Search

BackgroundRecent revision significantly changed the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging criteria for differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). To quantitatively evaluate resulting changes in patient stage distribution and the associated disease-specific survival (DSS) incorporating diverse populations, we performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing the AJCC 7th edition (AJCC-7) with 8th edition (AJCC-8) staging for DTC.Materials and methodsAfter PROSPERO registration (#CRD42019123657), publications in English reporting DSS of DTC with AJCC-7 and AJCC-8 from inception to June 2019 were identified by search of MEDLINE and PubMed. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to compare differences in survival between AJCC-7 and AJCC-8. Pooled hazard ratios, 10-year DSS, and corresponding interval estimates were calculated for AJCC subgroups. Differences in survival between editions were assessed using subgroup analysis with nonoverlapping confidence intervals indicating statistical significance.ResultsFinal analysis included six studies with 10,850 subjects and median follow-up from 55 to 148 months. Use of AJCC-8 shifted classification to earlier stages: stage I, from 60% to 81%; stage II, from 5% to 13%; stage III, from 21% to 2%; stage IV, from 10% to 3%. Ten-year DSS was significantly lower in AJCC-8 versus AJCC-7 in patients with stage II (88.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 82.7-94.6% vs. 98.1%, 95% CI 96.6-99.6%, respectively) and stage III disease (70.5%, 95% CI 59.1-83.9% vs. 96.8%, 95% CI 94.1-99.64%, respectively).ConclusionMeta-analysis of revised AJCC staging for DTC, incorporating diverse populations, demonstrates redistribution of patients toward earlier clinical stages and better stratification of disease-specific mortality risk, specifically among patients now classified with stage II and III disease.Implications for practiceThis study provides updated estimates of disease-specific survival for patients with differentiated thyroid cancer determined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system that are generalizable to broader populations and support improved stratification using the recently revised criteria.

Background With the COVID-19 pandemic came rapid uptake in virtual oncology care. During this, sociodemographic inequities in access to virtual visits (VVs) have become apparent. To better understand these issues, we conducted a qualitative study to describe the perceived usability and acceptability of VVs among Black adults diagnosed with cancer. Methods Adults who self-identified as Black and had a diagnosis of prostate, multiple myeloma, or head and neck cancer were recruited from 2 academic medical centers, and their community affiliates to participate in a semi-structured interview, regardless of prior VV experience. A patient and family advisory board was formed to inform all components of the study. Interviews were conducted between September 2, 2021 and February 23, 2022. Transcripts were organized topically, and themes and subthemes were determined through iterative and interpretive immersion/crystallization cycles. Results Of the 49 adults interviewed, 29 (59%) had participated in at least one VV. Three overarching themes were derived: (1) VVs felt comfortable and convenient in the right contexts; (2) the technology required for VVs with video presented new challenges, which were often resolved by an audio-only telephone call; and (3) participants reported preferring in-person visits, citing concerns regarding gaps in nonverbal communication, trusting providers, and distractions during VV. Conclusion While VVs were reported to be acceptable in specific circumstances, Black adults reported preferring in-person care, in part due to a perceived lack of interpersonal connectedness. Nonetheless, retaining reimbursement for audio-only options for VVs is essential to ensure equitable access for those with less technology savvy and/or limited device/internet capabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Differences in treatment outcomes between community or academic centers are incompletely understood. Methods: Retrospective review of head and neck cancer patients between 2010 and 2020 in a rural health region. Kaplan–Meier curves and log‐rank tests were used to evaluate survival outcomes, along with bivariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Linear regression was used for functional outcomes of tracheotomy and gastrostomy tube dependence. Results: Two hundred and forty‐eight patients treated at an academic center were compared with 94 patients treated in community centers. In multivariable analysis, the risk of death (HR = 0.60, p = 0.019), and risk of recurrence were lower (HR = 0.29, p < 0.001) for patients treated in academic centers. Patients treated in community centers had longer gastrostomy tube dependence (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that treatment at an academic center was associated with a lower risk of recurrence and shorter gastrostomy tube dependence compared to treatment in the community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]