Search

Co-occurring substance use disorders (SUDs) among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) are associated with additional impairment, overdose, and death. This study examined characteristics of patients who have OUD with and without co-occurring SUDs in rural primary care clinics. Secondary analysis used electronic health record (EHR) data from six rural primary care clinics, including demographics, diagnoses, encounters, and prescriptions of medication for OUD (MOUD), as well as EHR data from an external telemedicine vendor that provided MOUD to some clinic patients. The study population included all adult patients who had a visit to the participating clinics from October 2019 to January 2021. We identified 1164 patients with OUD; 72.6 % had OUD only, 11.5 % had OUD and stimulant use disorder (OUD + StUD), and 15.9 % had OUD and other non-stimulant substance use disorder (OUD + Other). The OUD + StUD group had the highest rates of hepatitis C virus (25.4 % for OUD + StUD, 17.8 % for OUD + Other, and 7.5 % for OUD Only; p < 0.001) and the highest rates of mental health disorders (78.4 %, 69.7 %, and 59.9 %, respectively; p < 0.001). Compared to the OUD Only group, patients in the OUD + StUD and OUD + Other groups were more likely to receive telehealth services provided by clinic staff, in-clinic behavioral health services, and in-clinic MOUD. The OUD + StUD group had the highest proportion of referrals to the external telemedicine vendor. More than 27 % of patients with OUD in rural primary care clinics had other co-occurring SUDs, and these patients received more healthcare services than those with OUD only. Future studies should examine variations in outcomes associated with these other services among patients with OUD and co-occurring SUDs. • Co-occurring SUDs are common among patients with OUD in rural areas. • OUD patients with other SUDs had more health problems. • OUD patients with other SUDs used more and varied healthcare services. • Coordinating and integrating care in patients with OUD are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) called for its national nodes to promote the translation of evidence-based interventions from substance use disorder (SUD) research into clinical practices. This collaborative demonstration project engaged CTN-affiliated practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in research that describes aspects of opioid prescribing in primary care. Six PBRNs queried electronic health records from a convenience sample of 134 practices (84 participants) to identify the percent of adult patients with an office visit who were prescribed an opioid medication from October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016, and, of those, the percent also prescribed a sedative in that year. Seven PBRNs sent an e-mail survey to a convenience sample of 108 practices (58 participants) about their opioid management policies and procedures during the project year. Of 561,017 adult patients with a visit to one of the 84 clinics in the project year, 22.9% (PBRN range 3.1%–25.4%) were prescribed opioid medications, and 52.1% (PBRN range 8.5%–60.6%) of those were prescribed a sedative in the same year. Of the 58 practices returning a survey (45.3% response rate), 98.1% had formal written treatment agreements for chronic opioid therapy, 68.5% had written opioid prescribing policies, and 43.4% provided reports to providers with feedback on opioid management. Only 24.1% were providing buprenorphine for OUD. CTN-affiliated PBRNs demonstrated their ability to collaborate on a project related to opioid management; results highlight the important role for PBRNs in OUD treatment, research, and the need for interventions and additional policies addressing opioid prescribing in primary care practice. • Practice-based research networks successfully recruited clinics to study opioid prescribing. • Clinic electronic health records provided data on 561,017 adult patients with primary care visits. • Nearly a quarter of the patients were prescribed opioid medications in the study year. • Over half of patients prescribed opioid medications were prescribed a sedative in the same year. • PBRNs are important collaborators for substance use disorder research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) called for its national nodes to promote the translation of evidence-based interventions from substance use disorder (SUD) research into clinical practices. This collaborative demonstration project engaged CTN-affiliated practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in research that describes aspects of opioid prescribing in primary care.Methods: Six PBRNs queried electronic health records from a convenience sample of 134 practices (84 participants) to identify the percent of adult patients with an office visit who were prescribed an opioid medication from October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016, and, of those, the percent also prescribed a sedative in that year. Seven PBRNs sent an e-mail survey to a convenience sample of 108 practices (58 participants) about their opioid management policies and procedures during the project