Sarcoma

Sarcoma / 2018 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2018 |Article ID 4626174 | 11 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4626174

Impact of Insurance Coverage on Outcomes in Primary Breast Sarcoma

Academic Editor: Chandrajit Premanand Raut
Received10 Nov 2017
Revised06 Dec 2017
Accepted17 Dec 2017
Published15 Mar 2018

Abstract

Private insurance is associated with better outcomes in multiple common cancers. We hypothesized that insurance status would significantly impact outcomes in primary breast sarcoma (PBS) due to the additional challenges of diagnosing and coordinating specialized care for a rare cancer. Using the National Cancer Database, we identified adult females diagnosed with PBS between 2004 and 2013. The influence of insurance status on overall survival (OS) was evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier estimator with log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazard models. Among a cohort of 607 patients, 67 (11.0%) had Medicaid, 217 (35.7%) had Medicare, and 323 (53.2%) had private insurance. Compared to privately insured patients, Medicaid patients were more likely to present with larger tumors and have their first surgical procedure further after diagnosis. Treatment was similar between patients with comparable disease stage. In multivariate analysis, Medicaid (hazard ratio (HR), 2.47; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.62–3.77; ) and Medicare (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.10–2.57; ) were independently associated with worse OS. Medicaid insurance coverage negatively impacted survival compared to private insurance more in breast sarcoma than in breast carcinoma (interaction ). In conclusion, patients with Medicaid insurance present with later stage disease and have worse overall survival than privately insured patients with PBS. Worse outcomes for Medicaid patients are exacerbated in this rare cancer.

1. Introduction

Breast sarcomas are rare neoplasms that represent less than 5% of soft-tissue sarcomas and less than 1% of breast malignancies [1]. They develop de novo (primary) or are associated with prior radiation therapy or chronic lymphedema (secondary).

Management of rare cancers including breast sarcoma is challenging due to limited case numbers and lack of prospective clinical trials. Current recommendations for primary breast sarcoma are derived from small retrospective studies and extrapolated from the treatment of nonbreast soft-tissue sarcomas. Given the complexity of management and paucity of data, cases should be managed by multidisciplinary teams with expertise in sarcoma [2]. However, accessing these teams can be logistically challenging [3] and costly.

Health insurance coverage affects access to cancer care and has important clinical consequences. Insurance coverage influences whether patients undergo recommended cancer screening [4], receive appropriate and timely treatment, and participate in clinical trials [5]. Medicaid-insured patients tend to present at a more advanced stage [6, 7], with worse overall survival in breast carcinoma [8]. With more than 62 million people covered by Medicaid in the United States in 2016, it is vital to understand how cancer outcomes vary across health insurance types [9]. We hypothesized that nonprivate insurance status would be associated with worse outcomes in primary breast sarcoma due to the additional challenges of diagnosing and coordinating specialized care for a rare cancer.

2. Methods

2.1. Data Source

We performed a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database (NCDB) 2014 Participant User File. This study was exempt from review by our institutional review board. The NCDB is a joint program of the Commission on Cancer (CoC) of the American College of Surgeons and the American Cancer Society (ACS) and is a hospital-based registry with data from more than 1,500 CoC-accredited hospitals. It includes information about demographics, disease stage, comorbidity, and the first course of treatment for 70% of newly diagnosed cancer cases in the United States. The CoC and American Cancer Society have not verified and are not responsible for the analytic or statistical methodology used or for the conclusions drawn from these data.

2.2. Patient Selection

We identified female patients 18 years and older who were diagnosed with histologically confirmed malignant breast sarcoma in 2004–2013 (International Classification of Diseases for Oncology-3 (ICD-O-3) site C50.0–50.9; ICD-O-3 histology 8800, 8801, 8802, 8810, 8830, 8831, 8850, 8851, 8852, 8854, 8890, 8894, 8930, 8940, 8990, 9120, 9130, 9180, 9220, and 9580) [10]. We excluded patients diagnosed in 2014 because they have incomplete follow-up. We included patients with breast sarcoma as their first or only cancer diagnosis to limit our analysis to patients with primary breast sarcoma. We excluded patients with unknown insurance status, no insurance (n = 41), and other government insurance (n = 8) due to low numbers (Table 1).


