Objective: The outcomes of patients treated on the COVID-minimal pathway were evaluated during a period of surging COVID-19 hospital admissions, to determine the safety of continuing to perform urgent operations during the pandemic. Summary of Background Data: Crucial treatments were delayed for many patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, over concerns for hospital-acquired COVID-19 infections. To protect cancer patients whose survival depended on timely surgery, a “COVID-minimal pathway” was created. Methods: Patients who underwent a surgical procedure on the pathway between April and May 2020 were evaluated. The “COVID-minimal surgical pathway” consisted of: (A) evolving best-practices in COVID-19 transmission-reduction, (B) screening patients and staff, (C) preoperative COVID-19 patient testing, (D) isolating pathway patients from COVID-19 patients. Patient status through 2 weeks from discharge was determined as a reflection of hospital-acquired COVID-19 infections. Results: After implementation, pathway screening processes excluded 7 COVID-19-positive people from interacting with pathway (4 staff and 3 patients). Overall, 122 patients underwent 125 procedures on pathway, yielding 83 admissions (42 outpatient procedures). The median age was 64 (56–79) and 57% of patients were female. The most common surgical indications were cancer affecting the uterus, genitourinary tract, colon, lung or head and neck. The median length of admission was 3 days (1–6). Repeat COVID-19 testing performed on 27 patients (all negative), including 9 patients evaluated in an emergency room and 8 readmitted patients. In the postoperative period, no patient developed a COVID-19 infection. Conclusions: A COVID-minimal pathway comprised of physical space modifications and operational changes may allow urgent cancer treatment to safely continue during the COVID-19 pandemic, even during the surge-phase.

Insurance status has been linked to important differences in cancer treatment and outcomes in the US. With more than 15 million individuals gaining health insurance through Medicaid expansion, there is an increasing need to understand the implications of this policy within the US cancer population. This review provides an overview of the fundamental principles and nuances of Medicaid expansion, as well as the implications for cancer care.OBSERVATIONS The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act presented states with an option to expand Medicaid coverage by broadening the eligibility criteria (eg, raising the eligible income level). During the past 10 years, Medicaid expansion has been credited with a 30% reduction in the population of uninsured individuals in the US. Such a significant change in the insurance profile could have important implications for the 1.7 million patients diagnosed with cancer each year, the oncology teams that care for them, and policy makers. However, several factors may complicate efforts to characterize the effect of Medicaid expansion on the US cancer population. Most notably, there is considerable variation among states in terms of whether Medicaid expansion took place, when expansion occurred, eligibility criteria for Medicaid, and coverage types that Medicaid provides. In addition, economic and health policy factors may be intertwined with factors associated with Medicaid expansion. Finally, variability in the manner in which cancer care has been captured and depicted in large databases could affect the interpretation of findings associated with expansion. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe expansion of Medicaid was a historic public policy initiative. To fully leverage this policy to improve oncological care and to maximize learning for subsequent policies, it is critical to understand the effect of Medicaid expansion. This review aims to better prepare investigators and their audiences to fully understand the implications of this important health policy initiative.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction Patients with early-stage NSCLC typically must choose between a surgery with superior local control (lobectomy) or one that preserves lung parenchyma (wedge). Recognizing that many patients with cancer have competing mortality risks unrelated to cancer, we investigated whether an established model of predicting life expectancy could be used to identify patients with stage I NSCLC for whom survival after wedge is not different from lobectomy. Methods A retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results—Medicare was performed to evaluate survival among treatment-naive patients, diagnosed 2005–2015, who underwent lobectomy or wedge for stage I (≤2 cm tumors) NSCLC. Comorbidity-related life expectancy (CR-LE) was estimated using a standard life-table approach based on comorbid conditions, sex, and age. Cox models and perioperative complications were stratified by 5-year CR-LE. Results A total of 4560 patients (median age 74, interquartile range 70–78) were identified. CR-LE was greater than or equal to 5 years for 4016 patients (wedge = 23%). CR-LE was less than 5 years for 544 patients (wedge = 41%). Among patients with CR-LE greater than or equal to 5, wedge resection was associated with higher risk of mortality than lobectomy (hazard ratio: 1.68, 95% confidence interval: 1.52–1.86, p < 0.001). For those with CR-LE less than 5, there was no significant difference in mortality risk between lobectomy and wedge (hazard ratio: 1.19, 95% confidence interval: 0.96–1.47; p = 0.11). CR-LE less than five patients who underwent a lobectomy had higher 90-day mortality compared with wedge (9% versus 4%, p = 0.04). Conclusion The survival advantage of lobectomy over wedge for stage I NSCLC seems to dissipate among patients with shorter life expectancy owing to age and comorbidities. Wedge resection may be a reasonable option for patients at high risk of dying from non–cancer-related causes.