SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • lung cancer;
  • colorectal cancer;
  • recommended care;
  • immigrants;
  • satisfaction;
  • quality;
  • disparities;
  • race/ethnicity;
  • Hispanic;
  • Asian

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Materials and Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  8. REFERENCES

BACKGROUND:

Disparities in care have been documented for foreign-born cancer patients in the United States. However, few data are available regarding patients with lung and colorectal cancer. In the current study, the authors assessed whether patient-reported quality and receipt of recommended care differed between US-born and foreign-born cancer patients.

METHODS:

The authors collected surveys and medical records for a population-based cohort including white, Hispanic, and Asian adults (2205 US-born and 890 foreign-born individuals) with lung or colorectal cancer diagnosed in California from 2003 through 2005. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between nativity and patient-reported quality of care and receipt of recommended treatments (adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for stage II/III rectal cancer, and curative surgery for stage I/II nonsmall cell lung cancer). The authors also assessed whether language explained any differences in care by nativity.

RESULTS:

Overall, 46% of patients reported excellent care, but foreign-born patients were less likely than US-born patients to report excellent quality of care (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.65-1.00), a difference partly explained by the language of the survey, an indicator of English proficiency. Rates of recommended therapies ranged from 64% to 85%; foreign-born patients were less likely to receive chemotherapy and radiotherapy for stage II/III rectal cancer (AOR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.12-0.99). Rates of other treatments did not differ significantly by nativity.

CONCLUSIONS:

Foreign-born cancer patients reported lower quality of care and were less likely to receive some cancer therapies than patients born in the Unites States. Better coordination of care and communication regarding cancer treatments and expanded use of interpreters may lessen these disparities. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.

Disparities in cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survival have been documented for immigrants in the United States. Foreign-born individuals are diagnosed with cancer at more advanced stages or with larger tumors,1-4 receive less definitive cancer treatments,1 and have worse survival once diagnosed with cancer4-6 than individuals of similar race/ethnicity who were born in the United States. Such disparities may be related to access to screening services7, 8 or care, which may be mediated in part by language differences and communication difficulties.9-11

The extent of disparities in cancer outcomes by nativity remains poorly understood. Prior studies have focused on breast,1-4, 6, 12 colorectal,5 and gastric13 cancer and have variably included Hispanic1, 2 or Asian3-6, 12, 13 patients. Not all of these studies reported worse care for foreign-born patients; 1 reported an earlier stage of disease at diagnosis, more complete surgical treatment, and improved survival of Asian and Pacific Islander patients with gastric cancer, which was most pronounced among the foreign-born subgroup.13 Moreover, prior studies have typically used cancer registry data, which are limited by incomplete data regarding birthplace14-18 and no information concerning factors related to acculturation. To our knowledge, few data are available regarding disparities by nativity in the treatment of patients with lung and colorectal cancer, despite these cancers representing the 2 leading causes of cancer mortality in the United States.13

In 2007, approximately 38 million foreign-born individuals resided in the United States, of whom 18 million were Hispanic and 9 million were Asian.19 To document whether US-born and foreign-born patients with lung or colorectal cancer differ in their perceived quality of care and receipt of guideline-based treatments, we studied a large, population-based cohort of white, Hispanic, and Asian patients. Specifically, we assessed differences by nativity in patients' ratings of the quality of their care and in receipt of recommended treatments. In addition, we assessed whether such differences were influenced by English language proficiency.

Materials and Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Materials and Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  8. REFERENCES

Study Design and Study Population

Patients were recruited as part of a large national study of cancer care and outcomes undertaken by the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium.20, 21 The study was approved by the human subjects committees at all participating institutions. Patients aged ≥21 years who were diagnosed with invasive lung or colorectal cancer from September 2003 through December 2005 were identified within approximately 3 months of diagnosis using rapid case ascertainment from population-based cancer registries or pathology and cytology records. Patients were living in Alabama, Iowa, Los Angeles County, Northern California, and central North Carolina or received their care in 1 of 5 large health maintenance organizations or at 1 of 15 medical centers in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system.

The eligible study sample was comprised of 11,629 patients with invasive lung cancer and 10,239 patients with colorectal cancer. After notifying each patient's physician, 8340 lung and 7841 colorectal patients were contacted, and 5150 lung and 4911 colorectal patients or their proxy were interviewed, for a response rate of 51.0% and a cooperation rate among contacted participants of 59.9%.22 An additional 140 lung and 208 colorectal patients were excluded because their cancers were recurrent or they were later deemed to be ineligible, resulting in a total of 9713 patients (5010 with lung cancer and 4703 with colorectal cancer).

