10130755734604J Cancer SurvivJ Cancer SurvivJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice1932-22591932-226724190589453892610.1007/s11764-013-0319-1HHSPA713782ArticlePhysician visits and preventive care among Asian American and Pacific Islander long-term survivors of colorectal cancer, USA, 1996–2006SteeleC. BrookeBSteele1@cdc.govCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA, USA4770 Buford Hwy NE, Chamblee Building, MS F76, Chamblee, GA 30341, USATownsendJulie S.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA, USATaiEricCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA, USAThomasCheryll C.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA, USA78201505112013320141782015817079Purpose

Published literature on receipt of preventive healthcare services among Asian American and Pacific Islander (API) cancer survivors is scarce. We describe patterns in receipt of preventive services among API long-term colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors.

Methods

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry–Medicare data were used to identify 9,737 API and white patients who were diagnosed with CRC during 1996–2000 and who survived 5 or more years beyond their diagnoses. We examined receipt of vaccines, mammography (females), bone densitometry (females), and cholesterol screening among the survivors and how the physician specialties they visited for follow-up care correlated to services received.

Results

APIs were less likely than whites to receive mammography (52.0 vs. 69.3 %, respectively; P <0.0001) but more likely to receive influenza vaccine, cholesterol screening, and bone densitometry. These findings remained significant in our multivariable model, except for receipt of bone densitometry. APIs visited PCPs only and both PCPs and oncologists more frequently than whites (P <0.0001). Women who visited both PCPs and oncologists compared with PCPs only were more likely to receive mammography (odds ratio=1.40; 95 % confidence interval, 1.05–1.86).

Conclusions

Visits to both PCPs and oncologists were associated with increased use of mammography. Although API survivors visited these specialties more frequently than white survivors, API women may need culturally appropriate outreach to increase their use of this test.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Long-term cancer survivors need to be aware of recommended preventive healthcare services, as well as who will manage their primary care and cancer surveillance follow-up.

Cancer survivorsColorectal cancerPreventive carePhysician specialty
Introduction

In 2009, colorectal cancer (CRC) was the second leading cause of cancer deaths among cancers that affect both men and women in the USA [1]. Given the advances in diagnosing CRC earlier [2], the survival rate for this disease has increased over time [3] and the number of cancer survivors is expected to increase [4]. Recent studies have highlighted gaps at the interface between primary care and specialist care during the transition to survivorship, as well as the importance of survivorship care plans that include promoting a healthy lifestyle and monitoring for cancer recurrence [5, 6]. As most cancer survivors are 50 years or older [7], the healthy behaviors that are promoted may include recommended preventive services for this age group (e.g., influenza and pneumococcal vaccination, screening for breast cancer, CRC, lipid disorders, and osteoporosis) [8].

Collectively, Asians and Pacific Islanders (APIs) have lower CRC rates than white, black, and Hispanic populations [1]; however, their exponential growth in the last 10 years [9] may affect their future cancer burden. Although APIs also have the lowest CRC death rates [1] and the highest CRC survival rates [10], CRC deaths vary when data for this population are disaggregated [11]. Disparities in CRC screening and other chronic disease risk factors and behaviors have been reported among Asian subgroups [1214], which may contribute to differences in outcomes among those who are diagnosed with cancer. Little is known about receipt of preventive healthcare services among API cancer survivors, including whether disparities exist by subgroup. Previous studies that explored receipt of cancer and noncancer-related preventive services among cancer survivors reported that the services received varied over time and by the type of physician visited [1518]. Studies that assessed the effect of race on these outcomes reported that whites were more likely to receive services than African Americans or “other” populations [1517]. APIs were grouped in the latter category; therefore, data were not reported separately for them. Thus, we examine physician visits and receipt of preventive care among API and white long-term CRC survivors to describe patterns in the services they receive and how they relate to physician specialty. We also aim to identify any differences in the receipt of preventive care among API subgroups.

Methods

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry data files from calendar year 2008 and Medicare claims files (i.e., hospital, outpatient, hospice, and physician claims) for 1996–2006 were linked and used to identify long-term CRC survivors. Detailed methodology has been described elsewhere [19].

To be eligible for this study, CRC survivors must have been diagnosed during 1996–2000 at age 60 years or older, identified as non-Hispanic API or non-Hispanic white (hereafter referred to as API and white) on the basis of SEER race/ethnicity, living in 16 SEER areas at the times of their diagnoses, and continuously enrolled in Medicare parts A and B (with no HMO enrollment) during 2001–2006. They also must have survived for 5 years or more beyond their CRC diagnoses and had no recurrences or diagnoses of another incident cancer.

We used the SEER race variable linked to Indian Health Service administration data, as well as the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) Hispanic Identification Algorithm variable, to reduce misclassification of study participants [20, 21]. To further classify API according to ancestry or ethnic background, we used the NAACCR Asian Pacific Islander Identification Algorithm variable, which uses birthplace and name to classify API patients as Chinese, Japanese, and other API descent [22].

