Search

Purpose: Genomic testing improves outcomes for many at-risk individuals and patients with cancer; however, little is known about how genomic testing for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) is used in clinical practice., Patients and Methods: In 2012 to 2013, we surveyed medical oncologists who care for patients in diverse practice and health care settings across the United States about their use of guideline- and non-guideline-endorsed genetic tests. Multivariable regression models identified factors that are associated with greater test use., Results: Of oncologists, 337 completed the survey (participation rate, 53%). Oncologists reported higher use of guideline-endorsed tests (eg, KRAS for CRC; EGFR for NSCLC) than non-guideline-endorsed tests (eg, Onco typeDX Colon; ERCC1 for NSCLC). Many oncologists reported having no patients with CRC who had mismatch repair and/or microsatellite instability (24%) or germline Lynch syndrome (32%) testing, and no patients with NSCLC who had ALK testing (11%). Of oncologists, 32% reported that five or fewer patients had KRAS and EGFR testing for CRC and NSCLC, respectively. Oncologists, rather than pathologists or surgeons, ordered the vast majority of tests. In multivariable analyses, fewer patients in nonprofit integrated health care delivery systems underwent testing than did patients in hospital or office-based single-specialty group settings (all P < .05). High patient volume and patient requests (CRC only) were also associated with higher test use (all P < .05)., Conclusion: Genomic test use for CRC and NSCLC varies by test and practice characteristics. Research in specific clinical contexts is needed to determine whether the observed variation reflects appropriate or inappropriate care. One potential way to reduce unwanted variation would be to offer widespread reflexive testing by pathology for guideline-endorsed predictive somatic tests.

Purpose: Little is known about factors associated with unmet needs for symptom management in patients with cancer., Methods: Patients with a new diagnosis of lung and colorectal cancer from the diverse nationally representative Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance cohort completed a survey approximately 5 months after diagnosis (N = 5,422). We estimated the prevalence of unmet need for symptom management, defined as patients who report that they wanted help for at least one common symptom (pain, fatigue, depression, nausea/vomiting, cough, dyspnea, diarrhea) during the 4 weeks before the survey but did not receive it. We identified patient factors associated with unmet need by using logistic regression with random effects to account for clustering within study sites., Results: Overall, 15% (791 of 5,422) of patients had at least one unmet need for symptom management. Adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors, African American race, being uninsured or poor, having early-stage lung cancer, and the presence of moderate to severe symptoms were associated with unmet need (all P < .05). Furthermore, patients who rated their physician's communication score < 80 (on a 0 to 100 scale) had adjusted rates of an unmet need for symptom management that were more than twice as high as patients who rated their physicians with a perfect communication score (23.1% v 10.0%; P < .001)., Conclusion: A significant minority of patients with newly diagnosed lung and colorectal cancer report unmet needs for symptom management. Interventions to improve symptom management should consider the importance of physician communication to the patient's experience of disease., (Copyright © 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Importance: Patients with advanced-stage cancer are receiving increasingly aggressive medical care near death, despite growing concerns that this reflects poor-quality care., Objective: To assess the association of aggressive end-of-life care with bereaved family members' perceptions of the quality of end-of-life care and patients' goal attainment., Design, Setting, and Participants: Interviews with 1146 family members of Medicare patients with advanced-stage lung or colorectal cancer in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance study (a multiregional, prospective, observational study) who died by the end of 2011 (median, 144.5 days after death; interquartile range, 85.0-551.0 days)., Exposures: Claims-based quality measures of aggressive end-of-life care (ie, intensive care unit [ICU] admission or repeated hospitalizations or emergency department visits during the last month of life; chemotherapy ≤2 weeks of death; no hospice or ≤3 days of hospice services; and deaths occurring in the hospital)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Family member-reported quality rating of "excellent" for end-of-life care. Secondary outcomes included patients' goal attainment (ie, end-of-life care congruent with patients' wishes and location of death occurred in preferred place)., Results: Of 1146 patients with cancer (median age, 76.0 years [interquartile range, 65.0-87.0 years]; 55.8% male), bereaved family members reported excellent end-of-life care for 51.3%. Family members reported excellent end-of-life care more often for patients who received hospice care for longer than 3 days (58.8% [352/599]) than those who did not receive hospice care or received 3 or fewer days (43.1% [236/547]) (adjusted difference, 16.5 percentage points [95% CI, 10.7 to 22.4 percentage points]). In contrast, family members of patients admitted to an ICU within 30 days of death reported excellent end-of-life care less often (45.0% [68/151]) than those who were not admitted to an ICU within 30 days of death (52.3% [520/995]) (adjusted difference, -9.4 percentage points [95% CI, -18.2 to -0.6 percentage points]). Similarly, family members of patients who died in the hospital reported excellent end-of-life care less often (42.2% [194/460]) than those who did not die in the hospital (57.4% [394/686]) (adjusted difference, -17.0 percentage points [95% CI, -22.9 to -11.1 percentage points]). Family members of patients who did not receive hospice care or received 3 or fewer days were less likely to report that patients died in their preferred location (40.0% [152/380]) than those who received hospice care for longer than 3 days (72.8% [287/394]) (adjusted difference, -34.4 percentage points [95% CI, -41.7 to -27.0 percentage points])., Conclusions and Relevance: Among family members of older patients with fee-for service Medicare who died of lung or colorectal cancer, earlier hospice enrollment, avoidance of ICU admissions within 30 days of death, and death occurring outside the hospital were associated with perceptions of better end-of-life care. These findings are supportive of advance care planning consistent with the preferences of patients.

