PURPOSE: Little has been published on nontreatment of cancer, yet the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) indicates that 9.2% of patients receive no first course of treatment. Because the NCDB is limited to accredited cancer programs, there is potential for the actual rate to differ. We sought to understand the rate and characteristics of patients with cancer who receive no first course of treatment in a more population-representative data source. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Iowa Cancer Registry (ICR) strives to capture 100% of newly diagnosed cancer cases among Iowa residents, regardless of where they are diagnosed or treated. RESULTS: In the ICR from 2004 to 2010, 12.3% of newly diagnosed patients with cancer did not receive a first course of treatment, which is 48% higher than the NCDB data for the state of Iowa (8.3%) during the same time period. Logistic regression indicated that nontreatment was more common in certain cancers (ie, small-cell and non-small-cell lung/bronchial cancers and low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma), advanced stages, older patients, those receiving treatment recommendations at nonaccredited cancer programs, and patients who never consulted an oncologist, radiation therapist, or surgeon. Distance to treatment facilities was not related to nontreatment. CONCLUSION: The rate of nontreatment varies by cancer type and stage and is higher in patients receiving initial treatment recommendations in nonaccredited cancer programs than in accredited cancer programs. This pattern seems to be correlated with patient characteristics but also may be related to provider and facility characteristics available to people locally that influence both patient and provider decision making.
PURPOSE: Little has been published on nontreatment of cancer, yet the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) indicates that 9.2% of patients receive no first course of treatment. Because the NCDB is limited to accredited cancer programs, there is potential for the actual rate to differ. We sought to understand the rate and characteristics of patients with cancer who receive no first course of treatment in a more population-representative data source. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Iowa Cancer Registry (ICR) strives to capture 100% of newly diagnosed cancer cases among Iowa residents, regardless of where they are diagnosed or treated. RESULTS: In the ICR from 2004 to 2010, 12.3% of newly diagnosed patients with cancer did not receive a first course of treatment, which is 48% higher than the NCDB data for the state of Iowa (8.3%) during the same time period. Logistic regression indicated that nontreatment was more common in certain cancers (ie, small-cell and non-small-cell lung/bronchial cancers and low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma), advanced stages, older patients, those receiving treatment recommendations at nonaccredited cancer programs, and patients who never consulted an oncologist, radiation therapist, or surgeon. Distance to treatment facilities was not related to nontreatment. CONCLUSION: The rate of nontreatment varies by cancer type and stage and is higher in patients receiving initial treatment recommendations in nonaccredited cancer programs than in accredited cancer programs. This pattern seems to be correlated with patient characteristics but also may be related to provider and facility characteristics available to people locally that influence both patient and provider decision making.
Authors: Brenda K Edwards; Martin L Brown; Phyllis A Wingo; Holly L Howe; Elizabeth Ward; Lynn A G Ries; Deborah Schrag; Patricia M Jamison; Ahmedin Jemal; Xiao Cheng Wu; Carol Friedman; Linda Harlan; Joan Warren; Robert N Anderson; Linda W Pickle Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-10-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Julia H Hayes; Daniel A Ollendorf; Steven D Pearson; Michael J Barry; Philip W Kantoff; Susan T Stewart; Vibha Bhatnagar; Christopher J Sweeney; James E Stahl; Pamela M McMahon Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Josephine Hegarty; Paul V Beirne; Ella Walsh; Harry Comber; Tony Fitzgerald; Meredith Wallace Kazer Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2010-11-10
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; David J Bentrem; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Clifford Y Ko Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marcia M Ward; Fred Ullrich; Kevin Matthews; Gerard Rushton; Roger Tracy; Michael A Goldstein; Dean F Bajorin; Michael P Kosty; Suanna S Bruinooge; Amy Hanley; Geraldine M Jacobson; Charles F Lynch Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Marcia M Ward; Fred Ullrich; Kevin Matthews; Gerard Rushton; Roger Tracy; Dean F Bajorin; Michael A Goldstein; Michael P Kosty; Suanna S Bruinooge; Amy Hanley; Charles F Lynch Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Joan L Warren; Eboneé N Butler; Jennifer Stevens; Christopher S Lathan; Anne-Michelle Noone; Kevin C Ward; Linda C Harlan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Deborah R Kaye; Lauren E Wilson; Melissa A Greiner; Lisa P Spees; Jessica E Pritchard; Tian Zhang; Craig E Pollack; Daniel George; Charles D Scales; Chris D Baggett; Cary P Gross; Michael S Leapman; Stephanie B Wheeler; Michaela A Dinan Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Kevin A Matthews; Anne H Gaglioti; James B Holt; Lisa C McGuire; Kurt J Greenlund Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 2.459
Authors: Emilie A C Dronkers; Steven W Mes; Marjan H Wieringa; Marc P van der Schroeff; Robert J Baatenburg de Jong Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Tamara A Baker; Rosalyn Roker; Heather R Collins; Vicki Johnson-Lawrence; Roland J Thorpe; Chivon A Mingo; Elizabeth Vasquez Journal: Gerontol Geriatr Med Date: 2016-02-11