No.%

1Total breast cancer cases diagnosed from 2004 to 20142,246,280100.00%
2Limit to female patients 18 years and older with histologically confirmed primary invasive breast sarcoma diagnosed from 2004 to 20137410.03%
3Exclude patients whose diagnosis date precedes reference date to ensure data completeness7230.03%
4Exclude patients who were diagnosed at reporting facility but did not receive any treatment at that facility6960.03%
5Exclude patients with unknown vital status or unknown follow-up; exclude patients diagnosed at autopsy6830.03%
6Exclude if insurance status is unknown6560.03%
7Limit to patients with private, Medicaid, or Medicare insurance6070.03%

2.3. Covariates

Relevant patient, facility, and tumor characteristics were obtained from the database (Table 2). Insurance coverage was categorized as private/managed care, Medicaid, or Medicare based on the patient’s primary insurance carrier at the time of diagnosis and/or treatment. The reporting facility cancer program type was dichotomized into academic programs including National Cancer Institute- (NCI-) designated comprehensive cancer centers and nonacademic programs. Distance from reporting facility was based on the shortest distance between the patient’s residence and the reporting facility. Facility cancer program type and patient geographic location are not available from the NCDB for patients aged below 40 years to protect patient privacy. The stage was assigned according to the 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual [11]. Patients with no regional lymph nodes examined were considered N0 when defining the stage.


Patient and tumor characteristicsPrivateMedicaidMedicare
No. (%)No. (%)No. (%)Pa

Totalb323 (53.2%)67 (11.0%)217 (35.7%)
Age (years)<0.001
 18–4495 (29.4%)20 (29.9%)<11
 45–54101 (31.3%)29 (43.3%)<11
 55–6497 (30.0%)≥1113 (6.0%)
 ≥6530 (9.3%)<11192 (88.5%)
Race0.001
 White249 (77.1%)40 (59.7%)182 (83.9%)
 Black50 (15.5%)≥11≥11
 Other/unknown24 (7.4%)<11<11
Year of diagnosis0.506
 2004-200576 (23.5%)≥1140 (18.4%)
 2006-200764 (19.8%)<1140 (18.4%)
 2008-200961 (18.9%)15 (22.4%)54 (24.9%)
 2010-201166 (20.4%)15 (22.4%)42 (19.4%)
 2012-201356 (17.3%)14 (20.9%)41 (18.9%)
Charlson–Deyo score<0.001
 0286 (88.5%)≥11149 (68.7%)
 ≥137 (11.5%)<1168 (31.3%)
Residence type0.419
 Metropolitan280 (86.7%)54 (80.6%)183 (84.3%)
 Urban/rural34 (10.5%)11 (16.4%)31 (14.3%)
Incomec0.026
 <$38,00051 (15.8%)20 (29.9%)41 (18.9%)
 ≥$38,000269 (83.3%)45 (67.2%)175 (80.6%)
Educational attainment (% without HSD)c<0.001
 ≥13%130 (40.2%)43 (64.2%)88 (40.6%)
 <13%190 (58.8%)22 (32.8%)129 (59.4%)
Facility locationd<0.001
 Northeast58 (18.0%)≥1143 (19.8%)
 South87 (26.9%)15 (22.4%)76 (35.0%)
 Central58 (18.0%)15 (22.4%)61 (28.1%)
 West51 (15.8%)<11≥11
 Unknown69 (21.4%)19 (28.4%)<11
Facility cancer program typed<0.001
 Academic/researche101 (31.3%)21 (31.3%)≥11
 Nonacademic153 (47.4%)27 (40.3%)152 (70.0%)
 Unknown69 (21.4%)19 (28.4%)<11
Distance from facility0.087
 ≤50 miles289 (89.5%)≥11198 (91.2%)
 >50 miles31 (9.6%)<1119 (8.8%)
Angiosarcoma0.858
 Yes111 (34.4%)21 (31.3%)71 (32.7%)
 No212 (65.6%)46 (68.7%)146 (67.3%)
Stagef0.010
 I/II193 (59.8%)25 (37.3%)114 (52.5%)
 III68 (21.1%)25 (37.3%)44 (20.3%)
 IV22 (6.8%)<1120 (9.2%)
 Unknown40 (12.4%)<1139 (18.0%)
Tumor size category<0.001
 T1: ≤5 cm166 (51.4%)≥11102 (47.0%)
 T2: >5 cm127 (39.3%)48 (71.6%)90 (41.5%)
 Unknown30 (9.3%)<1125 (11.5%)
Node statusg0.435
 N0135 (41.8%)33 (49.3%)85 (39.2%)
 N+11 (3.4%)<11<11
 No nodes examined/unknown177 (54.8%)≥11≥11
Metastatic statush0.659
 M0284 (87.9%)55 (82.1%)183 (84.3%)
 M124 (7.4%)<1120 (9.2%)
 Unknown15 (4.6%)<1114 (6.5%)
Grade0.096
 G1: well differentiated58 (18.0%)<1129 (13.4%)
 G2: moderately differentiated44 (13.6%)<1122 (10.1%)
 G3: poorly/undifferentiated/anaplastic150 (46.4%)42 (62.7%)108 (49.8%)
 Unknown71 (22.0%)11 (16.4%)58 (26.7%)