Objective: To assess the extent to which patients self-refer to cancer specialists and whether self-referral is associated with better experiences and quality of care., Data Sources: Data from surveys and medical record abstraction collected through the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium., Study Design: Observational study of patients with lung and colorectal cancer diagnosed from 2003 through 2005 in five geographically defined regions and five integrated health care delivery systems., Methods: Multivariable logistic regression models used to assess factors associated with self-referral and propensity score-weighted doubly robust models to test the association between self-referral and experiences/quality of care., Principal Findings: Among 5,882 patients, 9.7 percent of lung cancer patients and 14.9 percent of colorectal cancer patients self-referred to at least one cancer specialist. Black patients were less likely to self-refer than white patients (odds ratio: 0.48, 95 percent confidence interval: 0.35, 0.64); patients with high incomes (vs. low) and with a college degree (vs. non-high school graduates) were significantly more likely to self-refer. Self-referral was associated with lower ratings of overall physician communication for patients with lung cancer but, conversely, higher odds of curative surgery among patients with stage I/II lung cancer., Conclusions: A small but significant proportion of patients self-referred to their cancer specialists; rates varied by patient race and socioeconomic status. To the extent that self-referral is associated with quality, it may reinforce disparities in care., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Purpose: Multidisciplinary tumor board meetings are common in cancer care, but limited evidence is available about their benefits. We assessed the associations of tumor board participation and structure with care delivery and patient outcomes., Methods: As part of the CanCORS study, we surveyed 1,601 oncologists and surgeons about participation in tumor boards and specific tumor board features. Among 4,620 patients with lung or colorectal cancer diagnosed from 2003 to 2005 and seen by 1,198 of these physicians, we assessed associations of tumor board participation with patient survival, clinical trial enrollment, guideline-recommended care, and patient-reported quality, adjusting for patient and physician characteristics., Results: Weekly physician tumor board participation (v participation less often or never) was not associated with patient survival, although in exploratory subgroup analyses, weekly participation was associated with lower mortality for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer and stage IV colorectal cancer. Patients treated by the 54% of physicians participating in tumor boards weekly (v less often or never) were more likely to enroll onto clinical trials (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.2). Patients with stage I to II non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose physicians participated in tumor boards weekly were more likely to undergo curative-intent surgery (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.3 to 6.8), although those with stage I to II NSCLC whose physicians' meetings reviewed > one cancer site were less likely to undergo curative-intent surgery (OR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.4)., Conclusion: Among patients with lung or colorectal cancer, frequent physician tumor board engagement was associated with patient clinical trial participation and higher rates of curative-intent surgery for stage I to II NSCLC but not with overall survival., (Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Context: Relatively few data are available about symptoms among cancer patients., Objectives: To describe the prevalence and severity of symptoms among a large, representative cohort of newly diagnosed cancer patients., Methods: We collected survey data about symptoms (pain, fatigue, depression, nausea/vomiting, cough, dyspnea, and diarrhea) from 5422 patients with incident lung and colorectal cancer from the diverse, nationally representative Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium cohort. We described the prevalence of any symptoms and moderate/severe symptoms approximately four to six months after diagnosis. We used logistic regression to identify patient and clinical characteristics associated with symptoms, and calculated adjusted proportions of patients with symptoms., Results: In total, 5067 (93.5%) patients reported at least one symptom in the four weeks before their survey, with 51% reporting at least one moderate/severe symptom. Lung cancer patients reported more symptoms than colorectal cancer patients. Patients who received treatment or had more comorbidities were more likely to report symptoms. For example, after adjustment, patients who received chemotherapy during the six weeks before the survey were more likely than others to report at least one symptom (97.3% vs. 90.8%, P<0.001), and at least one moderate/severe symptom (56.8% vs. 46.2%, P<0.001). After adjustment, early- vs. late-stage patients did not differ in reports of at least one symptom (93.6% vs. 93.4%, P=0.853) and differed only slightly in reports of at least one moderate/severe symptom (53.3% vs. 49.6%, P=0.009)., Conclusion: Most recently diagnosed lung and colorectal cancer patients have cancer-related symptoms regardless of stage, and more than half have at least one moderate/severe symptom., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Clinical trials are essential to establish the effectiveness of new cancer therapies, but less than 5% of adults with cancer enroll in trials. In addition to ineligibility or lack of available trials, barriers to enrollment may include limited patient awareness about the option of participation., Methods: We surveyed a multiregional cohort of patients with lung or colorectal cancer (or their surrogates) three to six months after diagnosis. We assessed whether respondents reported learning that clinical trial participation might be an option, and, if so, with whom they discussed trials. We used logistic regression to assess the association of patient characteristics with discussing trial participation and enrolling in trials. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Of 7887 respondents, 1114 (14.1%) reported discussing the possibility of clinical trial participation; most learned about trials from their physicians, and 287 patients (3.6% of all patients, 25.8% of trial discussants) enrolled. Among 2173 patients who received chemotherapy for advanced (stage III/IV lung or stage IV colorectal) cancer, 25.7% discussed trials, and 7.6% (29.5% of trial discussants) enrolled. Discussions were less frequent among older patients, African American or Asian vs white patients, and those with lower incomes and more comorbidity. Enrollment was higher among patients reporting shared vs physician-driven decisions (all P < .05)., Conclusions: In this population-based cohort, only 14% of patients discussed participation in clinical trials. Discussions were more frequent among advanced cancer patients but were still reported by a minority of patients. Strategies to expand access to trials and facilitate patient-provider communication about participation may accelerate development of better cancer therapeutics., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Prognosis discussion is an essential component of informed decision-making. However, many terminally ill patients have a limited awareness of their prognosis and the causes are unclear., Objective: To explore the impact of physicians' propensity to discuss prognosis on advanced cancer patients' prognosis awareness., Design: Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium (CanCORS) study, a prospective cohort study with patient and physician surveys., Setting/subjects: We investigated 686 patients with metastatic lung or colorectal cancer at diagnosis who participated in the CanCORS study and reported about their life expectancy. Data were linked to the physician survey from 486 physicians who were identified by these patients as filling important roles in their cancer care., Results: Few patients with metastatic cancers (16.5%) reported an accurate awareness of their prognosis, defined as reporting a life expectancy of less than 2 years for lung cancer or less than 5 years for colorectal cancer. Patients whose most-important-doctor (in helping patient make decisions) reported discussing prognosis with terminally ill patients earlier were more likely than those whose doctors deferred these discussions to have an accurate prognosis awareness (adjusted proportion, 18.5% versus 7.6%; odds ratio, 3.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-7.52; p=0.006)., Conclusions: Few patients with advanced cancer could articulate an accurate prognosis estimate, despite most having received chemotherapy and many physicians reported they would discuss prognosis early. Physicians' propensity to discuss prognosis earlier was associated with more accurate patient reports of prognosis. Enhancing the communication skills of providers with important roles in cancer care may help to improve cancer patients' understanding of their prognosis.

