Clinical highlights from the National Cancer Data Base, 2000

The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) is the empirical data collection and analysis arm of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer, and is supported in part by the American Cancer Society. The NCDB collects oncology patient demographic information, diagnostic and treatment information, and outcomes data from a broad spectrum of hospital-based cancer registries throughout the US, ranging from large research and teaching facilities to small community hospitals. Through this unique network, data are aggregated and reported back to participating hospitals to allow individual facilities to evaluate local patient care practices and outcomes. This article highlights the principal findings of articles published in 1999 and early 2000 that used NCDB data as the empirical basis of their analyses. Included among these are articles on breast cancer, gastric carcinoma, head and neck cancers, leukemia, liver carcinoma, lung cancer, parathyroid tumors, prostate carcinoma, small bowel adenocarcinoma, testicular malignancies, and vulvar melanoma. These articles are based on cases diagnosed between 1985 and 1996. The NCDB has accrued more than 6.4 million cancer cases for this time period. Sufficient numbers of rare cancers are reported to the NCDB to permit some types of clinical evaluation not possible using other data sources.     

Clinical highlights from the National Cancer Data Base, 1999.

The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), a joint project of the Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons and the American Cancer Society, collects and analyzes data from a wide variety of sources throughout the United States, including small community hospitals. Due to this unique reporting system, individual facilities can compare their own data with the aggregate data from the NCDB, using their findings to evaluate local patient care practices. This article highlights the principal findings of the NCDB and Patient Care Evaluation articles published in 1998 on breast, prostate, cervical, endometrial, gallbladder, head and neck, nasopharyngeal, rectal, thyroid, and vaginal cancers, as well as on melanoma, brain tumors, and Hodgkin's disease. With more than five million cancer cases in the NCDB for the years between 1985 and 1995, sufficient numbers of even rare cancers have been accrued to permit some types of epidemiologic and clinical assessments.     

An Overview of Lung and Breast Cancer Using the National Cancer Database

Introduction: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) is a clinical oncology database utilized by many researchers and clinicians internationally. We sought to investigate the various trends in data of two of the most common cancers, breast and lung, published using the NCDB. Materials and Methods: We selected a multitude of pre-determined variables for analysis. We then performed two separate literature searches using an advanced PubMed search builder, and the data was combined to determine each variables’ association with journal impact factor (IF) using both univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: A total of 191 published studies were identified. We found that a journal IF > 5 was associated with a publication year prior to 2017 (univariate analysis OR 2.68, 95% CI 1.38-5.21, p-value 0.004 and multivariate analysis OR 3.47, 95% CI 1.62-7.42, p-value 0.001) and a sample size > 10,000 (univariate analysis OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.43-7.50, p-value 0.005 and multivariate analysis OR 4.68, 95% CI 1.89-11.6, p-value 0.0008). Variables such as number of authors, region, cancer type, stage, treatment outcome and treatment incidence were not significant for an association with an IF >5. Conclusion: Based on our data, studies published after 2017 using the NCDB were associated with a lower IF. This could suggest that the quality of the NCDB data may be declining over time, or NCDB is becoming more widely used.     

Breast cancer care in the community: challenges, opportunities, and outcomes

In the USA, 80% of patients with breast cancer are treated by community breast surgeons. NCDB data indicate that there are only small differences in outcomes between lower volume cancer programs and higher volume programs. There is some evidence that breast cancer patients of high-volume breast focused surgeons may have improved outcomes. This article discusses the challenges community breast surgeons face and some ways that the quality of care could be monitored and improved. Quality reporting programs of the Commission on Cancer and Mastery of Breast Surgery Program of the American Society of Breast Surgeons are recommended as tools to track and improve outcomes in breast cancer care.     

The Association of Oncology Social Work's Project to Assure Quality Cancer Care (APAQCC)

In 2014, the Association for Oncology Social Work (AOSW) established A Project to Assure Quality Cancer Care (APAQCC), a group of oncology social workers representing sixty-five Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited cancer programs across the US (including two in Canada). Its aims were (1) to examine the capacity of cancer programs to provide quality psychosocial support services, and (2) to evaluate the implementation of distress screening. The purpose of this paper is to describe how this collaborative research program was created and implemented under the auspices of AOSW, and to report on its impact on the oncology social workers who participated.     

