Search

Safety-net hospitals provide essential services to vulnerable patients with complex medical and socioeconomic circumstances. We hypothesized that matched patients at safety-net hospitals and non-safety-net hospitals would have comparable outcomes, costs, and readmission rates after isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR).The National Readmissions Database was queried to identify patients who underwent isolated AVR (n = 109 744) or MVR (n = 31 475) from 2016 to 2018. Safety-net burden was defined as the percentage of patients who were uninsured or insured with Medicaid, with hospitals in the top quartile designated as safety-net hospitals. After propensity score matching, outcomes for AVR and MVR at safety-net hospitals vs non-safety-net hospitals were compared.Overall, 17 925 AVRs (16%) and 5516 MVRs (18%) were performed at safety-net hospitals, and these patients had higher comorbidity rates, had lower socioeconomic status, and more frequently required urgent surgery. Observed inhospital mortality was similar between safety-net hospitals and non-safety-net hospitals (AVR 2.2% vs 2.1%, P = .4; MVR 4.8% vs 4.3%, P = .1). After matching, rates of inhospital mortality, major morbidity, and readmission were similar; however, safety-net hospitals had longer length of stay after AVR (7 vs 6 days, P = .001) and higher total cost after AVR ($49 015 vs $42 473, P.001) and MVR ($59 253 vs $52 392, P.001).Isolated surgical AVR and MVR are both performed at safety-net hospitals with outcomes comparable to those at non-safety-net hospitals, supporting efforts to expand access to these procedures for underserved populations. Investment in care coordination resources to reduce length of stay and curtail cost at safety-net hospitals is warranted.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: The USPSTF (United States Preventive Service Task Force) guidelines suggest criteria centering on smoking status and age to select patients for lung cancer screening. Despite the significant advances in screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), cancer detection rate is low (1.1%), highlighting the need to investigate possible ways to refine the current lung cancer screening strategy. Our aim was to determine clinical risk factors predictive of lung cancer in an urban safety-net hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of 2847 patients who received LDCT screening for lung cancer between 3/1/2015 and 12/31/2019. Patient demographics and medical history were collected. A bivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of lung cancer. RESULTS: Compared to the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST) population, our screening cohort had significantly more African Americans (38.2% vs 4.5%, p

Background There is a paucity of prognostic factors for patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing operations. We investigated the prognostic role of preoperative complete blood count values in patients with stage I NSCLC patients undergoing operations. Methods A retrospective medical record review was performed of patients who underwent operations for stage I NSCLC between 2000 and 2015. Patients who died within 30 days of the operations were excluded. The primary end point was recurrence. Preoperative complete blood count values were analyzed, and a median value was used as the cutoff. Statistical analysis used χ2 and t tests along with univariate and multivariate analyses by Cox regression modeling. Results The study included 103 patients. A high lymphocyte count was significantly associated with recurrence (5-year recurrence-free survival [RFS] of 69.8% for high vs 95.7% for low, P = .003), as well as high platelet (5-year RFS of 72.0% for high vs 91.8% for low, P = .02). Independent prognostic factors on multivariate analysis were high lymphocyte (hazard ratio [HR], 7.27; P = .005) and platelet counts (HR, 7.49; P = .003) as well as tumor (HR, 5.40; P = .008) and treatment characteristics (HR, 4.59; P = .01). Among patients with pT1 lesions, high lymphocyte (HR, 8.41; P = .03) and high platelet counts (HR, 19.78; P = .004) remained independent prognostic factors. Neither NLR nor PLR were significantly associated with recurrence. Conclusions In patients with pathologic stage I NSCLC undergoing surgical resection, the preoperative blood count from peripheral blood may provide prognostic value. Of significance, in patients with pT1 N0 NSCLC, high lymphocyte count and high platelet count were associated with higher recurrence.

Social determinants of health (SDH) have been associated with poor outcomes in esophageal cancer. Primary language and immigration status have not been examined in relation to esophageal cancer outcomes. This study aims to investigate the impact of these variables on stage of presentation, treatment and outcomes of esophageal cancer patients at an urban safety-net hospital. Clinical data of patients with esophageal cancer at our institution between 2003 and 2018 was reviewed. Demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics were obtained. Outcomes included median overall survival, stage-specific survival, and utilization of surgical and perioperative therapy. Statistical analysis was conducted using Chi-squared test, Fisher's exact tests, Kaplan-Meier method, and logistic regression. There were 266 patients; 77% were male. Mean age was 63.9 years, 23.7% were immigrants, 33.5% were uninsured/Medicaid, and 16.2% were non-English speaking. Adenocarcinoma was diagnosed in 55.3% and squamous cell in 41.0%. More patients of Non-Hispanic received esophagectomies when compared to those of Hispanic origin (64% vs 25%, p=0.012). Immigrants were less likely to undergo esophagectomy compared to US-born patients (42% vs 76%, p=0.001). Patients with adenocarcinoma were more likely than squamous cell carcinoma patients to undergo esophagectomy (OR=4.40, 95% CI [1.61-12.01], p=0.004). More commercially/privately insured patients (75%) received perioperative therapy compared to Medicaid/uninsured (54%) and Medicare (49%) patients (p=0.030). There was no association between demographic factors and the utilization of perioperative chemoradiation for patients with operable disease. Approximately 23% of patients with operable disease were too frail or declined to undergo surgical intervention. In this small single-center study, race and primary language were not associated with median survival for patients treated for esophageal cancer. US-born patients experienced higher surgical utilization and privately insured patients were more likely to receive perioperative therapy. Many patients with operable cancer were too frail to undergo a curative surgery. Studies should expand on the relationships between SDH and non-clinical services on delivery of care and survival of vulnerable populations with esophageal cancer. Ultra Mini Abstract Previously determined sociodemographic risk factors for poor outcomes in esophageal cancer in population based were examined in a safety-net center. Insurance status and immigration status are associated with disparities in delivery of care at an urban, safety-net medical center.

