Disparities in outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer associated with emergency department visits

Introduction

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide.¹ The number of cancer survivors continues to grow in the face of improving therapies and earlier detection, as well as declining age-standardized incidence rates in men and stable in women.² Improved detection modalities is one reason for these improvements. Longitudinal outcome studies have suggested that each week added to the time to initial cancer treatment is associated with a 1-3% absolute increased risk of mortality with breast, lung, renal, and pancreatic cancers.³ National guidelines exist for cancer screening that are relevant to emergency care. For example, the U.S. Preventive Task Force recommends yearly lung cancer screening with low-dose CT for chronic, heavy smokers, between the ages of 55-80 years old. However, only a minority of patients are appropriately screened as outpatients (4% in the setting of lung cancer).⁴ This low frequency contrasts with the high public enthusiasm for screening (87%).⁵

Although poorly quantified, preliminary data suggest that many patients are diagnosed with cancer during an ED visit.⁶ Because patients who have cancer diagnosed during ED presentations may have multiple inequities in care (lack of insurance, no primary care, and possibly higher smoking rates), their outcomes may be worse. However, since the literature is sparse, and mostly retrospective, little is absolutely known about the outcomes of patients with emergently diagnosed cancer.

In this work, we use data linkage and case-control methodology to characterize the demographics, phenotypes, and outcomes of patients that have emergency department-associated cancer diagnoses. We used a statewide database to examine the rate of recent visit--defined arbitrarily as within six months--to an ED in patients with newly diagnosed cancer with the inference that the recent visit was the touchpoint where the initial clinical information suggested a possible new cancer diagnosis. We hypothesized that ED-associated cancer diagnoses will suffer higher mortality as compared to non-ED-associated cancer diagnoses.

Design and Methods

Results

Comparing Mortality Between Cancers

Figure 1 (and supplemental Table 1) compares the cumulative mortality rates for 9 cancer diagnoses during the 5-year study period. The percentage of mortality for all nine cancer types were consistently higher in cases compared with controls. A concerning 45% relative difference exists between cases and controls for pancreatic cancer. Figure 2 shows Kaplan Meier survival curves for these nine cancers and demonstrates a consistently worse survival for cases versus controls up until 5 years of follow-up (P<0.001 log-rank statistic).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Bar graph comparing mortality percentages from ED-diagnosed to non-ED diagnosed over 5-year study period, error bars representing 95% CI.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Kaplan Meier survival curve comparing days lived from ED diagnosed to non-ED diagnosed.

Discussion

Our findings show uniformly worsened outcomes of all patients during a period of five years, especially minority and low-income patients, diagnosed with new cancer diagnosed in temporal proximity to an ED visit. These data provide the inference that patients with undiagnosed cancer who rely on the ED as a source of primary medical care will have a worsened outcome compared with patients who have organized medical care.⁶ Prior work from the United Kingdom’s “Routes-to-Diagnosis” conducted by the Public Health England, suggested 23% of newly diagnosed cancer patients presented emergently and survival rates were much lower for those emergent presenters, which is similar to what we discovered in this work.⁹ In the US, a smaller study in Michigan, restricted to lung and colorectal cancer found patients with ED-associated cancer diagnosis had higher CCIs and more advanced stage cancer and were more likely to be Black than those diagnosed without a recent ED visit, but no data on mortality were presented.¹⁰ It has been demonstrated that emergent presentations of cancer are associated with lower curative rates and treatments, even when compared to cancers diagnosed “electively” (even at the same stage).¹¹ The present data in Figure 2, together with prior findings support the inference that patients who have a diagnosis of cancer temporally connected with an ED visit, suffer from a disparity in their odds of survival. From a health services standpoint, potentially modifiable causes for this disparity include lack of access to primary medical care and cancer screening before diagnosis, increased rate of tobacco and alcohol use, worsened comorbidities at the time of diagnosis, and lack of access to specialty cancer care after diagnosis.

This work employed a state-wide assessment of cancer diagnoses in the state of Indiana. From this, numerous patient factors appear to contribute to the observed mortality and worse outcomes, namely race and socioeconomic status. Meanwhile, factors such as age and sex appear to have little relationship between the association of diagnosis and mortality. This is compared to other works where older age (≥85 years old) are 2.5 times more likely to present with an emergent diagnosis of cancer, when compared to a 65–74-year-old cohort.¹² Those authors conclude that cancer and age are likely to reflect disease specific factors. Further, our work we excluded pediatric patients (<18 years old), and it is well known that more than half of patients that present with de novo cancer diagnoses in the ED are emergently diagnosed.¹³