Active Surveillance for Early Stage Lung Cancer

ObjectivesData describing outcomes for patients with early stage lung cancer who undergo expectant management is lacking, despite evidence of a sub-population with indolent malignancies. We used the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) to identify factors associated with active surveillance for early stage lung cancer. Additionally, we sought to describe outcomes of three different care plans: active surveillance, no treatment, and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT).MethodsPatients diagnosed in 2010 to 2017 with early stage lung cancer who underwent active surveillance, no treatment, and SBRT were retrospectively identified in the NCDB. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess care plan selection. Kaplan Meier analysis was used to assess overall survival (OS).ResultsWe identified 30,107 patients that met our inclusion criteria: 838 (3%) underwent active surveillance, 6388 patients (21%) received no treatment, and 22,881 (76%) underwent SBRT. Black race (relative risk ratio (RRR): 1.66) and older age (RRR: 1.02) were significant positive predictors of active surveillance selection. Conversely, higher tumor stage (RRR: 0.26) and squamous cell carcinoma (RRR: 0.35) were significant negative predictors of active surveillance selection. Kaplan Meier analysis revealed a longer median OS associated with active surveillance compared to no treatment at 49.3 months versus 26.5 months, respectively. SBRT OS was 43.1 months.ConclusionsWe identified a population of lung cancer patients who underwent expectant management with favorable outcomes. Additionally, we identified factors associated with active surveillance selection. The selection of active surveillance over no treatment was associated with significantly longer OS.     

Initial results from a prospective cohort study of 5583 cases of thyroid carcinoma treated in the united states during 1996. U.S. and German Thyroid Cancer Study Group. An American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Patient Care Evaluation study

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) has conducted national Patient Care Evaluation (PCE) studies since 1976. METHODS: Over 1500 hospitals with CoC-approved cancer programs were invited to participate in this prospective cohort study of U.S. thyroid carcinoma cases treated in 1996. Follow-up will be conducted through the National Cancer Data Base. RESULTS: Of the 5584 cases of thyroid carcinoma, 81% were papillary, 10% follicular, 3.6% Hürthle cell, 0.5% familial medullary, 2.7% sporadic medullary, and 1.7% undifferentiated/anaplastic. Demographics and suspected risk factors were analyzed. Fine-needle aspiration of the thyroid gland (53%) or a neck lymph node (7%), thyroid nuclear scan (39%), and ultrasound (38%) constituted the most frequently utilized diagnostic modalities. The vast majority of patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma presented with American Joint Committee on Cancer Stage I and II disease and relatively small tumors. For all histologies, near-total or total thyroidectomy constituted the dominant surgical treatment. No lymph nodes were examined in a substantial proportion of cases. Residual tumor after the surgical event could be documented in 11% of cases, hypocalcemia in 10% of cases, and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury in 1.3% of cases. Complications were most frequently associated with total thyroidectomy combined with lymph node dissection. Thirty-day mortality was 0.3%; when undifferentiated/anaplastic cancer cases were eliminated, it decreased to 0.2%. Adjuvant treatment, probably underreported in this study, consisted of hormonal suppression (50% overall) and radioiodine (50% overall). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to offering information concerning risk factors and symptoms, the current PCE study compliments the survival information from previous NCDB reports and offers a surveillance snapshot of current management of thyroid carcinoma in the U.S. Identified opportunities for improvement of care include 1) more frequent use of fine-needle aspiration cytology in making a diagnosis; 2) more frequent use of laryngoscopy in evaluating patients preoperatively, especially those with voice change; and 3) improved lymph node resection and analysis to improve staging and, in some situations, outcomes.     

Centralized databases available for describing primary brain tumor incidence, survival, and treatment: Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results; and National Cancer Data Base

Characteristics of three databases--the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS) database; the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database; and the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB)--containing information on primary brain tumors are discussed. The recently developed population-based CBTRUS database comprises incidence data on all primary brain tumors from 11 collaborating state registries; however, follow-up data are not available. SEER, the population-based gold standard for cancer data, collects incidence and follow-up data on malignant brain tumors only. While not population-based, the NCDB identifies newly diagnosed cases and conducts follow-up on all primary brain tumors from hospitals accredited by the American College of Surgeons. The NCDB is the largest of the three databases and also contains more complete information regarding treatment of these tumors than either the SEER or CBTRUS databases. Additional strengths and limitations of each of these are described, and their judicious use for supporting research, education, and health care planning is encouraged.     