In order to protect patient identity, some categories are combined, unknown categories with few patients are not shown, and cells with fewer than 11 patients are hidden; aPearson’s chi-squared value; bpercentage of total cohort (n = 607); cderived from patient zip code and 2012 American Community Survey data from years 2008–2012; dnot available for patients <40 years old; eincludes NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers; fpatients with no nodes examined were considered N0 when defining the stage; gpresence or absence of any involved regional lymph nodes at diagnosis; hpresence or absence of any distant metastases at diagnosis; abbreviations: HSD, high school degree.
2.4. Treatment Characteristics

The primary surgical procedure was categorized into no surgery, breast-conserving surgery (BCS), mastectomy without reconstruction, mastectomy with reconstruction, and mastectomy not otherwise specified (NOS). Treatment was defined as no definitive treatment, surgery alone, surgery and radiation therapy (RT), and other. The “other” category included patients who received chemotherapy alone, RT alone, chemotherapy and RT, or unknown. Additional characteristics are listed in Table 3.


Treatment CharacteristicsPrivateMedicaidMedicare
No. (%)No. (%)No. (%)Pa

Total323 (53.2%)67 (11.0%)217 (35.7%)
Primary surgical procedure<0.001
 No surgery22 (6.8%)<1126 (12.0%)
 BCS111 (34.4%)16 (23.9%)49 (22.6%)
 Mastectomy without reconstruction124 (38.4%)27 (40.3%)91 (41.9%)
 Mastectomy with reconstruction32 (9.9%)<11<11
 Mastectomy NOS32 (9.9%)19 (28.4%)≥11
Surgical margins0.217
 Negative272 (84.2%)58 (86.6%)171 (78.8%)
 Positiveb18 (5.6%)<1113 (6.0%)
 NA/unknown33 (10.2%)<1133 (15.2%)
Receipt of RT0.004
 No188 (58.2%)33 (49.3%)150 (69.1%)
 Yes131 (40.6%)31 (46.3%)66 (30.4%)
Receipt of chemotherapy0.021
 No221 (68.4%)43 (64.2%)173 (79.7%)
 Yes94 (29.1%)23 (34.3%)39 (18.0%)
Treatment<0.001
 No definitive tx12 (3.7%)<1117 (7.8%)
 Surgery alone124 (38.4%)22 (32.8%)112 (51.6%)
 Surgery and RT126 (39.0%)31 (46.3%)60 (27.6%)
 Otherc61 (18.9%)≥1128 (12.9%)
Median (IQR)Median (IQR)Median (IQR)Pd
Days from diagnosis to surgery15.0 (0.0, 33.0)27.5 (8.0, 44.0)19.0 (0.0, 35.0)0.017

In order to protect patient identity, some categories are combined, unknown categories with few patients are not shown, and cells with fewer than 11 patients are hidden; aPearson’s chi-squared value; bincludes residual tumor that is microscopic, macroscopic, and not otherwise specified; cincludes patients who received chemotherapy alone (n = 76), RT alone (n < 11), chemotherapy and RT (n < 11), and unknown (n = 16); dKruskal–Wallis value; abbreviations: BCS, breast-conserving surgery; NOS, not otherwise specified; NA, not applicable; RT, radiation therapy; tx, treatment; IQR, interquartile range.
2.5. Statistical Analysis

Pearson chi-square tests were used to determine associations between insurance type and demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Wilcoxon and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to compare median age and time from diagnosis to first surgical procedure between insurance types. Differences in overall survival, defined as time to death or last contact after diagnosis, were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier estimator with log-rank testing. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the impact of insurance type on survival. Covariates in the multivariate model were selected a priori and included insurance type, age, race, year of diagnosis, comorbidity score, income, residence environment type, distance from reporting facility, educational attainment, angiosarcoma histology, tumor size, lymph node status, metastatic status, grade, and treatment. All tests were two-sided with an alpha value of 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA/SE software (version 14.0, StataCorp, College Station, TX).

3. Results

3.1. Patient, Tumor, and Treatment Characteristics

We identified 607 patients who met our inclusion criteria (Table 1). 323 (53.2%) patients had private/managed care insurance, 67 (11.0%) had Medicaid, and 217 (35.7%) had Medicare. Baseline demographic and tumor characteristics are presented in Table 2.

Medicaid and privately insured patients were similar in age (median 50 and 52 years, resp.) and younger than Medicare patients (median 76 years). Medicaid-insured patients were more likely to be black and live in zip codes with lower median household income and educational attainment. Medicaid patients were less likely to have comorbid conditions and more likely to have large tumors, with 31.3% of Medicaid patients presenting with tumors greater than 10 cm in size.