We identified 29,484 API and white long-term CRC survivors who lived in 16 SEER areas at the times of their diagnoses, were diagnosed with CRC between 1996 and 2000, survived for at least 5 years after their diagnoses, and were diagnosed at age 60 or above. The final data set for analysis was created after excluding survivors who were not continuously enrolled in Medicare parts A and B with no HMO enrollment (n =15,839), had another incident non-CRC that occurred after a CRC diagnosis in the 1996–2000 time period (n =1,079), and had a nonmalignant CRC diagnosis based on behavior recode (n =2,384). These exclusions were not mutually exclusive, and left 12,042 CRC survivors in the analysis. To limit the analysis to CRC survivors without a terminal illness or recurrence, we also excluded (1) survivors with hospice claims during the 2001– 2006 time period (n =225); (2) survivors who had at least one chemotherapy claim based on hospital, outpatient, or physician claims, with the last claim date occurring 12 months after the therapy start date based on SEER data (n =1,305); or (3) survivors with at least one radiation claim from either hospital, outpatient, or physician claims with the last claim date occurring 12 months after the SEER therapy start date (n =415). These exclusions were not mutually exclusive because some survivors had claims for hospice, chemotherapy, and radiation. In addition, one survivor was excluded because of a mismatch between the SEER age group category and the Medicare date of birth variable. An additional 261 survivors were excluded for having American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) unknown stage, which left 9,737 survivors in the analysis.

Preventive medical services and type of physician administering care were analyzed from the beginning of the 5-year anniversary date of diagnosis through the end of the follow-up period, 31 December 2006. We used ICD-9 or CPT codes to assess the following preventive medical services received anytime during the follow-up period: influenza vaccine or pneumococcal vaccine; cholesterol screening; mammography for women aged younger than 75 years at their 5-year anniversary date of diagnosis; and bone density screening among women. The types of physicians visited were identified by the specialty listed on physician claims for Evaluation and Management visits (CPT codes: 99201–99205 and 99211–99215). Primary care physicians (PCPs) included those practicing family medicine, general practice, and internal medicine, and providers classified as multispecialty clinic or group. Oncologists included hematologists/oncologists, medical oncologists, surgical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and general surgeons. Cancer-related specialists included colorectal surgeons and gastroenterologists. “Other” specialists included physicians not categorized as PCPs, oncologists, or cancer-related specialists.

To control for comorbidity and its effect on the physicians visited and preventive medical services received, we calculated the Charlson comorbidity index [23]. Comorbidity was derived from claims occurring after the 5th anniversary date of diagnosis through the 1st day of the 6th anniversary date of diagnosis.

We calculated descriptive statistics for the following demographic and clinical characteristics of API (Chinese, Japanese, and other API) and white CRC survivors: mean age at the time of CRC diagnosis, sex, AJCC stage (I, II, and III/IV), comorbidity index (mean value and categories—0, 1, and ≥2), SEER Registry Site (Hawaii, Seattle-Puget Sound, Los Angeles, San Francisco-Oakland, San Jose-Monterey, Greater California, and other SEER registries, grouping Detroit, Iowa, New Mexico, Utah, Atlanta, Rural Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and New Jersey together), number of previous cancer diagnoses (0, 1, or more than 1), year of diagnosis, and the resident census tract poverty level based on the percentage of census tract residents living below the federal poverty level in 2000, which is expressed as quartiles based on the distribution among the total study population (0–3.90, 3.91–6.76, 6.77–11.67, and ≥11.68 %). As a number of survivors from API ethnic groups other than Chinese and Japanese were small, their data were combined and categorized as “other API.” Similarly, the numbers of API survivors with stages III and IV CRC were small; therefore, we collapsed these stages into a single stage category (stage III/IV).

To compare patterns of physician specialties visited during the follow-up period, we calculated the proportion of API and white CRC survivors who had one or more visits with the following physicians: PCPs with no visit to an oncologist; visits to both PCPs and oncologists; visits to an oncologist but not to a PCP; visits to a cancer-related specialist; and no visits to a PCP, an oncologist, or a cancer-related specialist, including visits to other physician specialists only or no physician visits. We calculated the mean number of physician visits in each of these categories and visits to any physician during the follow-up period, all of which were adjusted by the number of follow-up years to represent average annual physician visits.

We assessed differences between API and white CRC survivors using chi square tests for categorical variables and one-way analysis of variance for age at diagnosis. As the comorbidity index and the number of medical visits by provider types were not normally distributed, we used the Kruskal–Wallis test. All values were considered statistically significant if P <0.05.

We calculated individual follow-up time in years to control for its effect in multivariable analyses. We controlled for the total number of physician visits during the follow-up period. After controlling for demographic factors and selected clinical characteristics, we conducted multivariable logistic regression to determine whether API and white CRC survivors differed on receipt of preventive medical services and whether physician type influenced receipt of these services. We built separate models for receipt of influenza vaccine, pneumococcal vaccine, cholesterol screening, mammography among women aged 65–74 years, and bone density screening among women. As mammography and bone density testing were limited to female survivors, we also conducted a separate analysis to assess differences in survivor characteristics by gender. Receipt of each preventive service (at least one service provided during the follow-up period) was the dependent variable, whereas independent variables included providers visited, API or white race, age at diagnosis, sex (in models that included both males and females), stage at diagnosis, comorbidities, number of primary cancers, SEER registry site, number of follow-up years, total number of physician visits during the follow-up period, and poverty level. The referent group in this model was “PCP only.” Because sample sizes were small for the oncologist only category and other physician specialties, we did not disaggregate APIs by ethnic background in the final multivariable models. All analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

