Marcy Winget

The purpose of this study was to assess the value in measuring specific time intervals across cancer sites to identify potentially important variation in the timeliness of cancer care that may inform needed changes and/or improvements in coordination of care. Retrospective population-level study. Demographic and treatment information were obtained from the Alberta Cancer Registry. Date of oncologist-consult was obtained from cancer medical records. Alberta, Canada. All patients diagnosed in 2005 with breast, colon, rectal or lung cancer who were residents of Alberta, Canada. (i) Number of days from diagnosis to first treatment by treatment modality and cancer site, (ii) number of days from surgery to post-surgery consultation and subsequent treatment and (iii) relationship between clinical and demographic factors and the cancer-specific provincial median time for outcome measures (i) and (ii). Time from diagnosis to surgery, if first treatment, was ∼4 months for lung cancer compared with 1–2 months for breast and colorectal cancers. Factors associated with this time interval for breast and colorectal cancers was stage at diagnosis but was region of residence for lung cancer. Important variation within and across cancer sites identified in the care intervals evaluated in this study provides relevant information to inform local areas for improvement. Comparisons of these intervals across healthcare systems may also provide insights into strengths of different models for coordinating care.

The treatment of elderly cancer patients is complicated by many factors. We sought to assess the uptake and tolerance of chemotherapy among patients 75 years and older diagnosed with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in years 2004–2008 in Alberta, Canada, and assess their survival. All patients who met the above criteria and had an oncologist-consult were included. Data were obtained from the Alberta Cancer Registry and chart review. A total of 171 patients were included in the study, 117 (68%) of whom began chemotherapy. Of those, 52% completed all cycles, 66% did not have any dose reductions, and 31% completed all cycles at the recommended dose. The risk of death for patients who did not complete all cycles of chemotherapy was 2.72 (95% CI: 1.52–4.87) and for those who completed all cycles but with a reduced dose was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.57–1.82) relative to those who completed chemotherapy at full dose after adjusting for several demographic/clinical factors. Our results suggest that a significant proportion of elderly patients are able to tolerate chemotherapy and receive a survival benefit from it while those who experience toxicity may receive a survival benefit from a reduction in chemotherapy dose as opposed to stopping treatment.

Background: Validation of administrative data is important to assess potential sources of bias in outcome evaluation and to prevent dissemination of misleading or inaccurate information. The purpose of the study was to determine the completeness and accuracy of endoscopy data in several administrative data sources in the year prior to colorectal cancer diagnosis as part of a larger project focused on evaluating the quality of pre-diagnostic care. Methods: Primary and secondary data sources for endoscopy were collected from the Alberta Cancer Registry, cancer medical charts and three different administrative data sources. 1672 randomly sampled patients diagnosed with invasive colorectal cancer in years 2000–2005 in Alberta, Canada were included. A retrospective validation study of administrative data for endoscopy in the year prior to colorectal cancer diagnosis was conducted. A gold standard dataset was created by combining all the datasets. Number and percent identified, agreement and percent unique to a given data source were calculated and compared across each dataset and to the gold standard with respect to identifying all patients who underwent endoscopy and all endoscopies received by those patients. Results: The combined administrative data and physician billing data identified as high or higher percentage of patients who had one or more endoscopy (84% and 78%, respectively) and total endoscopy procedures (89% and 81%, respectively) than the chart review (78% for both). Conclusions: Endoscopy data has a high level of completeness and accuracy in physician billing data alone. Combined with hospital in/outpatient data it is more complete than chart review alone.

Background: Surgery is the primary treatment for colorectal cancer for both curative and palliative intent. Availability of high quality surgery data is essential for assessing many aspects of the quality of colorectal cancer care. The objective of this study was to determine the quality of different administrative data sources in identifying surgery for colorectal cancer with respect to completeness and accuracy. Methods: All residents in Alberta, Canada who were diagnosed with invasive colorectal cancer in years 2000-2005 were identified from the Alberta Cancer Registry and included in the study. Surgery data for these patients were obtained from the Cancer Registry (which collects the date of surgery for which the primary tumor was removed) and compared to surgery data obtained from two different administrative data sources: Physician Billing and Hospital Inpatient data. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and observed agreement were calculated compared to the Cancer Registry data. Results: The Physician Billing data alone or combined with Hospital Inpatient data demonstrated equally high sensitivity (97% for both) and observed agreement with the Cancer Registry data (93% for both) for identifying surgeries. The Hospital Inpatient data, however, had the highest specificity (80%). The positive predictive value varied by disease stage and across data sources for stage IV (99% for stages I-III and 83-89% for stage IV), the specificity is better for colon cancer surgeries (72-85%) than for rectal cancer surgeries (60-73%); validation measures did not vary over time. Conclusion: Physician Billing data identify the colorectal cancer surgery more completely than Hospital Inpatient data although both sources have a high level of completeness.