For this study, we included only patients enrolled from the Northern California (Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Solano counties) and Los Angeles county study sites, which accounted for the vast majority of foreign-born individuals in CanCORS. We excluded 425 persons who did not identify their country of birth. We restricted the cohort to white, Hispanic, and Asian patients due to the small numbers of foreign-born individuals of other races. The final study population was comprised of 2205 US-born and 890 foreign-born individuals of white, Hispanic, or Asian race/ethnicity. Asian patients were most often of Chinese (45%) or Filipino (24%) descent.

Data Collection

Patients or surrogates of patients who were deceased or too ill to participate were interviewed by telephone approximately 3 to 6 months after diagnosis. Recruitment materials and patient and surrogate surveys were translated (with back-translation) into Spanish and Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese) and administered by bilingual interviewers for respondents who preferred these languages. The surveys (available at: www.cancors.org/public) included questions regarding cancer treatments, ratings of care, health status, and sociodemographic characteristics.

Patients' medical records (available for 75% of US-born and 61% of foreign-born patients) and registry data were used to obtain information concerning cancer site, stage of disease at diagnosis, and treatment.

Dependent Variables

Patient-reported quality of care

Patients were asked, “Overall, how would you rate the quality of your healthcare since your diagnosis of [lung or colorectal] cancer?” Potential responses included “excellent,” “very good,” “good,” “fair, ” and “poor.”” We dichotomized the responses as “excellent” versus “other.” Five patients with missing responses for this item were not included.

Receipt of recommended treatment

We assessed receipt of guideline-recommended cancer treatments23-25 for which sample sizes were sufficient for statistical comparisons, including adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for stage II/III rectal cancer, and curative surgery for stage I/II nonsmall cell lung cancer. We documented receipt of chemotherapy and radiotherapy if a comprehensive medical record review identified receipt within 6 months of diagnosis or if the patient or surrogate reported that they had received or were planning to receive chemotherapy or radiotherapy at the time of the baseline survey (studies suggest that patients' self-reports of these treatments are highly accurate26-30). Among patients with medical record data, we identified receipt of surgery for stage I/II nonsmall cell lung cancer if the medical records documented pneumonectomy, lobectomy, or wedge resection within 6 months of diagnosis (patients were not asked about these specific procedures in the interview).

Independent Variables

The main independent variables were nativity and race/ethnicity, categorized as US-born or foreign-born white, US-born or foreign-born Hispanic, and US-born or foreign-born Asian. Control variables included age at diagnosis, sex, marital status, education, household income, number of self-reported comorbid illnesses, self-reported health status, survey type, cancer type, and cancer stage. Among foreign-born individuals, we also documented language of survey (English versus non-English), which reflects English language proficiency and may be more relevant for clinical care than language spoken at home. Only 73 patients (2.3%) lacked health insurance; therefore, this variable was not included in our analyses. Variables were categorized as depicted in Table 1.

Table 1. Distribution of Patient Characteristics and Treatments by Nativity and Race/Ethnicity
TotalRacial/Ethnic Group by Nativity
WhiteHispanicAsian
US-Born, no. (%)Foreign-Born, no. (%)US-Born, no. (%)Foreign-Born, no. (%)US-Born, no. (%)Foreign-Born, no. (%)
1870 (100)219 (100)267 (100)323 (100)69 (100)348 (100)
  • a

    Based on self-reports of myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, stroke, chronic lung disease, diabetes, kidney problems, and depression.