Baseline treatment characteristics are presented in Table 3. The time from diagnosis to first surgical procedure was shorter for patients with private insurance than for those who were insured by Medicaid or Medicare. Privately insured patients were more likely to have breast-conserving surgery (BCS; 34.4%) and less likely to have a mastectomy (58.2%) compared to Medicare (22.6% and 64.5%, resp.) and Medicaid patients (23.9% and 74.6%, resp.). There was no difference in receipt of BCS between Medicaid (48.0%) and privately insured patients (44.0%) with stage I/II primary breast sarcoma (PBS; ). Among patients who had a mastectomy and known surgery details, privately insured patients were more likely to have reconstruction (20.5%) compared to Medicaid-insured (12.9%) and Medicare-insured (6.2%) patients.

Medicaid-insured patients were more likely to undergo surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Receipt of RT was not significantly different between Medicaid and privately insured patients presenting with high-grade tumors (42.9% versus 51.3%, resp.; ) or large tumors (>5 cm; 50.0% versus 51.2%, resp.; ) who would be most likely to benefit from adjuvant RT [12]. Among patients undergoing lumpectomy, receipt of RT was not significantly different between Medicaid-insured (50.0%), privately insured (41.4%), and Medicare-insured (34.7%) patients ().

3.2. Survival Analysis

Median follow-up time from the date of diagnosis to the date of death or last contact was 42 months (interquartile range (IQR), 21 to 77 months), 27 months (IQR, 12 to 48 months), and 7 months (IQR, 3 to 13 months) for stage I/II (Figure 1(a)), III (Figure 1(b)), and IV (Figure 1(c)) PBS, respectively. For patients with nonmetastatic PBS, those who were privately insured had greater estimated 3-year OS compared to those with Medicaid and Medicare (79.4%, 54.9%, and 51.1%, resp.; Figures 1(a) and 1(b)).

On univariate analysis, Medicaid and Medicare insurance were associated with increased hazard of death compared to private insurance (Table 4). After controlling for sociodemographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics in multivariate analysis, Medicaid and Medicare insurance remained independently associated with worse OS (Table 4).


VariableUnivariate analysisMultivariate analysis
HR (95% CI)HR (95% CI)

Insurance coverage
 PrivateReferenceReference
 Medicaid3.01 (2.04–4.45)<0.0012.47 (1.62–3.77)<0.001
 Medicare2.55 (1.94–3.33)<0.0011.68 (1.10–2.57)0.017
Age (years)
 18–44ReferenceReference
 45–541.34 (0.87–2.06)0.1871.20 (0.76–1.89)0.435
 55–641.34 (0.86–2.08)0.1941.52 (0.95–2.43)0.081
 ≥652.40 (1.65–3.50)<0.0012.03 (1.20–3.43)0.008
Race
 WhiteReferenceReference
 Black0.90 (0.63–1.27)0.5430.65 (0.43–0.98)0.040
 Other/unknown0.43 (0.23–0.81)0.0090.45 (0.24–0.87)0.018
Year of diagnosis
 2004-2005ReferenceReference
 2006-20070.80 (0.54–1.18)0.2560.70 (0.47–1.06)0.095
 2008-20091.31 (0.92–1.87)0.1301.04 (0.71–1.51)0.843
 2010-20111.27 (0.87–1.86)0.2200.68 (0.44–1.03)0.066
 2012-20130.94 (0.60–1.49)0.8020.74 (0.46–1.18)0.207
Charlson–Deyo score
 0ReferenceReference
 11.19 (0.86–1.66)0.2911.13 (0.77–1.63)0.535
 ≥23.28 (1.67–6.42)0.0011.40 (0.68–2.92)0.363
Income
 <$38,000ReferenceReference
 ≥$38,0000.77 (0.57–1.05)0.0990.95 (0.65–1.39)0.795
Residence type
 MetropolitanReferenceReference
 Urban/rural1.21 (0.85–1.72)0.2821.01 (0.67–1.53)0.956
Distance from facility
 ≤50 milesReferenceReference
 >50 miles0.93 (0.61–1.43)0.7410.72 (0.45–1.16)0.179
Educational attainment (% without HSD)
 ≥13%ReferenceReference
 <13%0.87 (0.67–1.11)0.2550.89 (0.66–1.19)0.415
Angiosarcoma
 YesReferenceReference
 No0.96 (0.74–1.24)0.7550.82 (0.62–1.10)0.183
Tumor size category
 T1: ≤5 cmReferenceReference
 T2: >5 cm3.26 (2.47–4.30)<0.0013.66 (2.66–5.02)<0.001
 Unknown1.72 (1.08–2.74)0.0221.56 (0.95–2.54)0.079
Node status
 N0ReferenceReference
 N+1.54 (0.75–3.16)0.2391.43 (0.67–3.06)0.348
 No nodes examined/unknown0.98 (0.76–1.26)0.8800.92 (0.70–1.23)0.586
Metastatic status
 M0ReferenceReference
 M17.20 (5.19–10.00)<0.0017.19 (4.69–11.03)<0.001
Grade
 G1: well differentiatedReferenceReference
 G2: moderately differentiated1.36 (0.78–2.38)0.2801.49 (0.83–2.69)0.181
 G3: poorly, undifferentiated, or anaplastic2.67 (1.74–4.12)<0.0012.23 (1.39–3.58)0.001
 Unknown2.04 (1.25–3.30)0.0041.89 (1.14–3.13)0.014
Treatment summary
 No definitive treatmentReferenceReference
 Surgery alone0.31 (0.18–0.53)<0.0010.20 (0.11–0.37)<0.001
 Surgery and RT0.27 (0.15–0.47)<0.0010.12 (0.06–0.23)<0.001
 Other/unknown0.60 (0.34–1.07)0.0830.22 (0.11–0.43)<0.001

Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; HSD, high school degree; RT, radiation therapy.
3.3. Sensitivity Analysis

Our findings did not change when we created another model additionally adjusting for facility type, thereby excluding patients aged below 40 years; Medicaid and Medicare patients again had worse survival outcomes compared to privately insured patients. Treatment at nonacademic facility type was associated with worse OS relative to treatment at an academic facility (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.12–2.07; ) in this model.

To evaluate whether the impact of insurance on outcomes was greater among patients with a rare cancer like breast sarcoma compared to breast carcinoma, we constructed another model that included patients with breast carcinoma to look at the interaction between cancer type (breast sarcoma versus breast carcinoma) and insurance category (Medicaid versus private) (Table 5). Compared to sarcoma patients, breast carcinoma patients with Medicaid had less of a survival detriment relative to privately insured patients (interaction ). Cancer type did not significantly modify the effect of Medicare versus private insurance on overall survival.


Multivariate analysisa
HR (95% CI)

Interaction between insurance status and breast cancer typeb
 Medicaid versus private; sarcoma versus carcinoma<0.001
 Medicare versus private; sarcoma versus carcinoma0.912
Breast cancer type
 Carcinoma: Medicaid versus private (reference)1.69 (1.66–1.72)<0.001
 Sarcoma: Medicaid versus private (reference)2.48 (1.63–3.78)<0.001

aAdjusted for age, race, year of diagnosis, comorbidity, income, location, distance from treatment facility, educational attainment, tumor size, node status, metastatic status, tumor grade, and treatment; b value for the interaction tests whether there is a significant difference in the HRs for patients with Medicaid/Medicare insurance relative to private insurance in breast sarcoma versus breast carcinoma; abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

4. Discussion

Using a nationwide database of women with primary breast sarcoma (PBS), we found that patients who were privately insured had better survival than those who had nonprivate insurance. We also found that the Medicaid-related health disparity was greater in the setting of a rare cancer.

Our findings contribute to the growing literature highlighting the importance of insurance status in cancer outcomes and quality of care. While previous studies have explored the relationship between insurance status and outcomes in other common cancers including breast cancer [68], our study addresses this question in patients with breast sarcoma, a rare cancer. We hypothesized that insurance coverage would greatly impact the presentation, management, and outcomes of a rare tumor due to the difficulty of diagnosis and importance of early intervention and specialized care. We found a notable difference in outcome depending on private versus nonprivate insurance coverage among patients with PBS. Those patients who had nonprivate insurance coverage in our study had an almost twofold higher risk of mortality compared to patients who had private insurance coverage. We also found that Medicaid insurance coverage, but not Medicare, differentially impacted outcomes in breast sarcoma compared to breast carcinoma. This suggests that factors associated with worse outcomes for Medicaid-insured patients are exacerbated in a rare cancer.

There are many factors that could lead to worse outcomes in Medicaid patients ranging from the consequences of Medicaid insurance policies to the socioeconomic factors driving patients to be insured by Medicaid. While insurance coverage reduces disparities in cancer outcomes, it does not completely eliminate the effects of social determinants of health such as race and socioeconomic status [13]. Whites benefit more from private insurance than do blacks and Hispanics [14]. Racial and ethnic minorities make up a disproportionate amount of Medicaid beneficiaries [15] and have independently worse cancer outcomes [16]. Health insurance coverage also depends on other upstream socioeconomic factors known to influence cancer outcomes: social support, income, education, and health literacy including knowledge about screening. Adults who are privately insured tend to be of higher average health literacy than adults who are uninsured or insured by Medicare or Medicaid [17]. Individuals with low health literacy are more likely to delay seeking care and have more difficulty finding providers [18]. In our study, privately insured patients underwent more breast reconstruction which may be due to better access to plastic surgeons and even better treatment-related decision-making, as shown in the breast carcinoma setting [19]. Medicaid patients tended to be non-white and to reside in areas of lower income and educational attainment, so these factors likely contributed to the worse outcomes of Medicaid patients that we observed. Worse outcomes in the Medicare population are most likely driven by older age and the presence of significant comorbidities that qualify younger patients (<65 years) for Medicare.