Background: Surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy has been the standard of care for the treatment of stage III colon cancer since the early 1990’s. Despite this, large proportions of patients do not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. We aimed to identify physicians’ and patients’ reasons for treatment decisions. Methods: A retrospective population based study was conducted that included all surgically treated stage III colon cancer patients diagnosed in Alberta between 2002 and 2005 who had an oncologist-consult to discuss post-surgical treatment options. Patient demographics and stage were obtained from the Alberta Cancer Registry. Chart reviews were conducted to extract treatment details, the oncologists’ reasons for not recommending chemotherapy, and patients’ reasons for refusing chemotherapy. The number and proportion of patients who were not recommended or refused chemotherapy were calculated. Results: A total of 613 patients had surgery followed by an oncologist-consult. Overall, 168 (27%) patients did not receive chemotherapy. It was not recommended for 111 (18%) patients; the most frequent reason was presence of one or more co-morbidities (34%) or combination of co-morbidity and age or frailty (22%). Fifty-eight (9%) patients declined chemotherapy, 22% of whom declined due to concerns about toxicity. Conclusion: Some co-morbidities are clinical indications for not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, however, the high percentage of patients who were not recommended adjuvant chemotherapy due to co-morbidities according to clinical notes but who had a low Charlson co-morbidity score suggests variation in practice patterns of consulting oncologists. In addition, patients’ reasons for refusing treatment need to be systematically assessed to ensure patients’ preferences and treatment benefits are properly weighed when making treatment decisions.

See related research article by Nielsen and colleagues on page [E57][1] and at [www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.110167][2] Second primary cancer is a major source of concern among cancer survivors, their families and the health care professionals providing follow-up care. Its risk is determined

Recent population-based studies in Alberta, Canada, found that approximately 50% of patients with stage III colon or stages II/III rectal adenocarcinoma did not receive guideline-recommended treatment (surgery plus chemotherapy or chemoradiation); a primary reason was not having an oncologist consult. We assessed the relationship between the hospital where the surgery was performed and the probability of a patient not having an oncologist consult. All patients diagnosed with stage III colon or stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma between 2002 and 2005 in Alberta who had surgery were identified from the Alberta Cancer Registry and included in the study. Multivariable logistic regression modeling with hospitals as random effects was used to estimate cancer-type-specific odds ratios of not having an oncologist consult for each hospital, adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidities, relative to the overall nonconsultation rate. Overall, 21% of stage III colon, 25% of stage II rectal, and 13% of stage III rectal adenocarcinoma patients did not have an oncologist consult. Rates varied appreciably across hospitals and between cancer types within hospitals, even after the case-mix adjustment (adjusted odds ratios of nonconsultation ranged from 0.4 to 8.1). Small hospitals that performed 12 or fewer surgeries had nearly 100% consultation rates. The variation in oncologist-consult rates, particularly for stage II rectal cancer patients, is concerning. We are presenting the findings to the surgical community and discussing interventions to improve oncologist-consult rates.

BACKGROUND: Surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy has been standard treatment for stage III colon cancer since 1990. However, to date, clinical trials have not been conducted to determine the definitive outer time limit by which adjuvant chemotherapy should be received for optimal survival benefit. The objective of the current study was to assess the association between the receipt/timing of adjuvant chemotherapy and patient survival in clinical practice.METHODS: Residents of Alberta who were diagnosed with stage III colon adenocarcinoma in years 2000 to 2005 who underwent surgery were included in the study. Patients were identified from the Alberta Cancer Registry and were linked to hospital data and neighborhood‐level socioeconomic data from the 2001 Canadian Census. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios of death according to the timing of chemotherapy.RESULTS: There were 1053 patients in the study; 648 (61%) initiated adjuvant chemotherapy within 16 weeks of surgery. There was no difference in overall survival or colon cancer‐specific survival between those who received adjuvant chemotherapy from 8 to 12 weeks postsurgery compared with those who received it within 8 weeks. However, those who received chemotherapy 12 to 16 weeks after surgery and those who either received it >16 weeks after surgery or received no treatment had a 43% and 107% greater risk of dying, respectively, than those who received chemotherapy within 8 weeks of surgery (hazard ratio, 1.43 [95% confidence interval, 0.96‐2.13] and hazard ratio, 2.07 [95% confidence interval, 1.56‐2.76], respectively). Analyses were controlled for age, year, and region of residence at diagnosis; sex; neighborhood‐level socioeconomic factors; and number of comorbidities.CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study were consistent with current guideline recommendations in Alberta that patients with stage III adenocarcinoma should receive chemotherapy within 12 weeks of surgery. Cancer 2011. © 2011 American Cancer Society.