ResultsStudy group characteristics

The mean age at diagnosis of the 9,737 long-term CRC survivors ranged from 71.8 years (other API) to 74.3 years (both Chinese and white patients; Table 1). Nearly two thirds of API survivors resided in Hawaii and Los Angeles. Compared with white survivors, significantly lower percentages of API survivors were diagnosed at stage I, had no comorbidities, and resided in census tracts where 3.9 % or less of the population lived below the federal poverty level. Statistically significant differences in the survivors’ characteristics did not change when we restricted the demographic analysis to women.

Vaccinations

From the beginning of survivors’ 5-year anniversary date of diagnosis through the end of the study follow-up period, receipt of influenza vaccine was higher (P <0.0001) among API survivors (81.4 %) compared with white survivors (73.1 %; Table 2). Survivors who visited both PCPs and oncologists were more likely to receive influenza vaccine (P <0.0001) and pneumococcal vaccine (P <0.0001) compared with those who visited other physician specialists (Table 3), but these associations did not remain significant after adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. Factors that increased the odds of receiving the two vaccines included visiting a PCP only, living in a certain SEER registry site, and visiting a physician six or more times (Table 4). API race and older age at diagnosis were other predictors of receipt of influenza vaccine.

Cholesterol screening

Receipt of cholesterol screening was higher (P <0.0001) among API survivors (83.5 %) compared with white survivors (74.3 %; Table 2). Among Asian subgroups, Japanese American survivors were more likely to receive this test than other groups. Receipt of lipid testing was also significantly higher among survivors who visited both PCPs and oncologists compared with those who saw other physician specialties (Table 3). In our multivariable model, however, visits to PCPs only increased the odds of receiving this test. Other predictors included API race, earlier stage and younger age at diagnosis, and residing in census tracts with lower poverty levels (Table 4).

Mammography

Receipt of mammography was significantly higher among white survivors (69.3 %) compared with API survivors (52 %; Table 2). Survivors who visited both PCPs and oncologists were more likely than those who visited other physician specialties to receive mammography (P <0.0001; Table 3); however, the percentages were similar for those who visited both PCPs and oncologists and those who saw oncologists only. After adjustment for confounders, white race and visits to both a PCP and oncologist were still significant. Other predictors included living in Seattle-Puget Sound and visiting physicians more frequently.

Bone densitometry

API survivors were significantly more likely to receive bone density testing (37.8 %) compared with white survivors (29.8 %; Table 2). Receipt of bone densitometry was higher among survivors who were seen by both PCPs and oncologists (Table 3). These findings were no longer significant in our multivariable model. Predictors of receipt of this test included younger age and earlier stage at diagnosis, having no comorbidities, and living in an “other” SEER registry site (Table 4).

Physician mix and mean number of physician visits

The percentages of API survivors and white survivors who visited PCPs only were similar (55.1 and 53.6 %, respectively), as were the percentages of API and white survivors who saw both PCPs and oncologists (30.7 and 29.6 %, respectively; Table 5). API survivors visited PCPs only (P <0.0001) and both PCPs and oncologists (P <0.0001) more frequently than white survivors.

Discussion

Overall, higher percentages of API survivors received preventive services compared with white survivors, except for mammography. However, race did not remain a significant predictor of receipt of pneumococcal vaccine or bone density testing in our multivariable model. We found that survivors were more likely to visit PCPs only than cancer specialists, which is consistent with previous studies [15, 24]. Compared with survivors who visited oncologists only, those who visited PCPs only had significantly increased odds of receiving vaccines and cholesterol screening. Snyder and colleagues also reported that receipt of lipid testing was increased among survivors who visited PCPs only. However they, as well as Earle and colleagues, found that visits to both PCPs and oncologists were associated with receipt of influenza vaccine and mammography [15, 17]. In our study, mammography was the only service which survivors who visited both PCPs and oncologists had significantly increased odds of receiving. Some of the differences between our adjusted findings and those reported in previous research may be attributable to our use of PCPs as a referent group.

The total number of physician visits also predicted receipt of preventive care in our study, although a dose–response relationship was less evident for mammography. Some studies have reported an association between frequency of physician visits and receipt of preventive services among long-term cancer survivors, but others have not [15, 16, 25, 26]. Our findings regarding the number of visits and receipt of mammography could be related to the fact that, in later follow-up years, some women were no longer age-eligible for this screening test. Other studies have reported that mammography rates among long-term CRC survivors decrease over time [15, 27, 28]. Physicians’ perspectives about breast cancer screening in older women vary and might influence their mammography practices [29, 30]. The increased odds of receiving mammograms observed among long-term survivors who visited both PCPs and oncologists compared with those who visited PCPs only might reflect differences in providers’ perspectives about their responsibilities in providing survivorship care. Cheung and colleagues reported significant disagreement between PCPs and oncologists regarding their roles in the medical management of cancer survivors [31].

