OBJECTIVE: While significant progress in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatment has prolonged survival and improved prognosis, there remain substantial gaps in providing patient-centered supportive care. The specific care delivery needs for metastatic cancer differ from that of early-stage cancer due to the incurable nature and lifelong duration of the condition. The objective of this study was to assess how patients living with MBC would re-imagine cancer care delivery.
METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted in partnership with patient-led organizations Guiding Researchers and Advocates to Scientific Partnerships (GRASP) and Project Life, a nonprofit, online wellness community founded by patients with MBC for patients living with MBC. Virtual semi-structured interviews (n = 36) were conducted with Project Life members purposively sampled from the groups\' overall membership. The interview guide contained items surrounding patients\' lived experiences of MBC, greatest unmet needs related to care, and perspectives on virtual wellness community involvement. Interviews were coded using two-stage deductive and inductive analysis.
RESULTS: Three major themes for re-imagining cancer care delivery were identified, including holistic care, information needs, and conceptual shifts. Within these several subthemes emerged with patients re-imagining referrals to non-oncological services, caregiver support, acceptance of integrative medicine, streamlined clinical trial enrollment, curated quality patient resources, MBC-specific terminology and approaches, long-term life and goal-of-care planning, and patient-centered voice throughout.
CONCLUSIONS: People living with metastatic cancers have specific supportive care needs. These findings highlight patient-driven areas for re-imagination that are most salient for individuals with MBC.

The downstream effects on healthcare delivery during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine how the healthcare environment surrounding the pandemic affected the oncologic care of patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer. This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients in the National Cancer Database (2019-2020). Patients with esophageal cancer diagnoses were divided into pre-pandemic (2019) and pandemic (2020) groups. Patient demographics, cancer-related variables, and treatment modalities were compared. Among 26,231 esophageal cancer patients, 14,024 patients (53.5%) were in the pre-pandemic cohort and 12,207 (46.5%) were in the pandemic cohort. After controlling for demographics, patients diagnosed during the pandemic were more likely to have poorly differentiated tumors (odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.42), pathologic T3 disease compared to T1 (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.53), positive lymph nodes on pathology (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.14-1.64), and to be pathologic stage IV (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.29-1.76). After controlling for oncologic characteristics, patients diagnosed during the pandemic were more likely to require at least two courses of systemic therapy (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.48-2.14) and to be offered palliative care (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04-1.22). While these patients were offered curative therapy at lower rates, this became non-significant after risk-adjustment (p = .15). The pandemic healthcare environment was associated with significantly increased risk-adjusted rates of patients presenting with advanced esophageal cancer. While this led to significant differences in treatment, most of these differences became non-significant after controlling for oncologic factors.

UNASSIGNED: The goals of this cross-sectional community-based survey study were to assess the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on actionable factors which are known to contribute to worse cancer outcomes, and to determine whether race and ethnicity-based differences exist.
UNASSIGNED: A survey study which captured demographic information and changes in cancer outcomes-related factors since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, was conducted at a public Covid-19 vaccination clinic over a period of 10 days during March 2021. Surveys were administered in multiple languages. Chi-square tests and ANOVA followed by post-hoc Dunnett testing assessed for race and ethnicity-based differences.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 949 people participated (61.6% participation rate). Ninety-three surveys were removed based on inclusion criteria giving a final participant number of 856. Many participants reported postponing cancer screenings (17.8%) and cancellation of medical appointments (22.8% and 25.8% reported cancelled appointments by providers or themselves, respectively) due to the pandemic. Participants also reported decreased physical activity (44.7%) and increased tobacco and/or marijuana usage (7.0%). Conversely, participants reported consuming more fruits and vegetables (21.4%) and decreasing alcohol consumption (21.4%). Several race-related differences but no ethnicity-related differences were observed.
UNASSIGNED: Our data can be used to help guide pharmacist-led targeted outreach in our community which will help mitigate Covid-19 pandemic-driven changes in behaviors associated with worse cancer outcomes and exacerbation of cancer health disparities. To our knowledge, this is the first cancer outcomes-related study to be conducted at a public Covid-19 vaccination site and is the first pharmacist-led study in this area.

To evaluate disease control, toxicities, and variables associated with clinical outcomes for patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and clinical N3 disease (HNSCC N3) treated with definitive chemoradiation therapy.
We performed a retrospective review of patients with HNSCC N3 treated at two high-volume academic centers between 1996 and 2019.
We identified 85 patients with a median follow-up of 2.8 years. Five-year overall survival, regional control, and freedom from distant metastases rates were 38%, 80%, and 80%, respectively. Severe complications were identified in 19% of patients.
Favorable regional control is achievable with definitive chemoradiation therapy for patients with HNSCC N3 disease. Distant metastases are a common pattern of failure and should be a focus of prospective study.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in global disruptions to the delivery of healthcare. The national responses of Australia and New Zealand has resulted in unprecedented changes to the care of colorectal cancer patients, amongst others. This paper aims to determine the impact of COVID-19 on colorectal cancer diagnosis and management in Australia and New Zealand.
This is a multicentre retrospective cohort study using the prospectively maintained Binational Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA) registry. Data is contributed by over 200 surgeons in Australia and New Zealand. Patients receiving colorectal cancer surgery during the pandemic were compared to averages from the same period over the preceding 3 years.
There were fewer operations in 2020 than the historical average. During April to June, patients were younger, more likely to have operations in public hospitals and more likely to have urgent or emergency operations. By October to December, proportionally less patients had Stage I disease, proportionally more had Stage II or III disease and there was no difference in Stage IV disease. Patients were less likely to have rectal cancer, were increasingly likely to have urgent or emergency surgery and more likely to have a stoma created.
This study shows that the response to COVID-19 has had measurably negative effects on the diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer in two countries that have had significantly fewer COVID-19 cases than many other countries. The long-term effects on survival and recurrence are yet to be known, but could be significant.