Background Social determinants of health affect diagnosis and delivery of care to patients with esophageal cancer. This study hypothesized that hospital safety-net burden affects presentation, treatment, and outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer. Methods The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with esophageal cancer (2004 to 2013). Treating facilities were categorized according to their relative burden of uninsured or Medicaid-insured patients. Hospitals with low (LBH), medium (MBH), and high (HBH) safety-net burden were compared with respect to patient demographics, disease and treatment characteristics, and survival using χ2 analysis, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and multivariable modeling. Results There were 56,115 patients from 1,215 facilities. HBH treated a greater proportion of racial and ethnic minorities and patients with lower socioeconomic status. Patients at HBH presented at later stages and received primary surgical therapy less often than at MBH and LBH. Survival for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma did not differ significantly between HBH and LBH after adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, income, comorbidity, stage, histologic type, tumor location, facility type, insurance status, and treatment modality (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.14; p = 0.093). HBH were associated with a higher mortality risk than LBH for patients with squamous cell carcinoma (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.20; p = 0.014). Conclusions There is a mortality risk for patients with squamous cell carcinoma, but not for adenocarcinoma at HBH compared with LBH. Further analysis of unadjusted variables such as performance status, completion of therapy, and continuity of care, and others should be undertaken among safety-net hospitals with the goal of creating appropriate clinical pathways for care of esophageal cancer in vulnerable populations.

Background Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (LungRADS) Category 4 represents lung nodules with the highest likelihood of cancer. For LungRADS-4 lesions, if positron emission tomography (PET) is negative, there currently exists no uniform guideline on subsequent follow-up, particularly whether the surveillance interval can be extended. We sought to investigate the incidence of cancer, our surveillance practice and any clinical factors associated with cancer in this patient subset. Methods We retrospectively stratified LungRADS-4 patients screened at our institution from March 2015 to February 2019 into subgroups: PET-positive, PET-negative, and no PET performed. PET negativity was defined as the absence of a radiologist’s suspicion, or a maximum standardized uptake value at or below the mediastinal value. Results Of the 191 LungRADS-4 patients identified, 67 (35.1%) met criteria for PET negativity. Cancer was diagnosed in 28.8% (55/191) of the entire cohort, 77.8% (35/45) of the PET-positive subgroup, 22.4% (15/67) of the PET-negative subgroup, and 6.3% (5/79) of the no PET subgroup. The most common follow-up modality after a negative PET scan was a CT scan (47/67, 70.1%), with a median interval of 3.1 months. Clinical variables including nodule location/size, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, family history of lung cancer, pack-years, and number of years quit in former smokers were not significantly associated with greater cancer risk among PET-negatives. Conclusion For LungRADS-4/PET-negative lesions, the cancer risk remained high despite lack of activity on PET. As such, we believe the current surveillance practice of continuing to follow LungRADS-4/PET-negative patients as LungRADS-4 patients is appropriate.

While lung cancer screening improves cancer-specific mortality and is recommended for high-risk patients, barriers to screening still exist. We sought to determine our institution's (an urban safety net hospital) screening rate and to identify socioeconomic barriers to lung cancer screening.We identified 8935 smokers 55 to 80 years of age evaluated by a primary care physician between March 2015 and March 2017 at our institution. We randomly selected one-third of these (n = 2978) to review for eligibility using the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria for lung cancer screening. Using our institution's Lung Cancer Screening Program clinical tracking database, we identified patients who were screened from March 2015 to March 2017. We collected demographic information (race, primary language, education status, and median income) and evaluated possible associations with screening.Among our institution population, 99 patients meeting U.S. Preventive Services Task Force screening criteria underwent screening computed tomography, whereas 516 eligible patients were not screened, making our institution's estimated screening rate 16.1%. Comparing the unscreened population with those who received screening at our institution, the unscreened population was significantly older (median age of screened patients was 63 years, of unscreened patients was 66 years; P.001). African Americans had a lower screening rate (37.6% of the screened population and 47.5% of the unscreened population; P.001). Unscreened patients had a lower annual household income.The lung cancer screening rate at our hospital is 16.1%. Unscreened patients were older, were more likely to be African American, and had a lower median income. These findings highlight possible screening barriers and potential areas for targeted strategies to decrease disparities in lung cancer screening.