We found that Medicaid-insured patients with breast sarcoma were more likely to present with large, advanced stage tumors. This association builds upon previous studies that have found that patients with nonprivate insurance have an increased likelihood of presenting with advanced breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, head and neck, liver, and pancreatic cancers compared to those with private insurance [7, 8, 20, 21]. Medicaid-insured patients may present with more advanced disease due to lower rates of cancer screening [22], less frequent interactions with primary care [6], and cancer serving as a Medicaid-qualifying event. Patients enrolled in Medicaid after their cancer diagnosis present with more advanced disease [23] and have worse outcomes [24, 25] compared to those covered by Medicaid prior to diagnosis. Nonprivately insured patients are also vulnerable to a variety of patient and health system-related delays in presentation, diagnosis, and referral to specialty centers [22]. In our study, the time between diagnosis and first surgical procedure was longer for Medicaid-insured patients, which may reflect the difficulty of coordinating care for patients with limited insurance coverage and more advanced disease. Delays between diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer have been shown to be associated with inferior cancer outcomes [26].

Commensurate with more advanced stage tumors, Medicaid patients underwent more aggressive locoregional management of PBS. However, privately insured and Medicaid-insured patients with comparable disease stage received similar treatment. Many Medicaid patients were likely ineligible for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) due to presentation with very large (>10 cm) tumors. We found similar rates of BCS among privately insured and Medicaid-insured patients with stage I/II disease. Receipt of radiation therapy (RT) was also similar between privately insured and Medicaid-insured patients undergoing lumpectomy or presenting with large or high-grade tumors. Given the similarity in treatment, presentation with advanced disease may be a more important driver of poor outcomes in Medicaid patients.

After adjusting for sociodemographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics, Medicaid and Medicare patients continued to have worse outcomes than privately insured patients. Furthermore, the health disparity associated with Medicaid insurance was significantly worse in patients with breast sarcoma versus breast carcinoma. Medicaid insurance may be a greater challenge for patients with rare cancers because of limited access to centers with specialists [27] and multidisciplinary teams that can coordinate care and expedite treatment [28]. Specialized centers have been shown to have better outcomes for rare cancers [29], and some recommend large soft-tissue sarcomas be treated exclusively at high-volume centers [30].

Access to specialists and insurance network adequacy is a concern among patients who have Medicaid insurance. Medicaid-managed care plans can limit access to providers and “off-label” drugs, including chemotherapies [31]. Medicaid patients, who are more likely to be underrepresented in clinical trials based on race and ethnicity [32], face additional obstacles for receiving novel treatments because Medicaid does not always cover routine medical costs associated with clinical trials [15]. Medicaid patients also have limited access to high quality care because specialty providers are less likely to accept patients with Medicaid [15]. This is in part due to Medicaid reimbursement rates being well below the rates paid by Medicare and private insurance [33]. Even safety net hospitals may try to attract privately insured patients to increase payer mix and revenue [34]. Medicaid patients are additionally susceptible to coverage gaps and limited healthcare access due to insurance “churning,” the involuntary movement between insurance plans [35]. It is estimated that more than 25 million Americans per year will move from Medicaid to subsidized exchange plans or will become ineligible for subsidized programs altogether [35]. These frequent lapses and transitions in coverage likely contribute to Medicaid patients presenting with more advanced disease and diminish the health benefits of insurance coverage [22].

Medicare insurance did not differentially impact outcomes in breast sarcoma compared to breast carcinoma. This may suggest that the survival detriment associated with Medicare is related to the agedness and higher comorbidity of Medicare patients more than the healthcare access issues that might be worse with a rare cancer. Medicare patients have better access to care and higher provider reimbursements than Medicaid patients do. Consistent with this, Medicare patients have been shown to benefit from improved cancer treatment and survival over time, while survival disparities are worsening for Medicaid patients [36].

In this study, treatment at academic and NCI-designated cancer centers was independently associated with better overall survival in a subset of patients with available facility type. While we did not find that privately insured patients were more likely to be treated at academic centers, our analysis is limited by the large percentage of patients with unknown treatment facility type, which the NCDB suppresses for patients aged below 40 years for privacy reasons. Additionally, we were unable to distinguish NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers from academic centers, which represent the majority of safety net hospitals caring for the underinsured [37]. Nevertheless, our data may suggest that better outcomes in privately insured patients are driven by other factors in addition to treatment facility type and access to multidisciplinary teams and specialty care.

