Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author: Julie Hallet x
  • All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Elliott K. Yee, Natalie G. Coburn, Laura E. Davis, Alyson L. Mahar, Victoria Zuk, Vaibhav Gupta, Ying Liu, Craig C. Earle, and Julie Hallet

Background: Little is known about how the geographic distribution of cancer services may influence disparities in outcomes for noncurable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We therefore examined the geographic distribution of outcomes for this disease in relation to distance to cancer centers. Methods: We conducted a retrospective population-based analysis of adults in Ontario, Canada, diagnosed with noncurable pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 2004 through 2017 using linked administrative healthcare datasets. The exposure was distance from place of residence to the nearest cancer center providing medical oncology assessment and systemic therapy. Outcomes were medical oncology consultation, receipt of cancer-directed therapy, and overall survival. We examined the relationship between distance and outcomes using adjusted multivariable regression models. Results: Of 15,970 patients surviving a median of 3.3 months, 65.6% consulted medical oncology and 38.5% received systemic therapy. Regions with comparable outcomes were clustered throughout Ontario. Mapping revealed regional discordances between outcomes. Increasing distance (reference, ≤10 km) was independently associated with lower likelihood of medical oncology consultation (relative risks [95% CI] for 11–50, 51–100, and ≥101 km were 0.90 [0.83–0.98], 0.78 [0.62–0.99], and 0.77 [0.55–1.08], respectively) and worse survival (hazard ratios [95% CI] for 11–50, 51–100, and ≥101 km were 1.08 [1.04–1.12], 1.17 [1.10–1.25], and 1.10 [1.02–1.18], respectively), but not with likelihood of receiving therapy. Receipt of therapy seems less sensitive to distance, suggesting that distance limits entry into the cancer care system via oncology consultation. Regional outcome discordances suggest inefficiencies within and protective factors outside of the cancer care system. Conclusions: These findings provide a basis for clinicians to optimize their practices for patients with noncurable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, for future studies investigating geographic barriers to care, and for regional interventions to improve access.

Full access

Julie Hallet, Laura Davis, Alyson Mahar, Michail Mavros, Kaitlyn Beyfuss, Ying Liu, Calvin H.L. Law, Craig Earle, and Natalie Coburn

Background: Although pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) surgery performed by high-volume (HV) providers yields better outcomes, volume–outcome relationships are unknown for medical oncologists. This study examined variation in practice and outcomes in noncurative management of PA based on medical oncology provider volume. Methods: This population-based cohort study linked administrative healthcare datasets and included nonresected PA from 2005 through 2016. The volume of PA consultations per medical oncology provider per year was divided into quintiles, with HV providers (≥16 patients/year) constituting the fifth quintile and low-volume (LV) providers the first to fourth quintiles. Outcomes were receipt of chemotherapy and overall survival (OS). The Brown-Forsythe-Levene (BFL) test for equality of variances was performed to assess outcome variability between provider-volume quintiles. Multivariate regression models were used to examine the association between management by HV provider and outcomes. Results: A total of 7,062 patients with noncurable PA consulted with medical oncology providers. Variability was seen in receipt of chemotherapy and median survival based on provider volume (BFL, P<.001 for both), with superior 1-year OS for HV providers (30.1%; 95% CI, 27.7%–32.4%) compared with LV providers (19.7%; 95% CI, 18.5%–20.6%) (P<.001). After adjustment for age at diagnosis, sex, comorbidity burden, rural residence, income, and diagnosis period, HV provider care was independently associated with higher odds of receiving chemotherapy (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.05–1.34) and with superior OS (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74–0.84). Conclusions: Significant variation was seen in noncurative management and outcomes of PA based on provider volume, with management by an HV provider being independently associated with superior OS and higher odds of receiving chemotherapy. This information is important to inform disease care pathways and care organization. Cancer care systems could consider increasing the number of HV providers to reduce variation and improve outcomes.

Full access

Julie Hallet, Calvin Law, Simron Singh, Alyson Mahar, Sten Myrehaug, Victoria Zuk, Haoyu Zhao, Wing Chan, Angela Assal, and Natalie Coburn

Background: Although patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are known to have prolonged overall survival, the contribution of cancer-specific and noncancer deaths is undefined. This study examined cancer-specific and noncancer death after NET diagnosis. Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of adult patients with NETs from 2001 through 2015. Using competing risks methods, we estimated the cumulative incidence of cancer-specific and noncancer death and stratified by primary NET site and metastatic status. Subdistribution hazard models examined prognostic factors. Results: Among 8,607 included patients, median follow-up was 42 months (interquartile range, 17–82). Risk of cancer-specific death was higher than that of noncancer death, at 27.3% (95% CI, 26.3%–28.4%) and 5.6% (95% CI, 5.1%–6.1%), respectively, at 5 years. Cancer-specific deaths largely exceeded noncancer deaths in synchronous and metachronous metastatic NETs. Patterns varied by primary tumor site, with highest risks of cancer-specific death in bronchopulmonary and pancreatic NETs. For nonmetastatic gastric, small intestine, colonic, and rectal NETs, the risk of noncancer death exceeded that of cancer-specific deaths. Advancing age, higher material deprivation, and metastases were independently associated with higher hazards, and female sex and high comorbidity burden with lower hazards of cancer-specific death. Conclusions: Among all NETs, the risk of dying of cancer was higher than that of dying of other causes. Heterogeneity exists by primary NET site. Some patients with nonmetastatic NETs are more likely to die of noncancer causes than of cancer causes. This information is important for counseling, decision-making, and design of future trials. Cancer-specific mortality should be included in outcomes when assessing treatment strategies.