From Distress Guidelines to Developing Models of Psychosocial Care: Current Best Practices

Psychological distress has been recognized as having a significant effect upon cognitive and emotional functioning, quality of life, and in some populations increased costs of care. Screening for distress and provision of psychosocial care in oncology treatment settings has been identified as a future accreditation standard by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC). Because there are few available models of programs of distress screening and referral to inform oncology social workers and other members of the psychosocial support team with planning their own programs, this article seeks to provide exemplars of best practices that are currently in place in four different settings where psychosocial support is provided to people living with cancer and their families. Each program will provide an overview of how it was successfully established and its contribution toward evolving evidence-informed best practices.     

Use of the National Cancer Data Base to develop clinical trials accrual targets that are appropriate for minority ethnicity patients: a report from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Special Population Committee

BACKGROUND: Disparities in cancer outcome among different subsets of the American population related to ethnic background have been well documented. Clinical trials represent the most powerful strategy for improving cancer treatments, but racial and ethnic minority patients are frequently underrepresented among patients accrued to these protocols. Proof of comparable efficacy for a promising cancer therapy in different groups of patients requires diversity in the clinical trial populations so that study results will be generalizable. Appropriate targets for accrual of minority ethnicity patients have not previously been defined. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) is maintained jointly by the American Cancer Society and the American College of Surgeons. Information submitted by tumor registries throughout the United States represents an estimated 70% of newly diagnosed cancer cases. The authors analyzed NCDB reports on ethnic distribution of patients with breast, prostate, nonsmall cell lung, and colorectal cancer, stratified by stage of disease at diagnosis. RESULTS: African Americans with cancer of the breast and prostate had the most notable patterns of disproportionate representation among populations with advanced-stage disease. The authors compiled a table of suggested accrual targets for selected solid-organ cancers based on NCDB stage-specific reports. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial results will be more meaningful if participating patients reflect the site- and stage-specific populations that are under study. The authors recommended that clinical trial investigators incorporate accrual targets for minority ethnicity populations into the study design.     

Survivorship care for older adults with cancer: U13 conference report

Older adult cancer survivors currently account for almost 60% of all cancer survivors. The number of older cancer survivors will continue to increase as the population ages and as patients' live longer after a cancer diagnosis. As part of cancer center accreditation, the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer® (CoC) has placed great importance on survivorship care planning. While the CoC has set standards for general survivorship care, there is sparse evidence on how to best care for older adult cancer survivors. Concern exists among the medical community that survivorship care plans could increase paperwork without improving outcomes. Given the diverse and unique needs of older adult cancer survivors, the inter-professional team provides a structure and process for survivorship care built around the particular needs of older adults. The Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG), in partnership with the NIA/NCI, held a U13 conference in May 2015 in part to discuss survivorship care for older adults with cancer. This report discusses four themes that emerged from one section of the conference: (1) survivorship care is a process that continually evolves to meet the needs of older adults; (2) older adult cancer survivors have unique needs and care plans should be tailored to meet these needs; (3) the inter-professional team is ideally suited to structure survivorship care of older adults; (4) patient advocacy must be encouraged throughout the cancer care continuum. As evidence based survivorship practices develop, the unique needs of older adults need to be given substantial attention.     

Measuring quality in cancer care: overview of initiatives in selected countries

To inform the Austrian National Cancer Plan on possible generic quality indicators that might be derived from routine data a systematic literature search in three databases, followed by extensive hand‐searching to locate initiatives and their publications was carried out in spring 2011. Twenty‐one initiatives that developed indicators for measuring quality of cancer care were identified: longer standing and decentralised initiatives are characteristics of the USA. The Canadian province of Ontario publishes the Cancer System Quality Index, centralised audit and peer review programmes are undertaken in the National Health Service in the UK. Methodologically sound cancer type‐specific pilot projects in Belgium have been implemented, the Netherlands and Denmark are running national initiatives. Germany recently started quality measurement activities, too. Generic indicators often focus on end‐of‐life care, multidisciplinarity, advance care planning and documentation. Indicators measuring the quality of care during an entire episode of cancer are rare, as are those for less common cancers and for care in the outpatient setting. Access, equity and the patient's perspective are only beginning to be incorporated into indicators. After having identified a range of candidate indicators that can be implemented with routinely collected data alone, piloting them in Austria would be the next step to go.     

