Hazen, Anne M

Abstract Background: Racial disparities in outcomes of cancer patients have been reported. Access to comprehensive cancer centers is associated with improved overall survival (OS) but racial/ethnic minorities may have a disparate access to such care. While the impact of treatment facility volume on outcomes has been evaluated, outcomes of centers with minority-predominant patient population have not been studied. We compared demographic profiles, facility level data and OS of patients treated at minority-predominant facilities to facilities that treated predominantly non-Hispanic Whites (NHW) with non-DLBCL. Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify all non-DLBCL patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2015. "Minority-treating facilities" were defined as facilities in the top decile by proportion for initial treatment of non-Hispanic African-Americans (NHAA), Hispanics and other races. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to compare sociodemographic and clinical factors influencing outcomes between minority treating and non-minority treating facilities. A subgroup analysis stratified by race/ethnicity was also conducted to study the effect of treating facilities on the outcome of NHWs and minorities separately. Results: Of 1339 total facilities, 123 (9.1%) qualified as minority treating. Of 207,239 eligible patients in NCDB, 18,719 (9.03%) received treatment at the minority-treating facilities and of these, 11,190 (~60%) belonged to the minority races. Overall, 4.5% (6,988/156,664) NHWs and 30% (11,190/37,639) minorities received treatment at the minority-treating facilities. Several demographic and facility level characteristics were significantly different among the patients treated at minority-treating facilities as compared to non-minority treating facilities. Overall, significantly higher number of patients in minority-treating hospitals had lower income and education, had Medicaid coverage or lack of insurance. The OS of patients in minority treating facilities was significantly worse as compared to non-minority facilities (Figures). On multivariate analysis, patients who received treatment at minority-treating facilities were at 10% (HR=1.10, 95% CI: 1.06-1.14 p<0.001) higher risk of mortality as compared to those treated at the non-minority treating facilities. On multivariate analysis, NHAA (30% increased risk) and 'other races' (9% increased risk) were at significantly higher risk of mortality as compared to the NHW (Table 2). To study the effect of treatment at minority-treating facilities on OS among the patients of same race/ethnicity group, a multivariate analysis was also run separately for NHW and racial minorities. The NHWs who received treatment at minority-treating facilities were at 13% higher risk of death (HR=1.13, 95% CI: 1.08-1.19 p<0.001) as compared to NHWs who were treated at non-minority treating facilities. Similarly, the racial minorities who received treatment at minority treating facilities were at 8% higher risk of death (HR=1.08, 95% CI: 1.03-1.19 p=0.003) as compared to those who received treatment at the nonminority treating facilities. Conclusions:Outcomes of patients who received treatment at minority treating facilities was significantly worse than those at non-minority treating facilities. This was true for NHWs and racial minorities separately as well. Several demographic and facility level characteristics were significantly different in the two groups however OS remained worse after adjusting for them. Causes of poor outcomes at minority-treating facilities must be analyzed to mitigate them and improve outcomes for all. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The treatment of NHL has witnessed a paradigm shift over time, with targeted immunotherapy, stem cell transplant (SCT) among others. Historically, XRT was used quite frequently for the management of NHL but with advent of better systemic therapy, its utilization has changed. Trends and patterns of care for XRT use have never been formally reported. Methods: We identified patients with NHL diagnosis in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) between years 2004 and 2015. Demographic, clinical, facility level, initial treatment and outcome data were collected. The utilization of XRT in diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) and non-DLBCL NHL were analyzed separately by univariate and multivariate analyses. To analyze the trends in the rates of XRT, we applied segmented linear regression to calculate the average annual percent change (AAPC) and 95% confidence Interval (CI) with a 'p' value. AAPC and CIs were calculated using the segmented package in R studio v1.1.49. Rest of the analyses was conducted using StataCorp version 15.1. Results: A total of 133,182 DLBCL and 204,933 non-DLBCL patients were identified. Among patients with DLBCL, 27,895 (20.9%) patients received RT. The rate of XRT declined from 25% in 2004 to 18.4% in 2015 with estimated AAPC of -0.59% (95%CI: -0.70- -0.49), p= 0.03 (Figure 1). In a subgroup analysis, a similar decline in the rate of XRT was evident across all the age groups, combined stages I and II vs stages III and IV and nodal vs extra nodal DLBCL (Table 1). Among non DLBCL, 33,369 (16.3%) patients received XRT. There was a statistically significant decline in the rate of XRT from 18.03% in 2004 to 16.3% in 2014 with an AAPC of -0.26 (95%CI: -0.38- -0.14) p <0.001 (Figure 1). On the subgroup analysis, the utilization of XRT declined across all the studied subgroups except among patients aged 80 years and above (Table 1). On multivariate analysis, several demographic, clinical and facility level factors were found to be significantly associated with XRT utilization in NHL (Table 2). In particular, older age groups, racial/ethnic minorities, advanced stages, higher Charlson comorbidity scores and diagnosis in the more recent calendar years were associated with lesser chances of receiving RT. Extranodal DLBCL had lower utilization while extranodal non-DLBCL had increased XRT utilization. Conclusion: There has been a significant decline in the utilization of XRT among patients with NHL (DLBCL and non-DLBCL) in the US since 2004, likely due to introduction of practice changing systemic therapeutics. There is still significant heterogeneity noted in practice patterns regarding utilization of XRT across the US. Having more standardized guidelines will help streamline delivery of evidence-based patient care. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.