Age, y
 21-54251 (13)33 (15)63 (23)93 (29)14 (20)100 (29)
 55-64397 (21)39 (18)51 (19)58 (18)14 (20)68 (20)
 65-74551 (29)48 (22)77 (29)80 (25)11 (16)106 (30)
 ≥75671 (36)99 (45)76 (28)92 (28)30 (43)74 (21)
Sex
 Male930 (50)114 (52)124 (46)177 (55)40 (58)194 (56)
 Female940 (50)105 (48)143 (54)146 (45)29 (42)154 (44)
Marital status
 Married or living with a partner1099 (59)123 (56)166 (62)203 (63)44 (64)269 (77)
 Not married771 (41)96 (44)101 (38)120 (37)25 (36)79 (23)
Education
 Non–high school graduate197 (11)24 (11)96 (36)180 (56)4 (6)73 (21)
 High school diploma515 (27)61 (28)81 (30)60 (19)14 (20)62 (18)
 Some college532 (28)42 (19)56 (21)28 (9)17 (25)61 (17)
 College graduate627 (34)92 (42)34 (13)55 (17)34 (49)152 (44)
Income
 <$20,000365 (20)65 (30)84 (32)142 (44)12 (18)131 (38)
 $20,000-$39,999559 (30)57 (26)87 (33)105 (33)22 (32)88 (25)
 $40,000-$59,999381 (20)40 (18)50 (19)48 (15)16 (24)60 (17)
 ≥$60,000565 (30)57 (26)46 (17)27 (8)18 (26)69 (20)
Health insurance
 Yes1847 (99)215 (98)260 (96)299 (92)69 (100)336 (97)
 No23 (1)4 (2)7 (4)24 (8)0 (0)22 (3)
Study site
 Northern California960 (51)89 (41)129 (48)99 (31)38 (55)229 (66)
 Los Angeles County910 (49)130 (59)138 (52)224 (69)31 (45)119 (34)
Cancer type
 Colorectal cancer849 (45)126 (58)153 (57)195 (60)36 (52)202 (58)
 Lung cancer1,021 (55)93 (42)114 (43)128 (40)33 (48)146 (42)
Stage of disease
 I428 (23)57 (26)58 (22)58 (18)14 (20)79 (23)
 II327 (17)42 (19)49 (18)51 (16)5 (7)56 (16)
 III484 (26)51 (23)75 (28)100 (31)22 (32)92 (27)
 IV569 (30)59 (27)75 (28)92 (28)25 (36)104 (30)
 Unknown62 (3)10 (5)10 (4)22 (7)3 (4)17 (5)
No. of comorbid illnessesa
 0673 (36)87 (38)105 (39)144 (45)35 (51)186 (53)
 1619 (33)71 (33)84 (32)100 (31)25 (36)116 (33)
 2356 (19)36 (17)46 (17)55 (17)6 (9)32 (9)
 ≥3222 (12)24 (11)31 (11)24 (8)3 (4)15 (4)
Overall health status
 Excellent228 (12)30 (14)25 (9)34 (10)12 (17)33 (9)
 Very good537 (29)67 (31)68 (26)66 (21)17 (24)96 (28)
 Good602 (32)68 (31)91 (34)117 (35)24 (34)126 (36)
 Fair372 (20)42 (19)62 (23)85 (26)12 (18)81 (23)
 Poor131 (7)12 (5)21 (8)21 (7)5 (7)12 (4)
Survey respondent
 Patient1346 (72)135 (62)185 (69)197 (61)46 (67)213 (61)
 Surrogate of deceased patient389 (21)48 (22)40 (15)59 (18)13 (19)54 (16)
 Surrogate of living patient135 (7)35 (16)42 (16)67 (21)10 (14)81 (23)
Language of survey
 English1866 (100)219 (100)255 (96)123 (38)63 (91)221 (64)
 Other language4 (0)0 (0)12 (4)200 (62)6 (9)127 (36)
Quality of care
 Quality of care rated as excellent963 (52)98 (45)114 (43)125 (39)26 (38)91 (27)
Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer (n=447)
 Total2363448621354
 Receiving adjuvant chemotherapy176 (75)25 (74)39 (81)53 (85)12 (92)41 (76)
Adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for stage II/III rectal cancer (n=161)
 Total82112220521
 Receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy, N (%)53 (65)7 (64)15 (68)11 (55)3 (60)14 (67)
Surgery for stage I/II nonsmall cell lung cancer (n=294)
 Total224231114319
 Receiving surgery188 (84)20 (87)9 (82)13 (93)3 (100)16 (84)

Statistical Analysis

We compared unadjusted proportions of each dependent variable by nativity, stratified by race/ethnicity using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Next, we used logistic regression models to examine the association of nativity and race/ethnicity with each dependent variable, adjusting for the independent variables listed above. In a second set of models, we included language to assess whether this variable explained any associations between nativity and the dependent variables. Finally, we investigated interactions of nativity and race/ethnicity.

We conducted several sensitivity analyses. First, we repeated analyses of ratings of care combining “excellent” with “very good.” Second, because surrogates may rate care differently from patients, and because they were surveyed when patients were deceased or very ill (and these poorer outcomes could influence ratings), we repeated the analyses of ratings of care excluding surrogate interviews. Third, we repeated all analyses using a variable reflecting language spoken at home instead of language of the survey, which may not accurately reflect language skills for patients whose surrogates completed the survey. Fourth, we assessed adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy if the patient reported treatment was administered but not if they reported it was planned but not yet given. Finally, for assessing rectal cancer treatments, we ran models assessing receipt of chemotherapy or radiotherapy versus neither treatment.