Our finding of worse outcomes in Medicaid-insured patients does not necessarily suggest that Medicaid itself is inferior to private insurance because Medicaid is designed to cover poorer patients who tend to have more advanced disease. Almost half of the Medicaid beneficiaries with cancer enroll in Medicaid after they are diagnosed with cancer when they already have advanced disease [24, 25]. Intensive treatment may not be able to compensate for late presentation. While we attempted to control for sociodemographic, tumor, and treatment factors, it is beyond the scope of the NCDB to completely differentiate the health consequences of Medicaid policies and the socioeconomic factors driving patients to be insured by Medicaid in the first place. Rather this study highlights that the insurance policy and/or socioeconomic factors leading to worse outcomes in patients insured by Medicaid are exacerbated in a rare cancer such as breast sarcoma. Improving access to high quality care and addressing the barriers that Medicaid patients face are potential ways to alleviate the impact that socioeconomic factors have on health outcomes.

Our study has multiple limitations including its retrospective design and reliance on the content and accuracy of data included in the NCDB. While we attempted to control for observed confounders, we could not control for unmeasured confounders such as baseline performance status, patient preference, and molecular data. Additionally, we were unable to account for the clinical heterogeneity of sarcomas, which exists even among tumors of the same histologic subtype [38]. Furthermore, our analysis is limited by the insurance coverage data available in the NCDB, which is the primary payer at the time of diagnosis or treatment. The NCDB captures a single primary payer, but some patients may have dual insurance coverage or may transition between insurance plans during treatment. While the NCDB provides the opportunity to assess outcomes of patients receiving care in community settings where multidisciplinary teams and sarcoma experts may be less accessible, we recognize that CoC-accredited facilities are enriched for large, urban hospitals with strong oncology services [39]. Despite these limitations, the NCDB is a good resource for studying rare cancers such as PBS because prospective studies do not exist and the NCDB provides information on a larger scale than existing retrospective, single-institution studies.

In conclusion, we show that privately insured patients with PBS present with earlier stage disease and have better outcomes. Further work is warranted to address the cultural and socioeconomic factors that lead to such health disparities.

Disclosure

Julie L. Koenig and C. Jillian Tsai are co-first authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

The project described was supported by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA008748-50).