year.Results: Of 561,017 adult patients with a visit to one of the 84 clinics in the project year, 22.9% (PBRN range 3.1%-25.4%) were prescribed opioid medications, and 52.1% (PBRN range 8.5%-60.6%) of those were prescribed a sedative in the same year. Of the 58 practices returning a survey (45.3% response rate), 98.1% had formal written treatment agreements for chronic opioid therapy, 68.5% had written opioid prescribing policies, and 43.4% provided reports to providers with feedback on opioid management. Only 24.1% were providing buprenorphine for OUD.Conclusion: CTN-affiliated PBRNs demonstrated their ability to collaborate on a project related to opioid management; results highlight the important role for PBRNs in OUD treatment, research, and the need for interventions and additional policies addressing opioid prescribing in primary care practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Long-term survival for children diagnosed with cancer exceeds 80%. Notably, premature cardiovascular disease has become the leading non-cancer cause of late mortality among these survivors. This randomized controlled trial (RCT; NCT03104543) focuses on adult participants in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study identified as high risk for ischemic heart disease or heart failure due to their cancer treatment. Participants undergo a home-based evaluation of blood pressure and laboratory tests to determine the prevalence of undiagnosed and/or undertreated hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes. Those with abnormal values are then enrolled in an RCT to test the efficacy of a 12-month personalized, remotely delivered survivorship care plan (SCP) intervention designed to reduce undertreatment of these three target conditions. The intervention approximates a clinical encounter and is based on chronic disease self-management strategies. With a goal of 750, currently 342 out of 742 eligible participants approached have enrolled (46.1%). Initially, we randomized participants to different recruitment strategies, including shorter approach packets and a tiered consent, but did not find significant differences in participation rates (40.7% to 42.9%; p =.95). Subsequently, slightly greater participation was seen with larger upfront unconditional incentive checks ($50 vs. $25: 50.7% vs. 44.1%; p =.10). Overall, the financial impact of the $50 upfront incentive was cost neutral, and possibly cost-saving, vs. a $25 upfront incentive. The overall study will determine if a National Academy of Medicine-recommended SCP intervention can improve cardiovascular outcomes among long-term survivors of childhood cancer. Modifications to the recruitment strategy may improve participation rates over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cardiovascular disease risk calculators can inform and guide preventive strategies and treatment decisions by clinicians and patients. However, their uptake in primary care has been slow despite the recommendation in national cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines. Identifying the barriers to the implementation of cardiovascular disease risk calculators is essential for promoting their adoption.Methods: The authors qualitatively analyzed structured physician educator notes written during an outreach education intervention with 44 small- and medium-sized primary care clinics that participated in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality‒funded EvidenceNOW Healthy Hearts Northwest trial. The authors coded barriers to the implementation of cardiovascular disease risk calculation and aligned them to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.Results: The authors identified 13 barriers from the physician educators' notes. The majority (n=8, 62%) mapped to the framework's Inner Setting domain. The 5 most commonly noted barriers were (1) time constraints to use a calculator (N=23 clinics), (2) limitations to accessing a calculator or the necessary information to use a calculator (N=22 clinics), (3) no or minimal buy-in from clinicians or staff to use a calculator (N=19 clinics), (4) reported patient fear of side effects from statin medications or patient dislike of taking medications per the guidelines (N=17 clinics), and (5) lack of documented clinic workflow for using a calculator (N=16 clinics).Conclusions: To improve the uptake of cardiovascular disease risk calculation in primary care, future cardiovascular disease prevention and implementation research should consider tailoring interventions to the common barriers to implementing cardiovascular disease risk calculation.Trial Registration: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02839382. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opioid overdose deaths are increasing rapidly in the United States. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are effective and can be delivered in primary care, but uptake has been limited in rural communities. Referral to and coordination with an external telemedicine (TM) vendor by rural primary care clinics for MOUD (TM-MOUD) may increase MOUD access for rural patients, but we know little about perspectives on this model among key stakeholders. As part of a TM-MOUD feasibility study, we explored TM-MOUD acceptability and feasibility among personnel and patients from seven rural primary care clinics and a TM-MOUD vendor. We conducted virtual interviews or focus groups with clinic administrators (n = 7 interviews), clinic primary care and behavioral health providers (8 groups, n = 30), other clinic staff (9 groups, n = 37), patients receiving MOUD (n = 16 interviews), TM-MOUD vendor staff (n = 4 interviews), and vendor-affiliated behavioral health and prescribing providers (n = 17 interviews). We asked about experiences with and acceptability of MOUD (primarily buprenorphine) and telemedicine (TM) and a TM-MOUD referral and coordination model. We conducted content analysis to identify themes and participants quantitatively rated acceptability of TM-MOUD elements on a 4-item scale. Perceived benefits of vendor-based TM-MOUD included reduced logistical barriers, more privacy and less stigma, and access to services not available locally (e.g., counseling, pain management). Barriers included lack of internet or poor connectivity in patients' homes, limited communication and trust between TM-MOUD and clinic providers, and questions about the value to the clinic of TM-MOUD referral to external vendor. Acceptability ratings for TM-MOUD were generally high; they were lowest among frontline staff. Rural primary care clinic personnel, TM-MOUD vendor personnel, and patients generally perceived referral from primary care to a TM-MOUD vendor to hold potential for increasing access to MOUD in rural communities. Increasing TM-MOUD uptake requires buy-in and understanding among staff of the TM-MOUD workflow, TM services offered, requirements for patients, advantages over clinic-based or TM services from clinic providers, and identification of appropriate patients. Poverty, along with patient hesitation to initiate treatment, creates substantial barriers to MOUD treatment generally; insufficient internet availability creates a substantial barrier to TM-MOUD. • Referral from primary care to a TM-MOUD vendor is generally acceptable to providers, staff and patients • Referral from primary care to a TM-MOUD vendor could increase access to MOUD in rural communities • Successful implementation of a TM-MOUD referral model requires time, investment, clear communication, and trust • Insufficient internet availability must be addressed to successfully improve TM- MOUD • TM-MOUD might be more appropriate for patients who are tech-savvy, have technology access, and are ready for treatment [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with a substance use disorder (SUD) often present with co-occurring chronic conditions in primary care. Despite the high co-occurrence of chronic medical conditions and SUD, little is known about whether chronic condition outcomes or related service utilization in primary care varies between patients with versus without documented SUDs. This study examined whether having a SUD influenced the use of primary care services and common chronic condition outcomes for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. A longitudinal cohort observational study examined electronic health record data from 21 primary care clinics in Washington and Idaho to examine differences in service utilization and clinical outcomes for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity in patients with and without a documented SUD diagnosis. Differences between patients with and without documented SUD diagnoses were compared over a three-year window for clinical outcome measures, including hemoglobin A1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and body mass index, as well as service outcome measures, including number of encounters with primary care and co-located behavioral health providers, and orders for prescription opioids. Adult patients (N = 10,175) diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity before the end of 2014, and who had ≥2 visits across a three-year window including at least one visit in 2014 (baseline) and at least one visit occurring 12 months or longer after the 2014 visit (follow-up) were examined. Patients with SUD diagnoses and co-occurring chronic conditions were seen by providers more frequently than patients without SUD diagnoses (p ' s < 0.05), and patients with SUD diagnoses were more likely to be prescribed opioid medications. Chronic condition outcomes were no different for patients with versus without SUD diagnoses. Despite the higher visit rates to providers in primary care, a majority of patients with SUD diagnoses and chronic medical conditions in primary care did not get seen by co-located behavioral health providers, who can potentially provide and support evidence informed care for both SUD and chronic conditions. Patients with chronic medical conditions also were more likely to get prescribed opioids if they had an SUD diagnosis. Care pathway innovations for SUDs that include greater utilization of evidence-informed co-treatment of SUDs and chronic conditions within primary care settings may be necessary for improving care overall for patients with comorbid SUDs and