Item nonresponse was <2% to 3% for most variables. We used multiple imputation to impute missing survey data for items other than the dependent and independent variables of interest.31 Analyses were conducted using SAS statistical software (version 9.2; SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC).

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Materials and Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  8. REFERENCES

The distribution of the patient characteristics stratified by race/ethnicity and nativity is presented in Table 1. Foreign-born Hispanic and Asian patients were found to be younger than foreign-born white patients and US-born groups. Asian patients were more often college graduates and Hispanic patients were more often in the low-income group. More US-born individuals completed the interview themselves. Many foreign-born Hispanic and Asian patients completed the survey in a language other than English.

Patients' Ratings of Quality of Care

Overall, 46% of patients rated their cancer care as excellent. In unadjusted analyses, the proportion rating quality of care as excellent varied between US-born- and foreign-born patients within each race/ethnicity group (P = .01). US-born patients more often reported excellent quality of care in all race/ethnicity groups compared with foreign-born patients (Table 1). In adjusted analyses, foreign-born patients were less likely than US-born patients to report excellent quality of care (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.65-0.99) (Table 2). Asian and Hispanic patients were also less likely than white patients to report excellent quality of care. When adjusting for language of survey (model II), the size of the effect of foreign birth on ratings decreased by appoximately half (AOR, 0.89), and the association was no longer statistically significant. Language also explained some of the association of lower quality for Hispanic patients, but not for Asian patients. The interaction of nativity by race/ethnicity was not statistically significant (P = .46 and P = .59 for Hispanic and Asian patients, respectively).

Table 2. Adjusted Odds Ratios (95% CI) for Excellent Rating of Care by Nativity and Race/Ethnicity (N=3080)a
 Model IbModel IIc (Adjusting for Language of Survey)
AOR (95% CI)PAOR (95% CI)P
  • 95% CI indicates 95% confidence interval.

  • a

    Statistically significant variables (P <.05) are depicted in bold type.

  • b

    Using logistic regression to adjust for nativity, race/ethnicity, age, sex, marital status, education, income, site, cancer type, cancer stage, comorbidity, health status, and survey type.

  • c

    Also adjusted for language of survey.

Nativity
 US-born1.00 1.00 
 Foreign-born0.80 (0.65-0.997).0470.89 (0.70-1.11).30
Race/ethnicity
 White1.00 1.00 
 Hispanic0.77 (0.61-0.98).030.83 (0.65-1.07).15
 Asian0.40 (0.30-0.55)<.0010.42 (0.31-0.57)<.001
Language of survey
 English 1.00 
 Other 0.66 (0.48-0.91).01

Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer

Overall, 77% of patients with stage III colon cancer received adjuvant chemotherapy. In unadjusted analyses, we found no differences in rates of adjuvant chemotherapy by nativity, stratified by race/ethnicity (P = .79). Rates were highest among US-born Asian patients (92%) and lowest among foreign-born Asian patients (76%) (Table 1); however, the numbers in these groups were small, and this difference among asians was not statistically significant (P = .19). After adjustment, there was no statistically significant association noted between nativity or race/ethnicity and adjuvant chemotherapy (Table 3). Adjusting for language of survey did not change the results. The interaction of nativity by race/ethnicity was not found to be statistically significant (P = .71 and P = .11 for Hispanic and Asian patients, respectively).

Table 3. Adjusted Odds Ratios (95% CI) for Different Curative Treatments by Nativity and Race/Ethnicity Among Patients With Colon, Rectal, or Lung Cancera
 Model IbModel IIc (Adjusting for Language of Survey)
AOR (95% CI)PAOR (95% CI)P
  • 95% CI indicates 95% confidence interval.

  • a

    Statistically significant variables (P <.05) are depicted in bold type.

  • b

    Using logistic regression to adjust for nativity, race/ethnicity, age, sex, marital status, education, income, site, cancer stage (except among colon cancer patients), comorbidity, health status, and survey type.