The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: External Validation of the Revision of the TNM Stage Groupings in the Eighth Edition of the TNM Classification of Lung Cancer

IntroductionRevisions to the TNM stage classifications for lung cancer, informed by the international database (N = 94,708) of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) Staging and Prognostic Factors Committee, need external validation. The objective was to externally validate the revisions by using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) of the American College of Surgeons.MethodsCases presenting from 2000 through 2012 were drawn from the NCDB and reclassified according to the eighth edition stage classification. Clinically and pathologically staged subsets of NSCLC were analyzed separately. The T, N, and overall TNM classifications were evaluated according to clinical, pathologic, and “best” stage (N = 780,294). Multivariate analyses were carried out to adjust for various confounding factors. A combined analysis of the NSCLC cases from both databases was performed to explore differences in overall survival prognosis between the two databases.ResultsThe databases differed in terms of key factors related to data source. Survival was greater in the IASLC database for all stage categories. However, the eighth edition TNM stage classification system demonstrated consistent ability to discriminate TNM categories and stage groups for clinical and pathologic stage.ConclusionsThe IASLC revisions made for the eighth edition of lung cancer staging are validated by this analysis of the NCDB database by the ordering, statistical differences, and homogeneity within stage groups and by the consistency within analyses of specific cohorts.     

Trends in Stage I Lung Cancer

IntroductionThe American Cancer Society has recently reported an increase in the percentage of patients with localized lung cancer from 2004 to 2018, coinciding with the initial lung cancer screening guidelines issued in 2013. We conducted a National Cancer Database (NCDB) study to further evaluate the trends in stage I according to patient and tumor characteristics.MethodsWe selected patients with lung cancer from the NCDB Public Benchmark Report diagnosed between 2010 and 2017. Patients with stages I to IV according to the AJCC seventh edition were evaluated according to the year of diagnosis, histology, age, sex, race, and insurance.ResultsAmong the 1,447,470 patients identified in the database, 56,382 (3.9%) were excluded due to stage 0 or unknown, or incorrect histology, leaving 1,391,088 patients eligible. The percentage of patients with stage I increased from 23.5% in 2010 to 29.1% in 2017 for all lung cancers, from 25.9% to 31.8% in non?small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and from 5.0% to 5.4% in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Patients younger than 70 years, males and blacks had lower percentages of stage I compared to older patients, females, and nonblacks respectively. Patients with no insurance had the lowest percentage of stage I.ConclusionsThere has been a significant increase in the percentage of stage I lung cancer at diagnosis from 2010 to 2017, which occurred mostly in NSCLC. Although the staging shift was observed in all subsets of patients, there were noticeable imbalances according to demographic factors.     

Improving uniformity of care for colorectal cancers through National Quality Forum quality indicators at a Commission on Cancer-accredited community based teaching hospital

The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) provides feedback on adherence to National Quality Forum (NQF)-endorsed measures to promote best outcomes in colorectal cancer. We examined the care delivered to patients with colorectal cancer at our institution and developed a protocol to enhance nodal retrieval and to ensure that patients with fewer than 12 nodes are considered for adjuvant chemotherapy. Few patients met the NQF criteria for adjuvant radiation. A protocol was developed to address this issue, and this provides a model for use in a multidisciplinary effort to improve adherence to measures associated with best outcomes in colorectal cancer.     

Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening and Care in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has recently launched several nationwide initiatives to improve the quality of its colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and care. The timeliness of follow-up diagnostic tests in patients who have positive noncolonoscopic CRC screening tests is one of the target areas of these initiatives. Multiple aspects of colon cancer care are being monitored, and the degree of adherence to accepted quality measures is being assessed. The purpose of this review is to describe the background leading to these initiatives and their expected impact on CRC screening and management in the VHA.     

Cancer registration data and quality indicators in low and middle income countries: their interpretation and potential use for the improvement of cancer care

Cancer registration data plays a major role in the design and monitoring of cancer control activities and policies, and population-based cancer registries (PBCR) are the main source of information. In developed countries, the healthcare infrastructure enables the registration of quality cancer data. In low and middle Income countries (LMIC), where health care facilities are limited or scarce, cancer registration data may be of low quality. The aim of this article is to demonstrate the value of cancer incidence data for LMIC, even when quality is questionable, as well as to attempt to interpret the messages that the quality indicators convey both for cancer registration and the healthcare system. The study of data submitted to the Cancer incidence in five continents, volume nine (CI5-IX) leads to the conclusion that when PBCR from LMIC cannot provide good quality data it may indicate a deficiency that goes above and beyond the registrar ability. The quality control indicators evaluated provide insight on local conditions for cancer diagnosis and care. Low data quality not only signals lack of collaboration among reporting sources and the inability of the registrar to perform quality abstracting, but also points to specific weaknesses of the cancer care system and can guide improvement goals and efforts.     