chronic conditions. • Patients with substance use disorder were seen more by providers in primary care. • Patients with substance use disorder received more opioid prescriptions. • Chronic condition outcomes did not differ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with a substance use disorder (SUD) often present with co-occurring chronic conditions in primary care. Despite the high co-occurrence of chronic medical conditions and SUD, little is known about whether chronic condition outcomes or related service utilization in primary care varies between patients with versus without documented SUDs. This study examined whether having a SUD influenced the use of primary care services and common chronic condition outcomes for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and obesity.Methods: A longitudinal cohort observational study examined electronic health record data from 21 primary care clinics in Washington and Idaho to examine differences in service utilization and clinical outcomes for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity in patients with and without a documented SUD diagnosis. Differences between patients with and without documented SUD diagnoses were compared over a three-year window for clinical outcome measures, including hemoglobin A1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and body mass index, as well as service outcome measures, including number of encounters with primary care and co-located behavioral health providers, and orders for prescription opioids. Adult patients (N = 10,175) diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity before the end of 2014, and who had ≥2 visits across a three-year window including at least one visit in 2014 (baseline) and at least one visit occurring 12 months or longer after the 2014 visit (follow-up) were examined.Results: Patients with SUD diagnoses and co-occurring chronic conditions were seen by providers more frequently than patients without SUD diagnoses (p's < 0.05), and patients with SUD diagnoses were more likely to be prescribed opioid medications. Chronic condition outcomes were no different for patients with versus without SUD diagnoses.Discussion: Despite the higher visit rates to providers in primary care, a majority of patients with SUD diagnoses and chronic medical conditions in primary care did not get seen by co-located behavioral health providers, who can potentially provide and support evidence informed care for both SUD and chronic conditions. Patients with chronic medical conditions also were more likely to get prescribed opioids if they had an SUD diagnosis. Care pathway innovations for SUDs that include greater utilization of evidence-informed co-treatment of SUDs and chronic conditions within primary care settings may be necessary for improving care overall for patients with comorbid SUDs and chronic conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most people with alcohol or opioid use disorders (AUD or OUD) are not diagnosed or treated for these conditions in primary care. This study takes a critical step toward quantifying service gaps and directing improvement efforts for AUD and OUD by using electronic health record (EHR) data from diverse primary care organizations to quantify the extent to which AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated in primary care practices.Methods: We extracted and integrated diagnosis, medication, and behavioral health visit data from the EHRs of 21 primary care clinics within four independent healthcare organizations representing community health centers and rural hospital-associated clinics in the Pacific Northwest United States. Rates of documented AUD and OUD diagnoses, pharmacological treatments, and behavioral health visits were evaluated over a two-year period (2015-2016).Results: Out of 47,502 adult primary care patients, 1476 (3.1%) had documented AUD; of these, 115 (7.8%) had orders for AUD medications and 271 (18.4%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Only 402 (0.8%) patients had documented OUD, and of these, 107 (26.6%) received OUD medications and 119 (29.6%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Rates of AUD diagnosis and AUD and OUD medications were higher in clinics that had co-located non-physician behavioral health specialists.Conclusions: AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated within a sample of independent primary care organizations serving mostly rural patients. Primary care organizations likely need service models, technologies, and workforces, including non-physician behavioral health specialists, to improve capacities to diagnose and treat AUD and OUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the ability of electronic health record (EHR) data extracted into a data-sharing system to accurately identify contraceptive use.Study Design: We compared rates of contraceptive use from electronic extraction of EHR data via a data-sharing system and manual abstraction of the EHR among 142 female patients ages 15-49 years from a family medicine clinic within a primary care practice-based research network (PBRN). Cohen's kappa coefficient measured agreement between