3.9 Article

Who Does Not Receive Treatment for Cancer?

期刊

JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY PRACTICE
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 20-+

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2012.000829

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. American Society of Clinical Oncology Study of Geographic Access to Oncology Care
  2. National Cancer Institute [HHSN261201000032C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据