What limited evidence exists from data obtained in the United States, has demonstrated associations between socioeconomic status and the diagnosis of cancer as an emergency. African Americans in one study had increased odds of emergently diagnosed colorectal cancer (AOR 1.5, 95% CI 1.38-1.63) as compared to a similar white cohort.¹⁴ This disparity not only exists among the diagnosis of cancer but in the primary and secondary preventions among lower SES populations. Colorectal screening, despite its efficacy and recommendations, has been shown to be low among African Americans and those with low SES, demonstrating an opportunity or intervening on this high risk population in the ED.¹⁵ Furthermore, the low SES population have inequities that result in poor lifestyle choices, some of which (smoking status, diet, physical activity) are preventable and modifiable if this population had access to equitable opportunities. Cancer mortality among this population has an association between mortality and modifiable risk factors, again at current date are not routinely performed in the ED.¹⁶ Blacks are diagnosed with breast and lung cancer in the cases versus controls and their outcomes appear to be worse. We speculate that blacks are more dependent upon EDs than whites for unscheduled, emergent care, and thus are more likely to present to an ED emergently for their undiagnosed malignacny.¹⁷ Similar phenomenon can be applied to whites with low SES, where patients of low SES are more reliant on the ED for their care and are more likely to present emergently with their undiagnosed cancer.^18,19 These data suggest race and socioeconomic status are more important than other factors, such as comorbidities, since the CCI was equal. While not examined in this large data analyses, there is growing evidence that African Americans have more aggressive tumor biology, such as in several breast cancer studies, which can be speculated that this also contributes to these patients presenting more emergently for their undiagnosed cancer.²⁰

Of the cancers that have proven screenings that demonstrate success, lung and colorectal cancers do markedly worse when associated with an ED-visit, 54% vs 18% mortality for lung cancer (P<.0001), and 26.4% vs 9% for colorectal cancer (P<.0001). Breast cancer also has a successful screening modality, namely mammography, and suffers from similar poor outcomes when associated with an ED visit, 11.9% mortality vs 3.4%, ED to non-ED associated.²¹ Prostate cancer screening is controversial and recommendations vary by organization and country, regardless, a screening modality is available and those diagnosed with prostate cancer associated with an ED visit have higher mortality than those that don’t (13.2% vs 3.5%).²² Lastly, cervical cancer also is frequently screened for as outpatients and 22% of those seen in the ED were dead, versus 7.4% of those not seen in the ED. This evidence is supported by known disparities in cancer screening, with minority patients experiencing greater delays in evaluation and screening for cancer, leading to suboptimal treatment among those patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer.²³

Previous research has called for both improving the outcomes of patients that are diagnosed with cancer through an emergent presentation, as well as helping to reduce the burden of emergent diagnoses by improving cancer screening.^6,24 This is likely a systems issue, but plausible future steps is utilizing the ED space for more than just emergent care. Average length of stays in ED has multiple variables that impact exact time frame which patients sit in the ED, but in one paper an average a patient can expect a wait of 4 hours.²⁵ As the trend of increasing length of stay continues to increase nationwide, EDs are experiencing the unfortunate phenomena of ED crowding which has been well demonstrated to be associated with increased hospital death.²⁶ We propose future work in developing interventions for this at risk population while in the ED, similar to what has been performed for rapid hepatitis screening and cervical cancer screening in urban EDs, demonstrating proof of concept and utilizing the ED space for more than emergent care.^27,28 Similar revolutionary changes in ED workflow for improving the overall health of ED patients has been adopted with universal HIV screening in the ED, as well as universal suicide screening in EDs.^29,30 Intervening on this population is challenging but supported by a Cochrane Review, guaiac fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can reduce colorectal mortality by 15%, and providing appropriately chosen patients with home use FIT tests through primary care has improved screening rates, sustaining a screening rate of 75%.^31,32 Currently screening routinely for cancer does not occur in the emergency setting, but for many vulnerable patients (uninsured, lower SES, racial minorities), the emergency room serves as the only opportunity for routine care and we should begin to explore alternative strategies to maximally improve the care of these patients.³³ Removing the barriers to cancer screening, such as providing patients with FIT cards prior to discharge may represent an opportunity to increase adherence to CRC screening and reduce the burden of emergently diagnosed CRC.³⁴ Novel approaches need be undertaken at the systems and health policy level to address the disparities that are well demonstrated among ED-associated cancer diagnoses.

Conclusions

Patients diagnosed with cancer with an associated ED visit within 6 months prior to their ICD-code cancer diagnosis are associated with poor outcomes, specifically increased mortality, as compared to a cohort that did not have an ED visit within 6 months prior to their diagnosis. Lung, breast, and colorectal are the most frequently ED-associated cancer diagnoses, with upwards of 50% mortality as compared to non-ED associated cancers. Further, there are associated racial and socioeconomic disparities among those diagnosed, both in cancer type and frequency, and mortality. These data are among the first to our knowledge that describe patients in the United States, among a statewide database. They further suggest that ED-associated cancer diagnoses offers an opportunity for additional research to understand the associations between diagnoses and socioeconomic and racial disparities. Given existing literature is limited to retrospective, database analyses, future work should be aimed at prospective studies as to guide future interventions to help reduce the disparities and reduce the mortality among ED-associated cancer diagnoses.