Purpose: Only 2% to 5% of adult patients with cancer enroll onto clinical trials. We assessed simultaneously characteristics of patients and their physicians that may be independently associated with participation., Methods: CanCORS, a National Cancer Institute (NCI) -funded population-based observational cohort study of newly diagnosed patients with lung and colorectal cancers, sampled patients across five geographic areas, five health care delivery systems, and 15 Veterans Administration hospitals. We linked patient survey and medical record data with physician survey data to examine correlates of trial enrollment., Results: Among 9,901 patients, 5.3% enrolled onto trials. Of the 9,901 patients, we linked 6,506 patients to one medical oncologist, surgeon, or radiation oncologist (physicians, N = 1,325) who responded to the physician survey and was considered their primary cancer clinician decision maker. Patient age, race, disease stage, geographic region, and health insurance were independently associated with trial enrollment. Physician factors independently associated with patient trial enrollment were being a medical oncologist, practicing at an NCI-designated cancer center, taking the lead in discussing trials with patients, and receiving increased income from trial enrollment. After simultaneously adjusting for patient and physician characteristics, only being a physician practicing at an NCI-designated cancer center (odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% CI, 1.19 to 2.27) and patient female sex (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.68), age > 70 versus < 50 years (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.48), and advanced disease (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.45 to 2.37) remained independently associated with trial enrollment., Conclusion: Both practice environment and patient clinical and demographic characteristics are associated with cancer clinical trial enrollment; simultaneous intervention may be required when trying to increase enrollment rates.