Many cancer survivors with co-morbid diabetes receive less diabetes management than their non-cancer counterparts. We sought to determine if racial/ethnic disparities exist in recommended diabetes care within 12 months of an incident breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer diagnosis. Because co-morbid diabetes decreases long-term survival, identifying predictors of guideline-concordant diabetes care is important.
Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry linked to Medicare claims, we included beneficiaries aged 67+ years with diabetes and incident, non-metastatic breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer between 2008 and 2013. Primary outcomes were diabetes care services 12 months after diagnosis: (1) HbA1c test, (2) eye exam, and (3) low-density lipoprotein (LDL) test. Using modified Poisson models with robust standard errors, we examined each outcome separately.
We included 34,643 Medicare beneficiaries with both diabetes and cancer. Mean age at diagnosis was 76.1 (SD 6.2), 47.2% were women; 35% had breast, 24% colorectal, and 41% prostate cancer. In the 12 months after incident cancer diagnosis, 82.4% received an HbA1c test, 55.3% received an eye exam, 77.8% had an LDL test, and 42.0% received all three tests. Compared to non-Hispanic Whites, Blacks were 3% (95% CI 0.95-0.98) less likely to receive a HbA1c test, 10% (95% CI 0.89-0.92) less likely to receive a LDL test, and 8% (95% 0.89-0.95) less likely to receive an exam eye. Blacks and Hispanics were 16% (95% CI 0.81-0.88) and 7% (0.88-0.98) less likely to receive all three tests, after accounting for confounders. Racial/ethnic differences persisted across cancer types.
Blacks and Hispanics with breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer and diabetes received less diabetes care after cancer diagnosis compared to non-Hispanic Whites. Differences were not explained by socio-economic factors or clinical need.
Our findings are concerning given the high prevalence of diabetes and poor cancer outcomes among racial/ethnic minorities. The next step in this line of inquiry is to determine why minorities are less likely to receive comprehensive diabetes care in order to develop targeted strategies to increase receipt of appropriate diabetes management for these vulnerable populations.

Pre-existing chronic conditions (morbidities) influence the diagnosis and management of cancer. The prevalence of specific morbidities in patients diagnosed with common and rarer cancers is inadequately described.
Using data from the English National Cancer Diagnosis Audit 2014, we studied 11 pre-existing morbidities recorded as yes/no items by participating general practitioners based on information included in primary care records. We examined the number and type of morbidities across socio-demographic and cancer site strata, and subsequently estimated observed and age/sex standardised prevalence of each morbidity by cancer.
Over three-quarters (77 %; 11,429/14,774) of non-screen-detected patients had at least one chronic condition before diagnosis, while nearly half (47 %) had two or more. Hypertension (39 %) and physical disability (2%) were the most and least common conditions. Male, older and more socio-economically deprived patients were more likely to have at least one morbidity (p < 0.001 for all between variable group comparisons). For most morbidities, the standardised prevalence was similar across different cancers with a few exceptions, including respiratory disease prevalence being greatest among lung cancer patients and diabetes prevalence being greatest among liver, pancreatic, and endometrial cancer patients.
Most cancer patients have at least one morbidity, while almost one in two have two or more. The findings highlight the need to take certain morbidity- and cancer-site combinations into account when examining associations between morbidity and cancer outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Recent data show a falling cancer mortality in the general population without a similar shift in immigrant outcomes, leading to a greater cancer burden and mortality for immigrants. Our aims were to compare perceived patterns of care in immigrants and native-born cancer patients.
METHODS: This was a hospital-based sample of first-generation immigrants and Australian-born Anglo patients in the first year following diagnosis. It was restricted to Chinese, Arabic, or Greek speakers. Eligible participants, recruited via 16 oncology clinics, were over 18, with cancer (any type or stage), and having commenced treatment at least 1 month previously. Five hundred and seventy-one CALD patients (comprising 145 Arabic, 248 Chinese, and 178 Greek) and a control group of 274 Anglo-Australian patients participated.
RESULTS: Immigrants had difficulty communicating with the doctor (73% versus 29%) and understanding the health system (38% versus 10%). Differences were found in \'difficulty knowing who to see\' (P = 0.0002), \'length of time to confirm diagnosis\' (P = 0.04), wanting more choice about a specialist and hospital (P < 0.0001); being offered the opportunity to see a counselor (P < 0.0001); and actually seeing one (P < 0.0001). There were no significant self-reported differences regarding how cancer was detected, time to see a health professional, or type first seen; however, immigrants reported difficulty knowing who to see. Previous studies showed differences in patterns of care according to socioeconomic status (SES) and educational level. Despite adjusting for age, sex, education, marital status, SES, time since diagnosis, and type of cancer, we did not find significant differences. Instead, we found that understanding of the health system and confidence understanding English were important factors.
CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that immigrants with cancer perceive an inferior quality of cancer care. We highlight potentially modifiable factors including assistance in navigating the health system, translated information, and cultural competency training for health professionals.