  • c

    Also adjusted for language of survey.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy Among Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer (n=447)
Nativity
 US-born1.00 1.00 
 Foreign-born1.04 (0.51-2.12).910.87 (0.42-1.81).71
Race/ethnicity
 White1.00 1.00 
 Hispanic1.72 (0.76-3.88).191.50 (0.66-3.41).34
 Asian1.08 (0.44-2.70).860.98 (0.40-2.45).97
Language of survey
 English 1.00 
 Other 2.26 (0.75-6.80).15
Received Both Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Radiation Among Patients With Stage II and III Rectal Cancer (n=161)
Nativity
 US-born1.00 1.00 
 Foreign-born0.35 (0.12-0.99).0480.43 (0.14-1.30).14
Race/ethnicity
 White1.00 1.00 
 Hispanic0.61 (0.20-1.82).380.67 (0.22-2.04).48
 Asian0.95 (0.15-1.30).941.05 (0.52-5.79).95
Language of survey
 English 1.00 
 Other 0.41 (0.10-1.68).22
Primary Lung Surgery Among Patients With Stage I and II Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer (n=294)
Nativity
 US-born1.00 1.00 
 Foreign-born0.95 (0.24-3.77).960.95 (0.24-3.77).94
Race/ethnicity
 White1.00 1.00 
 Hispanic0.97 (0.19-4.99).920.97 (0.19-4.99).97
 Asian0.79 (0.17-11.34).910.79 (0.11-5.65).82
Language of survey
 English 1.00 
 Other 1.62 (0.13-20.17).71

Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy for Patients With Stage II/III Rectal Cancer

Overall, 64% of patients with stage II/III rectal cancer received adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy. In unadjusted analyses, we observed no differences in rates of both adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy by nativity, stratified by race/ethnicity (P = .61) (Table 1). In adjusted analyses, foreign-born patients had lower rates of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy (AOR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.12-0.99) (Table 3). Rates of adjuvant therapy did not appear to differ by race/ethnicity. After adjusting for language, the association between nativity and treatment decreased somewhat (AOR, 0.43) and was no longer statistically significant. Language was not statistically associated with receipt of adjuvant therapy, although sample sizes were small. The interaction of nativity by race/ethnicity was not statistically significant (P = .24 for Hispanic patients and P = .36 for Asian patients).

Surgery for Patients With Stage I/II Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer

Overall, 85% of patients with stage I/II lung cancer underwent curative surgery. In unadjusted analyses, we observed no differences in rates of primary lung surgery by nativity, stratified by race/ethnicity (P = .64, Table 1). After adjustment, we observed no association between nativity or race/ethnicity and receipt of surgery (Table 3). Similarly, adjusting for language of survey did not alter the results. The interaction of nativity by race/ethnicity was not statistically significant (P = .66 and P = .97 for Hispanic and Asian patients, respectively).

Sensitivity Analyses

In sensitivity analyses, when combining “excellent” with “very good” in patients' ratings of care, the results were similar. In analyses of ratings of care excluding surrogate respondents, the β coefficients were unchanged, but the effect of foreign-born status was no longer statistically significant due to the smaller sample size.

For all dependent variables, we repeated the second model including language spoken at home instead of the language of the survey, and the results were similar. We also conducted sensitivity analyses assessing adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy in which we did not consider the treatment to have been received if the patient reported the treatment was planned but not yet given; the results were similar. Finally, the results of adjuvant therapy for patients with stage II/III rectal cancer were similar when the dependent variable was dichotomized as either chemotherapy or radiotherapy versus none.

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Materials and Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  8. REFERENCES

In this population-based cohort of patients in California with lung or colorectal cancer, we observed lower patient ratings of cancer care among foreign-born patients compared with US-born patients as well as among Hispanic and Asian individuals. These differences were partially explained by English language proficiency. We also observed lower rates of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for stage II/III rectal cancer among foreign-born patients compared with US-born patients. We did not observe differences with regard to rates of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer or curative surgery for stage I/II lung cancer. However, moderate-sized differences may have been missed due to the relatively small sample sizes in these groups.

The Institute of Medicine has emphasized the importance of patient-centered care, declaring patient-centeredness to be 1 of 6 key aims of high-performing healthcare organizations.32 Previous research has found that racial or ethnic minorities with cancer and other conditions rate their care less favorably than white patients33, 34; this difference is particularly pronounced among non–English-speaking patients.33-35 Asian and Hispanic patients have more problems than whites with coordination of care, access to care, and access to health and treatment information.35 The complexity of cancer care and the need for timely information regarding the disease and treatment options, which often require substantial coordination of care among multiple specialists, may be particularly challenging for foreign-born patients if they have limited social support to help with navigating the healthcare system. These challenges can be compounded by communication difficulties between non–English-speaking patients and their clinicians, particularly if trained interpreters are unavailable and the clinicians do not speak the patients' language.