Our findings confirm that PCPs perform a central role to ensure that long-term CRC survivors use preventive health services. However, survivors are more likely to receive mammography when their care is shared by PCPs and cancer specialists. Coordinating survivorship care among multiple providers can be a challenge. In 2006, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) reported that a fragmented health care system is one of several barriers that hamper health care providers’ delivery of comprehensive cancer survivorship care [32]. The IOM indicated that improved coordination of care among PCPs, cancer specialists, and other health care providers is crucial to building an integrated system of care, and recommended that survivors receive care plans to help manage potential long-term effects of their cancer and its treatment. The establishment of survivorship programs and the use of treatment summaries and care plans have increased since the IOM’s recommendations on cancer survivorship care were published [3335]. Some organizations have also developed cancer survivorship guidelines [3638]. However, lack of high-quality evidence remains a barrier to the development of standardized practice recommendations for post-treatment care [37]. Other barriers to coordinating follow-up care include limited survivorship care training for healthcare providers, and lack of reimbursement for cancer care planning [37].

Even though all survivors in this study had health insurance, and similar percentages of API and white survivors visited PCPs only and both PCPs and oncologists, receipt of preventive health services varied by race and Asian subgroup. These differences could be related to the total number of physician visits, which was associated with receipt of care and varied by race. Lack of full coverage by Medicare for some preventive health services throughout the entire study period (e.g., mammography) also could have been a barrier to use of these services. Carrasquillo et al. reported that beneficiaries without supplemental insurance were less likely to receive partially covered services than those who had additional coverage or were enrolled in HMOs [39].

Studies examining use of preventive care services among the API population, particularly API cancer survivors, are scarce in the published literature. Some studies have reported that, in the USA, fewer elderly Asians had ever received pneumococcal vaccine compared with whites [40, 41]. The pneumococcal vaccination rate among API CRC survivors in our study was slightly higher than the rate for white survivors but lower than the rate reported in the 2009 Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health across the USA (REACH U.S.) Risk Factor Survey for older Asian Americans (59.7 %) [42].The rate that we observed may have been lower because we did not assess receipt of the vaccine before survivors were diagnosed with CRC. The rate of receipt of influenza vaccine among API survivors (81.4 %) was similar to that reported in the REACH U.S. survey for older APIs (79.5 %) but higher than the rate reported in a survey of elderly Asian Americans in California (71 %) [42, 43]. We could not find data in the published literature with which to compare our findings regarding lipid screening among older APIs. Breast cancer screening rates were lower for survivors within all API subgroups compared with white survivors. Previous studies of mammography rates among women aged 65 years or older have reported a disparity between API and white females [43, 44]. Many API women report the same barriers to breast cancer screening as other women, but those who hold more Eastern cultural views or believe that screening is unnecessary if they feel okay are less likely to receive mammography [45, 46]. Additional studies are needed to further describe the use of healthcare services among APIs, particularly among API cancer survivors. Examining barriers to health care, including access to a medical home, health literacy, English language proficiency, acculturation, and immigration status, would help illuminate and define health disparities experienced by this population. Efforts are also needed to refine data collection for API and other racial and ethnic populations to allow for subgroup analyses.

Our study has limitations. First, even though we used a population-based database that included Asian ethnicity data, the total number of API cases was small. This limited our ability to conduct subgroup analyses. Second, most API cases came from Hawaii and selected areas in California. We controlled for SEER registry areas in our multivariable logistic regression analyses. However, there may have been residual confounding with geographic areas and provider practices in these SEER locations. Third, we were not able to include Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in managed care plans because they do not submit claims to Medicare. By 2001, Medicare HMO penetration in California was 40 % [47]. Fourth, grouping physician specialties into four physician categories may have masked differences within the categories for the type of care they provide. Studies have reported that the quality of physician specialty data in Medicare claims varies [48] and that claims are less likely to identify cancer specialists than other sources [49]. We used medical specialty information provided in claims data only; therefore, the information was not verified against provider databases. Lastly, we used Census tract-level SES as a proxy for individual-level SES, which may not adequately represent individual status. We also chose not to include place of birth in our model. This information was missing for many API (33 %) and white survivors (62 %), and it was a confounder for Asian ethnicity.

Conclusions

Our study findings underscore the need for improved collaboration between PCPs and oncology specialists to clarify roles and responsibilities in cancer survivors’ long-term follow-up care. Cancer prevention and control entities are developing and implementing strategies that may improve communication between primary care providers and oncologists, including expansion of cancer survivorship training for healthcare practitioners, development of guidelines for long-term follow-up care, and support for research related to the development and evaluation of evidence-based survivorship care models [50, 51]. These efforts need to continue.

