Christina A Clarke1, Sally L Glaser2, Rita Leung3, Kathleen Davidson-Allen3, Scarlett L Gomez2, Theresa H M Keegan4. 1. Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA, United States; Department of Health Research and Policy (Epidemiology), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States. Electronic address: tina@cpic.org. 2. Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA, United States; Department of Health Research and Policy (Epidemiology), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States. 3. Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA, United States. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, United States.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients may receive cancer care from multiple institutions. However, at the population level, such patterns of cancer care are poorly described, complicating clinical research. To determine the population-based prevalence and characteristics of patients seen by multiple institutions, we used operations data from a state-mandated cancer registry. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 59,672 invasive cancers diagnosed in 1/1/2010-12/31/2011 in the Greater Bay Area of northern California were categorized as having been reported to the cancer registry within 365days of diagnosis by: 1) ≥1 institution within an integrated health system (IHS); 2) IHS institution(s) and ≥1 non-IHS institution (e.g., private hospital); 3) 1 non-IHS institution; or 4) ≥2 non-IHS institutions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to characterize patients reported by multiple vs. single institutions. RESULTS: Overall in this region, 17% of cancers were reported by multiple institutions. Of the 33% reported by an IHS, 8% were also reported by a non-IHS. Of non-IHS patients, 21% were reported by multiple institutions, with 28% for breast and 27% for pancreatic cancer, but 19%% for lung and 18% for prostate cancer. Generally, patients more likely to be seen by multiple institutions were younger or had more severe disease at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Population-based data show that one in six newly diagnosed cancer patients received care from multiple institutions, and differed from patients seen only at a single institution. Cancer care data from single institutions may be incomplete and possibly biased.
INTRODUCTION: Patients may receive cancer care from multiple institutions. However, at the population level, such patterns of cancer care are poorly described, complicating clinical research. To determine the population-based prevalence and characteristics of patients seen by multiple institutions, we used operations data from a state-mandated cancer registry. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 59,672 invasive cancers diagnosed in 1/1/2010-12/31/2011 in the Greater Bay Area of northern California were categorized as having been reported to the cancer registry within 365days of diagnosis by: 1) ≥1 institution within an integrated health system (IHS); 2) IHS institution(s) and ≥1 non-IHS institution (e.g., private hospital); 3) 1 non-IHS institution; or 4) ≥2 non-IHS institutions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to characterize patients reported by multiple vs. single institutions. RESULTS: Overall in this region, 17% of cancers were reported by multiple institutions. Of the 33% reported by an IHS, 8% were also reported by a non-IHS. Of non-IHS patients, 21% were reported by multiple institutions, with 28% for breast and 27% for pancreatic cancer, but 19%% for lung and 18% for prostate cancer. Generally, patients more likely to be seen by multiple institutions were younger or had more severe disease at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Population-based data show that one in six newly diagnosed cancer patients received care from multiple institutions, and differed from patients seen only at a single institution. Cancer care data from single institutions may be incomplete and possibly biased.
Authors: Wei-Qi Wei; Cynthia L Leibson; Jeanine E Ransom; Abel N Kho; Pedro J Caraballo; High Seng Chai; Barbara P Yawn; Jennifer A Pacheco; Christopher G Chute Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Phyllis A Wingo; Holly L Howe; Michael J Thun; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Elizabeth Ward; Martin L Brown; JoAnne Sylvester; Gilbert H Friedell; Linda Alley; Julia H Rowland; Brenda K Edwards Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: William R Hersh; Mark G Weiner; Peter J Embi; Judith R Logan; Philip R O Payne; Elmer V Bernstam; Harold P Lehmann; George Hripcsak; Timothy H Hartzog; James J Cimino; Joel H Saltz Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Aya Mitani; Manisha Desai; Peter P Yu; Tina Seto; Susan C Weber; Cliff Olson; Pragati Kenkare; Scarlett L Gomez; Monique A de Bruin; Kathleen Horst; Jeffrey Belkora; Suepattra G May; Dominick L Frosch; Douglas W Blayney; Harold S Luft; Amar K Das Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Michael F Gensheimer; Balasubramanian Narasimhan; A Solomon Henry; Douglas J Wood; Daniel L Rubin Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2022-06
Authors: Michelle Doose; Janeth I Sanchez; Joel C Cantor; Jesse J Plascak; Michael B Steinberg; Chi-Chen Hong; Kitaw Demissie; Elisa V Bandera; Jennifer Tsui Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-05
Authors: Daniel X Yang; Rohan Khera; Joseph A Miccio; Vikram Jairam; Enoch Chang; James B Yu; Henry S Park; Harlan M Krumholz; Sanjay Aneja Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-03-01