Our finding of lower rates of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for stage II/III rectal cancer among foreign-born patients is particularly notable because receipt of adjuvant therapy for rectal cancer typically requires coordination of multimodality therapy by different providers and occasionally requires neoadjuvant treatment. The lower rates of effective adjuvant therapy for rectal cancer by nativity is consistent with the findings of lower rates of guideline-recommended treatment for breast cancer among foreign-born Hispanic1 and Asian36, 37 patients. Another small study also demonstrated less multimodality therapy for foreign-born Asian patients with lung cancer compared with non-Asian patients.38 The lack of differences by nativity in receipt of other treatments we studied may be because single-modality therapy is less complex. One study found higher rates of complete surgical treatment of gastric cancer among foreign-born Asian and Pacific Islander patients than non-Hispanic white patients.13

Issues of language and acculturation are important considerations in understanding differences in patients' experiences with care. For newly diagnosed cancer patients who face a series of complex decisions regarding treatment, including a trade-off between chances of cure, adverse effects, and quality of life, good communication between patients and healthcare providers is crucial. Limited English proficiency may hamper communication as well as coordination and access to recommended care.33, 39 Trained medical interpreters and patient navigator programs can improve care for patients with limited English proficiency,40 yet trained interpreters are available in person or by phone less than half of the time they are needed for patients with cancer, particularly in solo practices and single-specialty medical groups,41 and navigator programs are even less commonly available.

Language explained some of the lower ratings of care observed for Hispanic versus white patients but not for Asian versus white patients. Additional research is needed to understand what care beyond interpreter services is needed to improve experiences with care, particularly for Asian patients. Although the observed findings point to language barriers as a prominent reason for disparities, the degree of adherence to native cultural beliefs and norms may also play a strong role, particularly in decisions regarding treatment options. In a prior study of providers who treat Asian patients with breast cancer, fear and cultural beliefs were among the most common reasons these patients chose mastectomy over breast-conserving surgery.42 Further research is needed to understand the role of acculturation, language, and cultural factors in treatment decision-making among foreign-born patients with cancer. Few patients in the current study were recent immigrants, thereby limiting our ability to assess the influence of years in the United States on treatment decisions.

One strength of the current study was that it examined a large population of foreign-born patients of different racial and ethnic groups surveyed in 1 of 3 languages and with survey data supplemented by registry and medical record data. In addition, we assessed patients' ratings of quality of care as well as receipt of cancer treatment among patients with lung and colorectal cancer who were US-born and foreign-born.

Several limitations of the current study should also be noted. First, despite the relatively large numbers of patients, we had limited power to detect differences of moderate size for some measures that still may be clinically significant, as evidenced by the relatively wide 95% CIs for some treatments. For example, we had >80% power to detect an absolute difference of 12% in adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer between US-born and foreign-born patients, and an absolute difference of 15% for curative surgery for stage I/II lung cancer between these groups. We had less statistical power to detect potential interactions of nativity by race/ethnicity. Thus, studies with larger sample sizes may be needed to detect smaller differences in receipt of recommended care by nativity. Second, patient-reported quality of care measured by a single item might be conceptually or psychometrically problematic if individuals in different racial/ethnic groups or with different levels of acculturation do not ascribe the same meaning to the response categories. Some evidence from the Consumer Assessments of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey suggests that Hispanic and Asian individuals report care experiences that are similar to or less positive than care for non-Hispanic whites, yet they have more positive ratings of care,43 and Hispanic patients are more likely to use the extremes of response scales.44 The results of the current study were robust to alternative definitions of high-quality care, suggesting that differences in reporting the highest levels of quality are unlikely to explain our results. Nevertheless, additional validation of single-item quality assessments in varied racial/ethnic groups is needed. Third, we have no information regarding how nonrespondent foreign-born patients may differ from respondents. Fourth, we studied patients in California, thereby limiting the generalizability of the findings to immigrants in other parts of the United States, in which the characteristics of immigrant populations may differ.45 Moreover, we were unable to assess specific racial/ethnic subgroups that may differ with regard to their culture, religion, beliefs, and practices concerning health; this may be especially true for Asians who constitute a heterogeneous group; however, nearly half of the Asians in our sample were of Chinese origin. Finally, foreign-born patients were less likely than others to consent to medical record abstraction. Nevertheless, we supplemented information from the medical records with self-reports of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, which have been shown to be quite accurate26-30 Because the analyses for lung cancer surgery required medical record data, foreign-born patients who did not consent to medical record abstraction were not included in this analysis.

