Mullett, Timothy W.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDOH) are associated with adverse cancer outcomes, yet the prevalence and impact of SDOH screening across Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited programs are unknown. We evaluated national SDOH screening practices and their association with adherence to CoC quality measures. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of 1,445 CoC-accredited programs (October to December 2024) was linked to National Cancer Database data (2020 to 2022). Adult patients treated at 435 responding hospitals (30.1%) were included. Programs were categorized by routine outpatient SDOH screening status. Multivariable logistic regression assessed associations between screening and receipt of quality measure–concordant care, adjusting for screening duration, age, race, ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, insurance status, rurality, and program type or case count. RESULTS: Of 435 programs, 165 (37.9%) reported routine SDOH screening. Screening programs more frequently treated ≥10% Medicaid or uninsured patients (29.1% vs 19.6%, p = 0.023). Mean performance was higher at screening hospitals for breast radiation within 60 days (66.6% vs 64.6%, p = 0.046), colon adjuvant chemotherapy within 120 days (84.6% vs 81.9%, p = 0.018), and lung systemic therapy within 90 days (77.2% vs 75.4%, p = 0.043). On adjusted analysis, screening for more than 3 years was independently associated with timely colon adjuvant chemotherapy (odds ratio 1.05; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07; p = 0.033). Findings persisted after excluding safety net hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Only one-third of responding CoC programs routinely screen for SDOH. Sustained screening was independently associated with improved adherence to time-sensitive colon cancer chemotherapy, supporting integration of patient-level SDOH assessment into oncology care delivery.

Objective: To evaluate the first 3 years of compliance with the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) Operative Standards. Background: CoC implemented evidence-based standards to improve the quality of sentinel lymph node biopsy and axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer (operative standards 5.3 and 5.4), wide local excision for melanoma (5.5), colectomy for colon cancer (5.6), proctectomy for rectal cancer (5.7), and pulmonary resection for lung cancer (5.8) at ∼1400 programs treating >74% of US cancer patients. Each operative standard defines a technical element of the operation and structured documentation. Methods: Compliance data are from site visits conducted between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2024 (implementation/site visits began in 2021/2022 for 5.7 and 5.8 and 2023/2024 for 5.3–5.6). Compliance with each operative standard was determined by evaluation of 7 operative (5.3–5.6) or pathology (5.7, 5.8) reports. Deficiency in technical performance, documentation, or both was considered noncompliance. Results: Reviewers conducted 974 site visits of Comprehensive Community (44%), Community (23%), Academic Comprehensive (16%), network (12%), NCI-Designated Comprehensive (4%), and other (1%) cancer programs. Program compliance rates ranged from 53% to 88%. Documentation noncompliance was more common for standards 5.3 to 5.6 (based on operative reports), and technical noncompliance was more common for 5.7 and 5.8 (based on pathology reports). Compliance significantly (P=0.006) varied by program type for 5.8 (highest: 66% at NCI-designated Comprehensive programs; lowest: 37% at Community Cancer programs). Conclusions: Early compliance with CoC operative standards varied, indicating local and large-scale national quality improvement efforts are needed.

ImportanceSince 2021, American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation standards require providing a survivorship program for patients with adult-onset cancer treated with curative intent. Since more than 70% of all patients with cancer in the US are treated at CoC-accredited facilities, this presents an opportunity for a landscape analysis of survivorship care availability.ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence, types, and outcomes of cancer survivorship services at CoC-accredited facilities.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis survey study used an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey conducted from May 4 to 25, 2023. Participants were CoC-accredited facilities in the US representing diverse CoC program categories, institutional characteristics, geographic regions, and practice types. Department of Veterans Affairs cancer programs were excluded due to data usage restrictions. Data were analyzed from July to October 2023.ExposureCoC Survivorship Standard 4.8 was released in October 2019 and programs were expected to adhere to the Standard beginning January 1, 2021.Main Outcomes and MeasuresQuestions included self-reported survivorship program characteristics, availability of services aligned to CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8, and perceived program impacts. Response frequencies and proportions were determined in aggregate and by CoC program category.ResultsThere were 1400 eligible programs, and 384 programs participated (27.4% response rate). All regions and eligible program categories were represented, and most had analytic caseloads of 500 to 4999 patients in 2021. Most survivorship program personnel included nurses (334 programs [87.0%]) and social workers (278 programs [72.4%]), while physical (180 programs [46.9%]) and occupational (87 programs [22.7%]) therapists were less common. Services most endorsed as available for all survivors were screening for new cancers (330 programs [87.5%]), nutritional counseling (325 programs [85.3%]), and referrals to specialists (320 programs [84.7%]), while treatment summaries (242 programs [64.7%]), and survivorship care plans (173 programs [43.0%]), sexual health (217 programs [57.3%]), and fertility (214 programs [56.9%]) were less common. Survivorship services were usually delivered by cancer treatment teams (243 programs [63.3%]) rather than specialized survivorship clinics (120 programs [31.3%]). For resources needed, additional advanced practice clinicians with dedicated survivorship effort (205 programs [53.4%]) and electronic health record enhancements (185 programs [48.2%]) were most endorsed. Lack of referrals and low patient awareness were endorsed as the primary barriers. A total of 335 programs (87.2%) agreed that Survivorship Standard 4.8 helped advance their programs.Conclusions and RelevanceThese findings of this survey study of CoC-accredited programs establish a benchmark for survivorship care delivery in the US, identify gaps in specific services and opportunities for intervention, contribute to longitudinal reevaluation for tracking progress nationally, and suggest the value of survivorship care standards.