Search

Purpose Palliative care's role in oncology has expanded, but its effect on aggressiveness of care at the end of life has not been characterized at the population level. Methods This matched retrospective cohort study examined the effect of an encounter with palliative care on health-care use at the end of life among 6,580 Medicare beneficiaries with advanced prostate, breast, lung, or colorectal cancer. We compared health-care use before and after palliative care consultation to a matched nonpalliative care cohort. Results The palliative care cohort had higher rates of health-care use in the 30 days before palliative care consultation compared with the nonpalliative cohort, with higher rates of hospitalization (risk ratio [RR], 3.33; 95% CI, 2.87 to 3.85), invasive procedures (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.62 to 1.88) and chemotherapy administration (RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.45 to 1.78). The opposite pattern emerged in the interval from palliative care consultation through death, where the palliative care cohort had lower rates of hospitalization (RR, 0.53;95%CI, 0.44-0.65), invasive procedures (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.59) and chemotherapy administration (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.53). Patients with earlier palliative care consultation in their disease course had larger absolute reductions in health-care use compared with those with palliative care consultation closer to the end of life. Conclusion This population-based study found that palliative care substantially decreased health-care use among Medicare beneficiaries with advanced cancer. Given the increasing number of elderly patients with advanced cancer, this study emphasizes the importance of early integration of palliative care alongside standard oncologic care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Radiation therapy represents a major source of health care expenditure for patients with cancer. Understanding the sources of variability in the cost of radiation therapy is critical to evaluating the efficiency of the current reimbursement system and could shape future policy reform. This study defines the magnitude and sources of variation in the cost of radiation therapy for a large cohort of Medicare beneficiaries. Patients and Methods: We identified 55,288 patients within the SEER database diagnosed with breast, lung, or prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009. The cost of radiation therapy was estimated from Medicare reimbursements. Multivariable linear regression models were used to assess the influence of patient, tumor, and radiation therapy provider characteristics on variation in cost of radiation therapy. Results: For breast, lung, and prostate cancers, the median cost (interquartile range) of a course of radiation therapy was $8,600 ($7,300 to $10,300), $9,000 ($7,500 to $11,100), and $18,000 ($11,300 to $25,500), respectively. For all three cancer subtypes, patient- or tumor-related factors accounted for < 3% of the variation in cost. Factors unrelated to the patient, including practice type, geography, and individual radiation therapy provider, accounted for a substantial proportion of the variation in cost, ranging from 44% with breast, 43% with lung, and 61% with prostate cancer. Conclusion: In this study, factors unrelated to the individual patient accounted for the majority of variation in the cost of radiation therapy, suggesting potential inefficiency in health care expenditure. Future research should determine whether this variability translates into improved patient outcomes for further evaluation of current reimbursement practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Endometrial cancers have long been divided into estrogen-dependent type I and the less common clinically aggressive estrogen-independent type II. Little is known about risk factors for type II tumors because most studies lack sufficient cases to study these much less common tumors separately. We examined whether so-called classical endometrial cancer risk factors also influence the risk of type II tumors., Patients and Methods: Individual-level data from 10 cohort and 14 case-control studies from the Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium were pooled. A total of 14,069 endometrial cancer cases and 35,312 controls were included. We classified endometrioid (n = 7,246), adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified (n = 4,830), and adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation (n = 777) as type I tumors and serous (n = 508) and mixed cell (n = 346) as type II tumors., Results: Parity, oral contraceptive use, cigarette smoking, age at menarche, and diabetes were associated with type I and type II tumors to similar extents. Body mass index, however, had a greater effect on type I tumors than on type II tumors: odds ratio (OR) per 2 kg/m(2) increase was 1.20 (95% CI, 1.19 to 1.21) for type I and 1.12 (95% CI, 1.09 to 1.14) for type II tumors (P heterogeneity < .0001). Risk factor patterns for high-grade endometrioid tumors and type II tumors were similar., Conclusion: The results of this pooled analysis suggest that the two endometrial cancer types share many common etiologic factors. The etiology of type II tumors may, therefore, not be completely estrogen independent, as previously believed.

Purpose: United States breast cancer incidence rates declined during the years 1999 to 2003, and then reached a plateau. These recent trends are impressive and may indicate an end to decades of increasing incidence., Methods: To put emerging incidence trends into a broader context, we examined age incidence patterns (frequency and rates) during five decades. We used age density plots, two-component mixture models, and age-period-cohort (APC) models to analyze changes in the United States breast cancer population over time., Results: The National Cancer Institute's Connecticut Historical Database and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program collected 600,000+ in situ and invasive female breast cancers during the years 1950 to 2003. Before widespread screening mammography in the early 1980s, breast cancer age-at-onset distributions were bimodal, with dominant peak frequency (or mode) near age 50 years and smaller mode near age 70 years. With widespread screening mammography, bimodal age distributions shifted to predominant older ages at diagnosis. From 2000 to 2003, the bimodal age distribution returned to dominant younger ages at onset, similar to patterns before mammography screening. APC models confirmed statistically significant calendar-period (screening) effects before and after 1983 to 1987., Conclusion: Breast cancer in the general United States population has a bimodal age at onset distribution, with modal ages near 50 and 70 years. Amid a background of previously increasing and recently decreasing incidence rates, breast cancer populations shifted from younger to older ages at diagnosis, and then back again. These dynamic fluctuations between early-onset and late-onset breast cancer types probably reflect a complex interaction between age-related biologic, risk factor, and screening phenomena.