In conclusion, foreign-born individuals with lung or colorectal cancer reported a lower quality of care than US-born patients and were less likely to receive some complex cancer treatments that are recommended by clinical guidelines. These differences were at least partly explained by English language proficiency. Cancer experiences and outcomes may be improved with a greater emphasis on coordination of care and improving communication with foreign-born patients, including additional services such as interpreters and patient navigators.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Materials and Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  8. REFERENCES

We thank the patients and surrogates who responded to the survey. We also thank Garrett Kirk for administrative support, Hocine Azeni for assistance with statistical analyses, and the CanCORS Statistical Coordinating Center and David Nerenz for assistance with coding of primary cancer treatments based on the medical record data

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Materials and Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  8. REFERENCES

The Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to the Statistical Coordinating Center (U01 CA093344) and the NCI-supported Primary Data Collection and Research Centers (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Cancer Research Network [U01 CA093332], Harvard Medical School/Northern California Cancer Center [U01 CA093324], RAND/University of California, Los Angeles [U01 CA093348], University of Alabama at Birmingham [U01 CA093329], University of Iowa [U01 CA093339], and University of North Carolina [U01 CA093326]) and by a Department of Veterans Affairs grant to the Durham VA Medical Center (CRS 02-164).

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Materials and Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  8. REFERENCES
  • 1
    Kouri EM, He Y, Winer EP, Keating NL. Influence of birthplace on breast cancer diagnosis and treatment for Hispanic women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009; 121: 743-751.
  • 2
    Hedeen AN, White E. Breast cancer size and stage in Hispanic American women, by birthplace: 1992-1995. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91: 122-125.
  • 3
    Hedeen AN, White E, Taylor V. Ethnicity and birthplace in relation to tumor size and stage in Asian American women with breast cancer. Am J Public Health. 1999; 89: 1248-1252.
  • 4
    Gomez SL, Clarke CA, Shema SJ, Chang ET, Keegan TH, Glaser SL. Disparities in breast cancer survival among Asian women by ethnicity and immigrant status: a population-based study. Am J Public Health. 2010; 100: 861-869.
  • 5
    Choe JH, Koepsell TD, Heagerty PJ, Taylor VM. Colorectal cancer among Asians and Pacific Islanders in the U.S.: survival disadvantage for the foreign-born. Cancer Detect Prev. 2005; 29: 361-368.
  • 6
    Chuang SC, Chen W, Hashibe M, Li G, Zhang ZF. Survival rates of invasive breast cancer among ethnic Chinese women born in East Asia and the United States. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2006; 7: 221-226.
  • 7
    Shih YC, Elting LS, Levin B. Disparities in colorectal screening between US-born and foreign-born populations: evidence from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. J Cancer Educ. 2008; 23: 18-25.
  • 8
    Tsui J, Saraiya M, Thompson T, Dey A, Richardson L. Cervical cancer screening among foreign-born women by birthplace and duration in the United States. J Womens Health (Larchmt.) 2007; 16: 1447-1457.
  • 9
    Kandula NR, Wen M, Jacobs EA, Lauderdale DS. Low rates of colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening in Asian Americans compared with non-Hispanic whites: cultural influences or access to care? Cancer. 2006; 107: 184-192.
  • 10
    Jacobs EA, Lauderdale DS, Meltzer D, Shorey JM, Levinson W, Thisted RA. Impact of interpreter services on delivery of health care to limited-English-proficient patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2001; 16: 468-474.
  • 11
    Fiscella K, Franks P, Doescher MP, Saver BG. Disparities in health care by race, ethnicity, and language among the insured: findings from a national sample. Med Care. 2002; 40: 52-59.
  • 12
    Pineda MD, White E, Kristal AR, Taylor V. Asian breast cancer survival in the US: a comparison between Asian immigrants, US-born Asian Americans and Caucasians. Int J Epidemiol. 2001; 30: 976-982.
  • 13
    Byfield SA, Earle CC, Ayanian JZ, McCarthy EP. Treatment and outcomes of gastric cancer among United States-born and foreign-born Asians and Pacific Islanders. Cancer. 2009; 115: 4595-4605.
  • 14
    Lin SS, O'Malley CD, Clarke CA, Le GM. Birthplace and survival among Asian women diagnosed with breast cancer in cancer registry data: the impact of selection bias. Int J Epidemiol. 2002; 31: 511-513.