Background: The research goals of the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium are to determine how characteristics and beliefs of patients, providers, and health care organizations influence the treatments and outcomes of individuals with newly diagnosed lung and colorectal cancers. As CanCORS results will inform national policy, it is important to know how they generalize to the United States population with these cancers., Research Design: This study assessed the representativeness of the CanCORS cohort of 10,547 patients with lung cancer (LC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) enrolled between 2003 and 2005. We compared characteristics (sex, race, age, and disease stage) with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) population of 234,464 patients with new onset of these cancers during the CanCORS recruitment period., Results: The CanCORS sample is well matched to the SEER Program for both cancers. In CanCORS, 41% LC/47% CRC were female versus 47% LC/49% CRC in SEER. African American, Hispanic, and Asian cases differed by no more than 5 percentage points between CanCORS and SEER. The SEER population is slightly older, with the percentage of patients older than 75 years 33.1% LC/37.3% CRC in SEER versus 26.9% LC/29.4% in CanCORS, and also has a slightly higher proportion of early stage patients. We also found that the CanCORS cohort was representative within specific SEER regions that map closely to CanCORS sites., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the CanCORS Consortium was successful in enrolling a demographically representative sample within the CanCORS regions.

Background: Disparities in care have been documented for foreign-born cancer patients in the United States. However, few data are available regarding patients with lung and colorectal cancer. In the current study, the authors assessed whether patient-reported quality and receipt of recommended care differed between US-born and foreign-born cancer patients., Methods: The authors collected surveys and medical records for a population-based cohort including white, Hispanic, and Asian adults (2205 US-born and 890 foreign-born individuals) with lung or colorectal cancer diagnosed in California from 2003 through 2005. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between nativity and patient-reported quality of care and receipt of recommended treatments (adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for stage II/III rectal cancer, and curative surgery for stage I/II nonsmall cell lung cancer). The authors also assessed whether language explained any differences in care by nativity., Results: Overall, 46% of patients reported excellent care, but foreign-born patients were less likely than US-born patients to report excellent quality of care (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.65-1.00), a difference partly explained by the language of the survey, an indicator of English proficiency. Rates of recommended therapies ranged from 64% to 85%; foreign-born patients were less likely to receive chemotherapy and radiotherapy for stage II/III rectal cancer (AOR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.12-0.99). Rates of other treatments did not differ significantly by nativity., Conclusions: Foreign-born cancer patients reported lower quality of care and were less likely to receive some cancer therapies than patients born in the Unites States. Better coordination of care and communication regarding cancer treatments and expanded use of interpreters may lessen these disparities., (Copyright © 2010 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: To assess patients' experiences with cancer care, ratings of their quality of care, and correlates of these assessments., Patients and Methods: For 4,093 patients with lung cancer and 3,685 patients with colorectal cancer in multiple US regions and health care delivery systems, we conducted telephone surveys of patients or their surrogates in English, Spanish, or Chinese at 4 to 7 months after diagnosis. The surveys assessed ratings of the overall quality of cancer care and experiences with three domains of interpersonal care (physician communication, nursing care, and coordination and responsiveness of care)., Results: English-speaking Asian/Pacific Islander patients and Chinese-speaking patients and those in worse health reported significantly worse adjusted experiences with all three domains of interpersonal care, whereas white, black, and Hispanic patients reported generally similar experiences with interpersonal care. The overall quality of cancer care was rated as excellent by 44.4% of patients with lung cancer and 53.0% of patients with colorectal cancer, and these ratings were most strongly correlated with positive experiences with coordination and responsiveness of care (Spearman rank coefficients of 0.49 and 0.42 for lung and colorectal cancer, respectively). After multivariate adjustment, excellent ratings were less common for each cancer among black patients, English-speaking Asian/Pacific Islander patients, Chinese-speaking patients, and patients reporting worse health status (all P ≤ .05)., Conclusion: Patients' reports and ratings of care differed significantly by race, language, and health status. Efforts to improve patients' experiences with cancer care should focus on problems affecting Asian and Pacific Islander patients and those in worse health.