Conflict of interest The authors have no funding sources to declare. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

U.S. Cancer Statistics Working GroupUnited States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2009 Incidence and Mortality Web-based ReportAtlantaU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute2013www.cdc.gov/uscs/toptencancers.aspx. Accessed 15 April 2013U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceScreening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation StatementAnn Intern Med20081496273718838716HowladerNNooneAMKrapchoMSEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2009Bethesda, MDNational Cancer Institute2012http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009/. Accessed 10 Sept 2012Centers for Disease Control and PreventionCancer Survivors—United States, 2007MMWR2011602697221389929GrunfeldEEarleCCThe interface between primary and oncology specialty care: treatment through survivorshipJ Natl Cancer Inst Monogr201040253020386051HewittMGanzPAImplementing cancer survivorship care planning: workshop summaryWashington, DCNational Academics Press2007Centers for Disease Control and PreventionSurveillance of demographic characteristics and health behaviors among adult cancer survivors—Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2009MMWR201261SS-1123Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Administration on Aging, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid ServicesEnhancing the use of clinical preventive services among older adultsWashington, DCAARP2011HoeffelEMRastogiSKimMOShahidH2012The Asian Population: 2010, US Census Bureau, 2010 Census Briefs, C2010BR-11http//www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-11.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2012WhiteAVernonSWFranziniLDuXLRacial disparities in colorectal cancer survival: to what extent are racial disparities explained by differences in treatment, tumor characteristics, or hospital characteristics?Cancer201011646223120626015MillerBAChuKCHankeyBFRiesLAGCancer incidence and mortality patterns among specific Asian and Pacific Islander populations in the United StatesCancer Causes Control2008192275618066673DanielsNAGildengorinGNguyenTTLiaoYLuongTNMcPheeSJInfluenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates among Vietnamese, Asian, and non-Hispanic white AmericansJ Immigr Minor Health201012370618839311LeeHYEunsuJDer VangPLundquistMBreast and cervical cancer screening disparities among Asian American women: does race/ethnicity matter?J Women’s Health201019187784LeeHYLundquistMEunsuJLuoXTownsendAColorectal cancer screening disparities in Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders: which groups are most vulnerable?Eth Health20111650118SnyderCFEarleCCHerbertRJNevilleBABlackfordALFrickKDPreventive care for colorectal cancer survivors: a 5-year longitudinal studyJ Clin Oncol20082671073918309941SnyderCFEarleCCHerbertRJNevilleBABlackfordALTrends in follow-up and preventive care for colorectal cancer survivorsJ Gen Int Med2007232549EarleCCNevilleBAQuality of non-breast cancer health maintenance among elderly breast cancer survivorsJ Clin Oncol20032114475112697865BaldwinL-MDobieSACaiYSaverBGGreenPKReceipt of general medical care by colorectal cancer patients: a longitudinal studyJ Am Board Fam Med201124576821209345WarrenJLKlabundeCNSchragDBachPBRileyGFOverview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly populationMed Care2002408 SupplIV-318EspeyDKWuXCSwanJAnnual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2004, featuring cancer in American Indians and Alaska NativesCancer200711021195217939129NAACR Latino Research Work groupNAACCR Guideline for Enhancing Hispanic/Latino Identification Algorithm [NHIA v2]Springfield (IL)North American Association of Central Cancer Registrieshttp://www.naaccr.org/Research/DataAnalysisTools.aspx Accessed 10 January 2012NAACR Race and Ethnicity Work GroupNAACCR Asian Pacific Islander Identification Algorithm [NAPIIA v1.2.1]Springfield, ILNorth American Association of Central Cancer Registrieshttp://www.naaccr.org/Research/DataAnalysisTools.aspx. Accessed 10 January 2012KlabundeCNPotoskyALLeglerJMDevelopment of a comorbidity index using physician claims dataJ Clin Epidemiol20005312586711146273PollockLAAdamacheWRyersonABEhemanCRRichardsonLCCare of long-term cancer survivors: physicians seen by Medicare enrollees surviving longer than 5 yearsCancer200911552849519685532SnyderCFFrickKDHerbertRJPreventive care in prostate cancer patients: following diagnostics and for five-year survivorsJ Cancer Surviv201152839121553320SnyderCFFrickKDPeairsKSPrevention, screening, and surveillance care for breast cancer survivors compared with controls: changes from 1998 to 2002J Clin Oncol20092710546119164212KunitakeHZhengPYothersGRoutine preventive care and cancer surveillance in long-term survivors of colorectal cancer: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol LTS-01J Clin Oncol2010285274921079140YuXMcBeanAMVirnigBAPhysician visits, patient comorbidities, and mammography use among elderly colorectal cancer survivorsJ Cancer Surviv200712758218648962BraithwaiteDZhuDHuntRAScreening outcomes in older women undergoing multiple mammographies in community practices: does interval, age, or comorbidity score affect tumor characteristics or false positive rates?J Natl Cancer Inst20131053344123385442MeissnerHIKlabundeCNHanPKBenardVBBreenNBreast cancer screening beliefs, recommendations and practices: primary care physicians in the United StatesCancer201111731011121246531CheungWYNevilleBACameronDBCookEFEarleCCComparisons of patient and physician expectations for cancer survivorship care20082724892495Institute of MedicineFrom cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transitionWashington, DCNational Academies Press2005HahnEGanzPASurvivorship programs and care plans in practice: variations on a themeJ Oncol Prac20117705MerportALemonSCNyamboseJProutMNThe use of cancer treatment summaries and care plans among Massachusetts physiciansSupport Care Cancer20122015798322526150BurgMALopezEDSDaileyAKellerMEPrendergastBThe potential of survivorship care plans in primary care follow-up of minority breast cancer patientsJ Gen Intern Med200924Suppl 246771Cowens-AlvaradoRSharpeKPratt-ChapmanMAdvancing survivorship care through the National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center: developing American Cancer Society guidelines for primary care providersCA Cancer J Clin201310.3322/caac.21183McCabeMSBhatiaSOeffingerKCAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology statement: achieving high-quality cancer survivorship careJ Clin Oncol201356314023295805National Comprehensive Cancer NetworkNational Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in OncologyFort Washington, PANational Comprehensive Cancer Network2012http://www.nccn.org/clinical.asp. Accessed 21 March 2013CarrasquilloOLantiguaRASheaSPreventive services among Medicare beneficiaries with supplemental coverage versus HMO enrollees, Medicaid recipients, and elders with no additional coverageMed Care2001396162611404644Centers for Disease Control and PreventionAdult vaccination coverage—United States, 2010MMWR2012614667222298302Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality2010 National Healthcare Disparities ReportRockville, MD2011Centers for Disease Control and PreventionSurveillance of health status in minority communities—Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health Across the U.S. (REACH U.S.) Risk Factor Survey, United States, 2009MMWR201160SS-6142ChenJYDiamantAPouratNKagawa-SingerMRacial/ethnic disparities in the use of preventive services among the elderlyAm J Prev Med2005293889516376701MoyEGreenbergLGBorskyACommunity variation: disparities in health care quality between Asian and white Medicare beneficiariesHealth Aff20082753849WuTYHsiehHFWestBTDemographics and perceptions of barriers toward breast cancer screening among Asian–American womenWomen Health2008482618119064462LiangWWangJChenMYFengSYiBMandelblattJSCultural views, language ability, and mammography use in Chinese American womenHealth Educ Behav20093610122519233947BasuJMobleyLRDo HMOs reduce preventable hospitalizations for Medicare beneficiaries?Med Care Res Rev2007645446717881621BaldwinLMAdamacheWKlabundeCNLinking physician characteristics and Medicare claims data: issues in data availability, quality, and measurementMed Care2002408, SupplIV-8295PollackLAAdamacheWEhemanCRRyersonABRichardsonLCEnhancement of identifying cancer specialists through the linkage of Medicare claims to additional sources of physician specialtyHealth Serv Res2009442 Pt 15627619207588McCabeMSBhatiaSOeffingerKCAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology statement: achieving high quality cancer survivorship careJ Clin Oncol2013316314023295805Cowens-AlvaradoRSharpeKPratt-ChapmanMAdvancing survivorship care through the National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center: developing American Cancer Society guidelines for primary care providersCA Cancer J Clin2013631475023512728