Clinical cancer advances 2011: Annual Report on Progress Against Cancer from the American Society of Clinical Oncology

A message from ASCO'S President. It has been forty years since President Richard Nixon signed the National Cancer Act of 1971, which many view as the nation's declaration of the "War on Cancer." The bill has led to major investments in cancer research and significant increases in cancer survival. Today, two-thirds of patients survive at least five years after being diagnosed with cancer compared with just half of all diagnosed patients surviving five years after diagnosis in 1975. The research advances detailed in this year's Clinical Cancer Advances demonstrate that improvements in cancer screening, treatment, and prevention save and improve lives. But although much progress has been made, cancer remains one of the world's most serious health problems. In the United States, the disease is expected to become the nation's leading cause of death in the years ahead as our population ages. I believe we can accelerate the pace of progress, provided that everyone involved in cancer care works together to achieve this goal. It is this viewpoint that has shaped the theme for my presidential term: Collaborating to Conquer Cancer. In practice, this means that physicians and researchers must learn from every patient's experience, ensure greater collaboration between members of a patient's medical team, and involve more patients in the search for cures through clinical trials. Cancer advocates, insurers, and government agencies also have important roles to play. Today, we have an incredible opportunity to improve the quality of cancer care by drawing lessons from the real-world experiences of patients. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is taking the lead in this area, in part through innovative use of health information technology. In addition to our existing quality initiatives, ASCO is working with partners to develop a comprehensive rapid-learning system for cancer care. When complete, this system will provide physicians with personalized, real-time information that can inform the care of every patient with cancer as well as connect patients with their entire medical teams. The rapid learning system will form a continuous cycle of learning: securely capturing data from every patient at the point of care, drawing on evidence-based guidelines, and evaluating quality of care against those standards and the outcomes of other patients. Clinical trials are another area in which collaboration is critical. Increasing clinical trial participation will require commitment across the cancer community from physicians, patients, insurers, hospitals, and industry. A 2010 report by the Institute of Medicine described challenges to participation in trials by both physicians and patients and provided recommendations for revitalizing clinical trials conducted through the National Cancer Institute's Cooperative Group Program. ASCO has pledged its support for the full implementation of these recommendations. More broadly, ASCO recently outlined a bold vision for translational and clinical cancer research for the next decade and made recommendations to achieve that vision. Accelerating Progress Against Cancer: ASCO's Blueprint for Transforming Clinical and Translational Research, released in November, calls for a research system that takes full advantage of today's scientific and technologic opportunities and sets a high-level agenda for policy makers, regulators, and advocates. Cancer research has transformed cancer care in the past forty years, and this year's Clinical Cancer Advances illustrates how far we have come in the past year alone. We now have a tremendous opportunity to use today's knowledge and collaborate across all facets of cancer care to conquer this deadly disease. Michael P. Link, MD President American Society of Clinical Oncology.     

Improving quality of life among cancer patients in Malaysia

There are an almost infinite number of states of health, all with differing qualities that can be affected by many factors. Each aspect of health has many components which contribute to multidimensionality. Cancer and its' related issues surrounding the treatment plan contribute to the variety of changes of quality of life of cancer patients throughout their life. The objective of this article was to provide an overview of some of the issues that can affect their quality of life and initiatives towards successful care in Malaysia by reviewing relevant reports and articles. The current strategies can be further strengthened by prevention of cancer while improving quality of service to cancer patients.     

Adult Cancer Survivorship: Evolution,Research, and Planning Care

Increases in the number of adult cancer survivors and other issues have forced the oncology community to examine, evaluate, and alter the cancer care paradigm. Pediatric oncologists are grappling with the task of transitioning a growing population of adult survivors of childhood cancer to adult medicine, while oncologists caring for adult cancer survivors are seeking models of follow‐up care that are acceptable to patients and providers. Workforce and access‐to‐care issues suggest that primary care providers will see more cancer survivors in their practices across time, although it is unclear how prepared they are for this task. Translational research is needed to develop evidence‐based clinical care and survivorship care plans. A broad picture of the evolving field of adult cancer survivorship is presented. The recent focus on young adult survivors of childhood cancer, an overview of translational research needed to inform the physical and psychosocial care of cancer survivors, and the roles of primary and specialty care providers managing this population is examined. Finally, an overview of evolving treatment summary and care plan initiatives is presented. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59:391–410. © 2009 American Cancer Society, Inc.