Background: Prior research suggests that older patients are less likely to undergo resection of early-stage non-small-cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs). We surveyed surgeons to understand how their recommendations for lobectomy were influenced by age, the presence and severity of smoking-related lung disease, or by characteristics of the surgeons and their practices., Methods: We surveyed surgeons caring for NSCLC patients regarding whether they would recommend lobectomy for hypothetical patients with early-stage NSCLC who varied by age (55 vs. 80 years) and comorbid illness (none, moderate, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]). Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify the importance of patient, surgeon, and practice characteristics on surgery recommendations., Results: Surgeons recommended lobectomy for nearly all patients who were 55 years old with no comorbidity (adjusted proportion 98.6%), 55 years old with moderate COPD (adjusted proportion 97.8%), or 80 years old with no comorbidity (adjusted proportion 98.1%). Fewer recommended lobectomy for 80-year-old patients with moderate COPD (adjusted proportion 82.3%), and far fewer recommended lobectomy for severe COPD, irrespective of age (adjusted rate 18.7% for the 55-year-old patient and 6.1% for the 80-year-old patient) (P < 0.002). Surgeons who enroll patients onto clinical trials (P = 0.03) were more likely than others to recommend lobectomy, but no other surgeon characteristic predicted recommendations., Conclusions: Lower rates of lobectomy among older patients do not seem to be explained by age-related biases among surgeons for otherwise healthy patients.

Purpose: To describe chemotherapy use and adverse events (AEs) for advanced-stage, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in community practice, including descriptions according to variation by age., Methods: We interviewed patients with newly diagnosed, stages IIIB and IV NSCLC in the population-based cohort studied by the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium, and we abstracted the patient medical records. AEs were medical events occurring during chemotherapy. Using logistic regression, we assessed the association between age and chemotherapy; with Poisson regression, we estimated event rate ratios and adjusted the analysis for age, sex, ethnicity, radiation therapy, stage, histology, and presence and grade of 27 comorbidities., Results: Of 1,371 patients, 58% (95% CI, 55% to 61%) received chemotherapy and 35% (95% CI, 32% to 38%) had AEs. After adjustment, 72% (95% CI, 65% to 79%) of those younger than 55 years and 47% (95% CI, 42% to 52%) of those age 75 years and older received chemotherapy. Platinum-based therapies were less common in the older-age groups. Pretreatment medical event rates were 18.6% for patients younger than 55 years and were only 9.2% for those age 75 years and older (adjusted rate ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.91). In contrast, older adults were more likely to have AEs during chemotherapy. The adjusted rate ratios compared with age younger than 55 years were 1.70 for 65- to 74-year-olds (95% CI, 1.19 to 2.43) and 1.34 for those age 75 years and older (95% CI, 0.90 to 2.00)., Conclusion: Older patients who received chemotherapy had fewer pretherapy events than younger patients and were less likely to receive platinum-based regimens. Nevertheless, older patients had more adverse events during chemotherapy, independent of comorbidity. Potential implicit trade-offs between symptom management and treatment toxicity should be made explicit and additionally studied.