References

  1. M. P. Moore and D. W. Kinne, “Breast sarcoma,” Surgical Clinics of North America, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 383–392, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. T. Wiklund, R. Huuhtanen, C. Blomqvist et al., “The importance of a multidisciplinary group in the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 269–273, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. A. Fleissig, V. Jenkins, S. Catt, and L. Fallowfield, “Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK?” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 935–943, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. J. Z. Ayanian, “Unmet health needs of uninsured adults in the United States,” JAMA, vol. 284, no. 16, pp. 2061–2069, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. W. B. Sateren, E. L. Trimble, J. Abrams et al., “How sociodemographics, presence of oncology specialists, and hospital cancer programs affect accrual to cancer treatment trials,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 2109–2117, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. J. Z. Ayanian, B. A. Kohler, T. Abe, and A. M. Epstein, “The relation between health insurance coverage and clinical outcomes among women with breast cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 329, no. 5, pp. 326–331, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. M. T. Halpern, E. M. Ward, A. L. Pavluck, N. M. Schrag, J. Bian, and A. Y. Chen, “Association of insurance status and ethnicity with cancer stage at diagnosis for 12 cancer sites: a retrospective analysis,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 222–231, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. C. D. Hsu, X. Wang, D. V. Habif, C. X. Ma, and K. J. Johnson, “Breast cancer stage variation and survival in association with insurance status and sociodemographic factors in US women 18 to 64 years old,” Cancer, vol. 123, no. 16, pp. 3125–3131, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. U.S. Census Bureau, “Current population survey, 2017 annual social and economic supplement. Table HI01 health insurance coverage status and type of coverage by selected characteristics,” October 2017, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-hi/hi-01.html. View at: Google Scholar
  10. A. Engel, S. H. Lamm, and S. H. Lai, “Human breast sarcoma and human breast implantation: a time trend analysis based on SEER data (1973–1990),” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 539–544, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. S. B. Edge and C. C. Compton, “The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1471–1474, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. M. Yin, H. B. Mackley, J. J. Drabick, and H. A. Harvey, “Primary female breast sarcoma: clinicopathological features, treatment and prognosis,” Scientific Reports, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 31497, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. Z. M. Abdelsattar, S. Hendren, and S. L. Wong, “The impact of health insurance on cancer care in disadvantaged communities,” Cancer, vol. 123, no. 7, pp. 1219–1227, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. H. Y. Pan, G. V. Walker, S. R. Grant et al., “Insurance status and racial disparities in cancer-specific mortality in the United States: a population-based analysis,” Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 869–875, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. B. N. Polite, J. J. Griggs, B. Moy et al., “American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement on medicaid reform,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 32, no. 36, pp. 4162–4167, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. G. Maskarinec, C. Sen, K. Koga, and S. M. Conroy, “Ethnic differences in breast cancer survival: status and determinants,” Women’s Health, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 677–687, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  17. M. Kutner, E. Greenberg, Y. Jin, and C. Paulsen, The Health Literacy of America’s Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy, NCES 2006-483, National Center for Education Statistics, 2006.
  18. H. Levy and A. Janke, “Health literacy and access to care,” Journal of Health Communication, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 43–50, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. C. N. Lee, A. M. Deal, R. Huh et al., “Quality of patient decisions about breast reconstruction after mastectomy,” JAMA Surgery, vol. 152, no. 8, pp. 741–748, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. R. G. Roetzheim, N. Pal, C. Tennant et al., “Effects of health insurance and race on early detection of cancer,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 91, no. 16, pp. 1409–1415, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. G. V. Walker, S. R. Grant, B. Ashleigh Guadagnolo et al., “Disparities in stage at diagnosis, treatment, and survival in nonelderly adult patients with cancer according to insurance status,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 32, no. 28, pp. 3118–3125, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. E. Ward, M. Halpern, N. Schrag et al., “Association of insurance with cancer care utilization and outcomes,” A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 9–31, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. C. J. Bradley, C. W. Given, and C. Roberts, “Late stage cancers in a Medicaid-insured population,” Medical Care, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 722–728, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. C. J. Bradley, J. Gardiner, C. W. Given, and C. Roberts, “Cancer, Medicaid enrollment, and survival disparities,” Cancer, vol. 103, no. 8, pp. 1712–1718, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. S. M. Koroukian, P. M. Bakaki, and D. Raghavan, “Survival disparities by Medicaid status: an analysis of 8 cancers,” Cancer, vol. 118, no. 17, pp. 4271–4279, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. R. J. Bleicher, K. Ruth, E. R. Sigurdson et al., “Time to surgery and breast cancer survival in the United States,” JAMA Oncology, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 330–339, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. N. L. Cook, L. S. Hicks, A. J. O’Malley, T. Keegan, E. Guadagnoli, and B. E. Landon, “Access to specialty care and medical services in community health centers,” Health Affairs, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1459–1468, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. M. Gabel, N. E. Hilton, and S. D. Nathanson, “Multidisciplinary breast cancer clinics,” Cancer, vol. 79, no. 12, pp. 2380–2384, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. M. M. Sampo, M. Rönty, M. Tarkkanen, E. J. Tukiainen, T. O. Böhling, and C. P. Blomqvist, “Soft tissue sarcoma-a population-based, nationwide study with special emphasis on local control,” Acta Oncologica, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 706–712, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. J. C. Gutierrez, E. A. Perez, F. L. Moffat, A. S. Livingstone, D. Franceschi, and L. G. Koniaris, “Should soft tissue sarcomas be treated at high-volume centers? an analysis of 4205 patients,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 245, no. 6, pp. 952–958, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. J. A. Graves and K. Swartz, “Effects of affordable care act marketplaces and Medicaid eligibility expansion on access to cancer care,” Cancer Journal, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 168–174, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. V. H. Murthy, H. M. Krumholz, and C. P. Gross, “Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities,” JAMA, vol. 291, no. 22, pp. 2720–2726, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. B. Moy, B. N. Polite, M. T. Halpern et al., “American Society of Clinical Oncology Policy Statement: opportunities in the patient protection and affordable care act to reduce cancer care disparities,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 29, no. 28, pp. 3816–3824, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. T. A. Coughlin, S. K. Long, R. Peters, R. Rudowitz, and R. Garfield, Evolving Picture of Nine Safety-Net Hospitals: Implications of the ACA and Other Strategies, Kaiser Family Foundation, New York, NY, USA, 2015.
  35. M. Buettgens, A. Nichols, and S. Dorn, “Churning under the ACA and state policy options for mitigation. Prepared for Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, timely analysis of immediate health policy issues,” 2012, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412587-Churning-Under-the-ACA-and-State-Policy-Options-for-Mitigation. View at: Google Scholar
  36. L. Ellis, A. J. Canchola, D. Spiegel, U. Ladabaum, R. Haile, and S. Lin Gomez, “Trends in cancer survival by health insurance status in California from 1997 to 2014,” JAMA Oncology, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. O. S. Zaman, L. C. Cummings, and S. Laycox, “America’s Safety Net Hospitals and Health Systems, 2010. Results of the Annual NAPH Hospital Characteristics Survey. National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems 2010,” May 2012, https://essentialhospitals.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/NPH214.pdf. View at: Google Scholar
  38. N. H. Segal, P. Pavlidis, C. R. Antonescu et al., “Classification and subtype prediction of adult soft tissue sarcoma by functional genomics,” American Journal of Pathology, vol. 163, no. 2, pp. 691–700, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. K. Y. Bilimoria, D. J. Bentrem, A. K. Stewart, D. P. Winchester, and C. Y. Ko, “Comparison of commission on cancer-approved and -nonapproved hospitals in the United States: implications for studies that use the National Cancer Data Base,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 27, no. 25, pp. 4177–4181, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2018 Julie L. Koenig et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

839 Views | 264 Downloads | 3 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19.