Characteristics of Asian/Pacific Islander and white colorectal cancer survivors (N =9,737), USA, 1996–2000

CharacteristicWhite (n =9,065)
All API (n =672)
P valueaChinese (n =186)
Japanese (n =267)
Other API (n =219)
P valuea
No.(%)No.(%)No.(%)No.(%)No.(%)
Age at CRC diagnosis (years)
 Mean74.372.9<0.000174.372.971.8  0.0009
 SD6.76.57.06.16.5
Sex
 Female5,23157.733950.5  0.00029752.214253.210045.7  0.2207
 Male3,83442.333349.68947.912546.811954.3
Stage
 I3,96743.828041.7  0.0170 7138.212446.48538.8  0.0692
 II3,33736.823134.46132.88230.78840.2
 III/IV1,76119.416124.05429.06122.94621.0
Comorbidity indexb
 Mean0.50.6  0.00070.60.50.7  0.2036
 SD0.80.91.00.81.0
 05,92865.439358.5  0.000911662.415859.211954.3  0.0494
 12,03622.516925.24021.57628.55324.2
 ≥28869.88512.72614.0228.23716.9
SEER registry site
 Hawaii490.521732.3<0.0001dddddd<0.0001
 Seattle-Puget Sound90710.0375.5dddddd
 Los Angeles7928.720530.5dddddd
 San Francisco-Oakland4214.69614.3dddddd
 San Jose-Monterey3263.6588.6dddddd
 Greater California5245.8324.8dddddd
 Other SEER registry sitec6,04666.7274.0dddddd
Number of Prior Cancer Diagnoses (primary sites)
 07,73385.360990.6  0.000116488.224190.320493.2  0.2228
 1 or more1,33214.7639.42211.8269.7156.9
Year of Diagnosis
 19961,27314.011016.4<0.00013518.84215.73315.1  0.2912
 19971,38315.312518.63619.45319.93616.4
 19981,56117.212318.33016.14215.75123.3
 19991,55317.114020.84021.56323.63716.9
 20003,29536.417425.94524.26725.16228.3
Poverty level (% tract residents below federal poverty level)b
 0–3.90 %2,09323.110515.6<0.00013418.33713.93415.5  0.4066
 3.91–6.76 %2,06322.813520.13820.46122.93616.4
 6.77–11.67 %2,05922.713520.13217.26022.54319.6
 ≥11.68 %1,93621.426739.77238.79736.39844.8