electronic extraction and manual abstraction.Results: Manual abstraction identified 62% of women as contraceptive users, whereas electronic extraction identified only 27%. Long acting reversible (LARC) methods had 96% agreement (Cohen's kappa 0.78; confidence interval, 0.57-0.99) between electronic extraction and manual abstraction. EHR data extracted via a data-sharing system was unable to identify barrier or over-the-counter contraceptives.Conclusions: Electronic extraction found substantially lower overall rates of contraceptive method use, but produced more comparable LARC method use rates when compared to manual abstraction among women in this study's primary care clinic.Implications: Quality metrics related to contraceptive use that rely on EHR data in this study's data-sharing system likely under-estimated true contraceptive use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about the prevalence of physicians offering nonrecommended breast or colorectal cancer screening for young women. Purpose: The goal of the current paper was to examine the percentage of primary care physicians nationally who self-report offering breast or colorectal cancer screening tests for young women, and physician/practice characteristics associated with such recommendations. Methods: Analysis was performed in 2011 on data from a 2008 cross-sectional survey presenting a vignette of a health maintenance visit by an asymptomatic woman aged 35 years. This study included surveys sent to 1546 U.S. family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician–gynecologists aged <65 years, randomly selected from the AMA Physician Masterfile (60.6% response rate). Relevant respondent subsamples were used for the breast (n=505) and colorectal (n=721) cancer screening analyses. Responses were weighted to represent physicians nationally. The main outcome was physician self-report of offering breast or colorectal cancer screening tests. Results: 75.3% (95% CI =71.0%, 79.2%) of physicians offered breast cancer screening tests; most commonly these physicians reported offering mammography alone (76.5%, 95% CI= 71.6%, 80.8%). A total of 39.3% (95% CI=35.5%, 43.2%) of physicians offered colorectal cancer screening tests; most commonly these physicians reported offering FOBT alone (43.3%, 95% CI=37.2%, 49.6%). In adjusted analysis, physician factors associated with offering breast and colorectal cancer screening tests were: estimating higher patient breast/colorectal cancer risk, and not listing the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force as a top influential organization. Conclusions: A high percentage of physicians report offering nonrecommended breast or colorectal cancer screening tests for young women. Physicians'' higher cancer-risk estimation accounted for some overscreening, but even physicians who estimated the patient to be at the same risk as the general population reported offering nonrecommended screening tests. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is rising and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) appears to be increasingly used. The nationwide use and impact of RFA have not been well characterized. Study Design: We performed an historical cohort study of US patients 18 years old and older, with a diagnosis of HCC (n = 22,103) using the national Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) limited-use database (1998 to 2005). Main outcomes measures were receipt of different therapeutic interventions (ablation, RFA, resection, or transplantation) and adjusted 1- and 2-year survivals. Results: A total of 4,924 (22%) patients underwent any intervention, with a 93% increase over the 8-year study period (trend test, p < 0.001). RFA accounted for 43% of this increase. Despite increased use of therapeutic interventions, 1- and 2-year survival rates did not improve over time for patients in the study cohort (48% and 34%, 52% and 37%, 50% and 36%; in 1998, 2002, and 2004, respectively; p = 0.31). Among patients with solitary lesions, adjusted 1- and 2-year survivals remained stable over time after transplantation (97% and 94%, 95% and 89%, 94% and 86% in 1998, 2002, and 2004, respectively; p = 0.99) and RFA (86% and 64%, 76% and 54%, in 2002 and 2004, respectively; p = 0.97), but improved after resection (83% and 71%, 91% and 84%, 97% and 94% in 1998, 2002, and 2004, respectively; p = 0.03). Conclusions: Use of interventions for the treatment of HCC, and specifically RFA, have markedly increased over time. Because increased use of RFA among patients with potentially resectable disease is likely to occur, and because of a lack of high-level evidence supporting expanded indications, continued evaluation of the indications for RFA and subsequent outcomes among US patients is warranted. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: In 1998, Medicare initiated universal coverage for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening via fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and sigmoidoscopy. In mid-2001, universal coverage was advanced to screening colonoscopy. This study sought to determine whether trends in CRC testing differed among racial/ethnic, age, or gender subgroups of the Medicare population. Methods: In 2006, claims from 1995 to 2003 were analyzed for annual 5% random samples of fee-for-service Medicare enrollees living in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) regions to calculate the annual, age-standardized percentages of subjects who received FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy. Logistic regression then modeled trends in annual test use within racial/ethnic, age, and gender subgroups across three Medicare coverage periods (precoverage [1995–1997]; limited coverage [1998–mid-2001]; and full coverage [mid-2001–2003]). Results: The annual use of FOBT and sigmoidoscopy declined from 1995 to 2003 in all racial/ethnic groups, but the relative decline in sigmoidoscopy use was greater among whites compared to nonwhites. In contrast, colonoscopy use increased substantially in all racial/ethnic groups. However, relative to the precoverage period among whites, the full-coverage period was associated with significantly greater colonoscopy use among whites (OR=2.14; 95% CI=2.09, 2.19) than blacks (OR=1.86; 95% CI=1.75, 1.96); Asian/Pacific Islanders (OR=1.73; 95% CI=1.62, 1.86); or Hispanics (OR=1.65; 95% CI=1.49, 1.81). The use of colonoscopy during the full-coverage period was also differentially greater among enrollees aged <80 years. CRC testing trends were similar among male and female enrollees. Conclusions: Colonoscopy is supplanting sigmoidoscopy as a CRC test among Medicare enrollees, while FOBT use is in decline. The transition from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy has occurred more quickly among white than nonwhite Medicare enrollees. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between surgeon and hospital volume and major postoperative complications after rectal cancer surgery, and to define other surgeon and hospital characteristics that may explain observed volume-complication relationships.Study Design: This was a retrospective cohort design using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry program for individuals with stage I to III rectal cancer diagnosed between 1992 and 1999 and treated with resection. The patients' Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data were linked with Medicare claims data from 1991 to 2000. The primary outcomes were 30-day postoperative procedural interventions (PPI) to treat surgical complications, such as reoperation. The association between surgeon volume and PPI was examined using logistic regression modeling with adjustment for covariates.Results: The odds of a rectal cancer patient requiring a PPI is notably less if the operation is performed by one of a small subset of very high volume surgeons (unadjusted odds ratio 0.53; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.92). Board certification in colorectal surgery did not alter the relationship between surgeon volume and PPI, although surgeon age did, with mid-career surgeons having the lowest rates of PPI, regardless of practice volume. When adjusted for surgeon age, surgeon volume is no longer a marked predictor of complications (adjusted odds ratio 0.57; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.09).Conclusions: Overall, rectal cancer operations are safe, with a low frequency of severe complications. A subset of very high volume rectal surgeons performs these operations with fewer complications that require procedural intervention or reoperation. Surgeon age, as an indicator of experience, also contributes modestly to outcomes. These data do not justify regionalizing rectal cancer care based on safety concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We evaluated (i) how combining comorbid conditions identified from Medicare inpatient or physician claims into a single comorbidity index compared with three other comorbidity indices and (ii) the need for comorbid condition weights that are specific to different cancer sites. Methods: This observational study used the SEER-Medicare linked database, from which four cohorts of cancer patients were derived: breast (n = 26,377), prostate (n = 53,503), colorectal (n = 26,460), and lung (n = 33,975). We calculated two established (Charlson; NCI) and two new (NCI Combined; Uniform Weights) comorbidity indices, and used Cox proportional hazards models to assess their predictive ability. We also used a pooled dataset to examine the inclusion of cancer site-specific condition weights. Results: The four comorbidity indices all significantly predicted mortality, but the NCI and new NCI Combined indices showed the greatest contribution to model fit. The new NCI Combined index is simpler to use and statistically more efficient than the NCI index. Modeling further demonstrated the utility of cancer site-specific weights. Conclusions: Our results support the need for cancer site-specific comorbidity measures that employ empirically-derived condition weights. The new NCI Combined index is a refined, easier to implement comorbidity measurement algorithm appropriate for investigators using administrative claims databases to study four commonly-occurring cancers. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]