months for patients with ADL score between 18-19, and 1.8 months for patients with ADL score 20+ (log-rank P < .001). The ADL score was associated with increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.25 per standard deviation). One standard deviation increase in the ADL score was associated with lower overall survival rate among treated (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.27) and untreated (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.26) patients. CONCLUSION: ADL assessment stratified mortality outcomes among older nursing home adults with NSCLC, and may be a useful clinical consideration in this population.