API Asian/Pacific Islander

P values compare all API survivors to white CRC survivors and API subgroup survivors to one another, respectively

Percentages for comorbidity and poverty level do not total 100 % due to suppression of the unknown category

Other SEER registries include Detroit, Iowa, New Mexico, Utah, Atlanta, Rural Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and New Jersey

Considering that at least one cell count was less than 11, all data for API subgroups have been suppressed

Selected preventive care services received during the fifth to tenth years since survivors’ diagnoses by race, USA (n =9,737), 2001–2006

Primary Care ServiceRace
White
All API
P valueaChinese
Japanese
Other API
P valuea
No.%No.%No.%No.%No.%
Influenza vaccination (any)6,62973.154781.4<0.000115885.022082.416977.20.1159
Pneumococcal vaccination1,71318.914121.0  0.1840  4222.6  5319.9  4621.00.7815
Cholesterol screening6,73974.356183.5<0.000115985.523186.517178.10.0309
Mammograms (any)b, c   92569.3  6652.0<0.0001  1446.7  3056.6  2250.00.6497
Bone densitometryb1,55729.812837.8  0.0019  3132.0  6445.1  3333.00.0614

API Asian/Pacific Islander

P values compare all API survivors to white CRC survivors, and API subgroup survivors to one another, respectively

Percentages and P values based on the number of females only

Percentages and P values based on women under the age of 75 years at their 5-year anniversary date of diagnosis

Selected preventive care services received during the fifth to tenth years since survivors’ diagnoses by physician specialty, USA (n =9,737), 2001–2006

Primary Care ServicePhysician specialty
Primary care physician only (PCP)
Oncologist only
Both PCP and oncologist
Cancer-related specialist only
Neither PCP nor oncologist
P value
No.%No.%No.%No.%No.%
Influenza vaccination (any)3,99376.425858.52,33380.710061.449248.4<0.0001
Pneumococcal vaccination1,07020.5  4710.7   62321.6  2112.9  93  9.2<0.0001
Cholesterol screening4,10978.627662.62,39782.910162.041741.0<0.0001
Bone densitometrya  95130.8  5022.9  61437.5  2327.4  47  8.7<0.0001
Mammograms (any)a,b  48367.1  5274.3  40675.5  1657.1  3432.4<0.0001

API Asian/Pacific Islander

Percentages and P values based on the number of females only

Percentages and P values based on women under the age of 75 years at their five-year anniversary date of diagnosis

Adjusted odds ratios for Asian/Pacific Islander and white long-term colorectal cancer survivors receiving preventive care services, 2001–2006