Background: Many terminally ill patients enroll in hospice only in the final days before death or not at all. Discussing hospice with a health care provider could increase awareness of hospice and possibly result in earlier use., Methods: We used data on 1517 patients diagnosed as having stage IV lung cancer from a multiregional study. We estimated logistic regression models for the probability that a patient discussed hospice with a physician or other health care provider before an interview 4 to 7 months after diagnosis as reported by either the patient or surrogate or documented in the medical record., Results: Half (53%) of the patients had discussed hospice with a provider. Patients who were black, Hispanic, non-English speaking, married or living with a partner, Medicaid beneficiaries, or had received chemotherapy were less likely to have discussed hospice. Only 53% of individuals who died within 2 months after the interview had discussed hospice, and rates were lower among those who lived longer. Patients who reported that they expected to live less than 2 years had much higher rates of discussion than those expecting to live longer. Patients reporting the most severe pain or dyspnea were no more likely to have discussed hospice than those reporting less severe or no symptoms. A third of patients who reported discussing do-not-resuscitate preferences with a physician had also discussed hospice., Conclusions: Many patients diagnosed as having metastatic lung cancer had not discussed hospice with a provider within 4 to 7 months after diagnosis. Increased communication with physicians could address patients' lack of awareness about hospice and misunderstandings about prognosis.

Purpose: We surveyed cancer physicians to understand how patients' age and comorbidity influence adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations and whether physician or practice characteristics also affect these recommendations., Methods: National survey of surgeons and medical oncologists caring for patients with colorectal cancer regarding whether they would recommend adjuvant chemotherapy for hypothetical patients with stage III colon cancer who varied by age (55 v 80 years) and comorbid illness (none, moderate, severe congestive heart failure [CHF]). Repeated measures logistic regression was used to assess the influence of patient, physician, and practice characteristics on chemotherapy recommendations., Results: Of 1,096 physicians, nearly all recommended chemotherapy for patients who were 55 years old with no comorbidity (99.0%), 55-years old with moderate CHF (88.6%), or 80 years old with no comorbidity (92.6%); many fewer recommended chemotherapy for 55-year-old patients with severe CHF (24.9%) or 80-year-old patients with moderate (47.2%) or severe (9.0%) CHF (P < .001). Younger physicians (P < .001) were more likely than others to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy overall, although physician factors explained little of the variability in recommendations., Conclusion: Physicians agree with guidelines recommending adjuvant chemotherapy for young, healthy patients with stage III colon cancer but differ widely on recommendations for patients who are older and sicker. Few physician or practice characteristics were associated with recommendations. For older and sicker patients, the individual physicians seen may have a substantial impact on the likelihood of receiving chemotherapy. Understanding better the sources of variation not explained by patients' clinical characteristics may allow improved tailoring of therapy to patients most likely to benefit.

Goals of Work: The National Cancer Institute's Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium is conducting a population-based study of newly diagnosed patients with lung and colorectal cancer to describe the experience of persons living with cancer and to understand which barriers present the most significant obstacles to their receipt of appropriate care. The keystone to this effort is the baseline patient survey administered approximately 4 months after diagnosis., Patients and Methods: We developed a survey to obtain information from patients newly diagnosed with lung and colorectal cancer about their personal characteristics, decision making, experience of care, and outcomes. We conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of a lengthy and clinically detailed interview in a convenience sample of patients within 8 months of diagnosis (n=71)., Main Results: The median length of the interviews was 75 min for patients with lung cancer (range 43-130) and 82 min for patients with colorectal cancer (range 46-119). Most patients had received some form of treatment for their cancer: 66.1% had undergone surgery, 28.2% had received radiation therapy, and 54.9% were treated with chemotherapy. In addition, 26.7% reported their overall health was less than 70 on a 0-100 scale, demonstrating that patients with substantial health impairment were able to complete the survey., Conclusions: A clinically detailed survey of newly diagnosed lung and colorectal cancer patients is feasible. A modified version of this survey is being fielded by the CanCORS Consortium and should provide much needed population-based data regarding patients' experiences across the continuum of cancer care and their outcomes.