Influenza vaccination
Pneumococcal vaccination
Cholesterol screening
Mammographya, b
Bone densitometrya
ORCIORCIORCIORCIORCI
Race/ethnicity
 Non-Hispanic whiteRefRefRefRefRef
 API1.81(1.40, 2.35)1.18(0.93, 1.49)1.45(1.09, 1.93)0.45(0.27, 0.76)1.03(0.77, 1.39)
Physician category
 PCP onlyRefRefRefRefRef
 PCP and oncologist1.01(0.89, 1.14)0.89(079, 1.01)0.95(0.83, 1.08)1.40(1.05, 1.86)1.01(0.88, 1.16)
 Oncologist only0.56(0.46, 0.70)0.58(0.42, 0.79)0.60(0.48, 0.75)1.83(1.00, 3.35)0.83(0.58, 1.17)
 Cancer-related specialist0.61(0.43, 0.86)0.68(0.42, 1.09)0.50(0.35, 0.71)0.83(0.37, 1.88)1.00(0.59, 1.68)
 Other physician/none0.65(0.55, 0.76)0.81(0.63, 1.05)0.50(0.43, 0.60)0.57(0.33, 0.96)0.58(0.41, 0.81)
Age at diagnosis
 60–64RefRefRefRefRef
 65–741.19(0.99, 1.43)0.94(0.78, 1.14)0.95(0.76, 1.19)0.71(0.52, 0.95)0.68(0.54, 0.87)
 75+1.50(1.24, 1.81)0.97(0.80, 1.17)0.44(0.35, 0.55)N/A0.33(0.26, 0.42)
Sex
 Female0.96(0.87, 1.06)0.97(0.87, 1.08)1.06(0.95, 1.18)
 MaleRefRefRefN/AN/A
Stage at diagnosis
 IRefRefRefRefRef
 II0.89(0.80, 0.99)1.10(0.98, 1.24)0.79(0.71, 0.89)0.66(0.50, 0.87)0.78(0.68, 0.90)
 III/IV0.92(0.80, 1.05)1.09(0.94, 1.26)0.76(0.66, 0.88)1.02(0.73, 1.43)0.82(0.69, 0.98)
Comorbidities
 0RefRefRefRefRef
 11.11(0.98, 1.26)1.11(0.98, 1.27)1.58(1.38, 1.81)0.79(0.58, 1.08)0.60(0.51, 0.71)
 ≥21.19(1.00, 1.42)1.18(0.99, 1.41)1.69(1.39, 2.06)0.53(0.35, 0.82)0.48(0.38, 0.61)
 Unknown0.14(0.10, 0.20)0.59(0.35, 0.98)0.17(0.12, 0.24)0.05(0.01, 0.23)0.17(0.06, 0.49)
Number of primary cancers
 Only 1RefRefRefRefRef
 2 or more1.19(0.98, 1.43)1.07(0.87, 1.31)0.73(0.61, 0.89)0.80 (0.85,(0.48, 1.34)1.091.40)
SEER Registry
 Other SEER registryRefRefRefRefRef
 Greater California0.75(0.61, 0.91)1.07(0.80, 1.41)1.15(0.92, 1.43)1.14(0.62, 2.09)0.99(0.71, 1.37)
 Hawaii0.79(0.53, 1.16)0.42(0.27, 0.65)0.88(0.58, 1.33)1.66(0.70, 3.92)1.46(0.91, 2.33)
 Los Angeles0.59(0.50, 0.71)1.03(0.86, 1.23)1.64(1.32, 2.02)0.79(0.52, 1.20)1.23(0.99, 1.52)
 San Francisco-Oakland0.67(0.54, 0.84)1.10(0.88, 1.38)0.97(0.76, 1.24)0.71(0.41, 1.23)0.71(0.53, 0.94)
 San Jose-Monterey1.05(0.79, 1.38)1.41(1.10, 1.80)0.97(0.74, 1.29)0.74(0.40, 1.38)1.24(0.91, 1.70)
 Seattle-Puget Sound1.07(0.90, 1.27)1.12(0.93, 1.33)1.01(0.85, 1.21)1.62(1.01, 2.58)1.02(0.82, 1.27)
Number of follow-up years
 Each year increase1.09(1.05, 1.14)1.27(1.22, 1.33)1.05(1.00, 1.10)1.23(1.11, 1.37)1.15(1.09, 1.21)
Poverty level (2000 Census)
 0–3.90 %RefRefRefRefRef
 3.91–6.76 %0.99(0.86, 1.15)1.00(0.86, 1.17)0.74(0.63, 0.87)0.96(0.67, 1.38)0.91(0.76, 1.10)
 6.77–11.67 %0.95(0.82, 1.09)0.96(0.82, 1.12)0.66(0.56, 0.78)1.21(0.85, 1.74)0.82(0.68, 0.99)
 ≥11.68 %0.95(0.82, 1.10)0.93(0.79, 1.10)0.58(0.49, 0.68)0.90(0.63, 1.29)0.93(0.77, 1.12)
 Unknown0.94(0.74, 1.19)0.95(0.74, 1.22)0.83(0.65, 1.07)0.66(0.36, 1.22)0.99(0.73, 1.34)
Total number of physician visits
 0–5RefRefRefRefRef
 6–111.58(1.36, 1.82)1.67(1.33, 2.10)2.56(2.20, 2.98)1.82(1.21, 2.74)2.12(1.64, 2.74)
 12–192.34(2.00, 2.74)2.15(1.71, 2.70)3.64(3.09, 4.30)2.58(1.68, 3.96)2.75(2.13, 3.57)
 20–332.94(2.47, 3.50)2.56(2.03, 3.22)4.64(3.86, 5.59)2.57(1.64, 4.04)3.81(2.92, 4.97)
 ≥345.07(4.10, 6.26)3.02(2.37, 3.84)7.03(5.64, 8.77)2.20(1.32, 3.65)5.46(4.12, 7.24)

API Asian/Pacific Islander, N/A indicates not applicable, PCP primary care physician, Ref referent group

These models were limited to women only

Mammography test use was limited to women aged 65–74 years at their 5-year anniversary date of diagnosis (n =1,461)

Percentages of Asian/Pacific Islander and white long-term colorectal cancer survivors who visited physicians during the fifth to tenth years since their diagnosis and mean number of physician visits per year, 2001–2006

Physician mixAll API
White
P valueaAll API
White
P valuea
No.%No.%Mean No. visitsbSDMean No. visitsbSD
Any physician64295.58,61795.10.58029.26.27.25.7<0.0001
PCP only37055.14,85753.60.25905.84.53.93.2<0.0001
Both PCP and oncologist20630.72,68429.67.34.65.64.0<0.0001
No PCPd  9614.31,52416.85.64.64.64.9  0.0245
Oncologist onlye  22  3.3   419  4.62.92.62.02.5  0.0553
Cancer-related specialist only  14  2.1   149  1.61.53.11.41.5  0.0736
Other physician/none  60  8.9   95610.64.23.73.74.0  0.2661

API Asian/Pacific Islander, PCP primary care physician, SD standard deviation

P values from Chi-square tests comparing API survivors to white survivors on visits to any physicians and to specific types of physicians which are mutually exclusive for the following categories: PCP, both PCP and oncologist, oncologist only, cancer-related specialist only, and other physician/none

Calculation of mean number of visits was limited to cancer survivors with at least one physician visit over the follow-up period

P values from Kruskal–Wallis test comparing API survivors to white survivors on number of physician visits

The “no PCP” category includes visits to other physician specialists, including oncologists and CRC-related specialists

The “oncologist” category includes hematologists/oncologists, medical oncologists, surgical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and general surgeons