  • 15
    Lin SS, Clarke CA, O'Malley CD, Le GM. Studying cancer incidence and outcomes in immigrants: methodological concerns. Am J Public Health. 2002; 92: 1757-1759.
  • 16
    Gomez SL, Glaser SL. Quality of birthplace information obtained from death certificates for Hispanics, Asians, and Pacific Islanders. Ethn Dis. 2004; 14: 292-295.
  • 17
    Gomez SL, Glaser SL, Kelsey JL, Lee MM. Bias in completeness of birthplace data for Asian groups in a population-based cancer registry (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2004; 15: 243-253.
  • 18
    Gomez SL, Glaser SL. Quality of cancer registry birthplace data for Hispanics living in the United States. Cancer Causes Control. 2005; 16: 713-723.
  • 19
    Grieco EM. Race and Hispanic Origin of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2007. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Economics, and Statistics Administration; 2010.
  • 20
    Ayanian JZ, Chrischilles EA, Fletcher RH, et al. Understanding cancer treatment and outcomes: the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22: 2992-2996.
  • 21
    National Cancer Institute. Cancer Care Outcomes Research & Surveillance Consortium. Available at: http://www.outcomes.cancer.gov/cancors/. Accessed November 24, 2009.
  • 22
    American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions–Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 2008. Available at: http://www.aapor.org/ Resources_for_Researchers.htm. Accessed January 12, 2010.
  • 23
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Version 1. Fort Washington, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2004.
  • 24
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Colon Cancer. Version 1. Fort Washington, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2004.
  • 25
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Rectal Cancer. Version 1. Fort Washington, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2004.
  • 26
    Clegg LX, Potosky AL, Harlan LC, et al. Comparison of self-reported initial treatment with medical records: results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. Am J Epidemiol. 2001; 154: 582-587.
  • 27
    Oberst K, Bradley CJ, Schenk M. Breast and prostate cancer patient's reliability of treatment reporting. J Registry Manag. 2009; 36: 12-15.
  • 28
    Schootman M, Jeffe DB, West MM, Aft R. Self-report by elderly breast cancer patients was an acceptable alternative to surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) abstract data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58: 1316-1319.
  • 29
    Phillips KA, Milne RL, Buys S, et al. Agreement between self-reported breast cancer treatment and medical records in a population-based Breast Cancer Family Registry. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 4679-4686.
  • 30
    Maunsell E, Drolet M, Ouhoummane N, Robert J. Breast cancer survivors accurately reported key treatment and prognostic characteristics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58: 364-369.
  • 31
    He Y, Zaslavsky A, Landrum M, Harrington D, Catalano P. Multiple imputation in a large-scale complex survey: a practical guide [published online ahead of print DATE]. Stat Methods Med Res. doi: 10.1177/0962280208101273.
  • 32
    Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health Care System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
  • 33
    Ayanian JZ, Zaslavsky AM, Guadagnoli E, et al. Patients' perceptions of quality of care for colorectal cancer by race, ethnicity, and language. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 6576-6586.
  • 34
    Pitkin DK, Bahney BW, Lurie N, Escarce JJ. Review: immigrants and health care access, quality, and cost. Med Care Res Rev. 2009; 66: 355-408.
  • 35
    Ayanian JZ, Zaslavsky AM, Arora NK, et al. Patients' experiences with care for lung cancer and colorectal cancer: findings from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium. J Clin Oncol. In press.
  • 36
    Gomez SL, France AM, Lee MM. Socioeconomic status, immigration/acculturation, and ethnic variations in breast conserving surgery, San Francisco Bay area. Ethn Dis. 2004; 14: 134-140.
  • 37
    Goel MS, Burns RB, Phillips RS, Davis RB, Ngo-Metzger Q, McCarthy EP. Trends in breast conserving surgery among Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, 1992-2000. J Gen Intern Med. 2005; 20: 604-611.
  • 38
    Finlay GA, Joseph B, Rodrigues CR, Griffith J, White AC. Advanced presentation of lung cancer in Asian immigrants: a case-control study. Chest. 2002; 122: 1938-1943.
  • 39
    Fable- Munsuz A, Liang SY, Ponce NA, Walsh JM. Acculturation and colorectal cancer screening among older Latino adults: differential associations by national origin. J Gen Intern Med 2009; 24: 963-970.
  • 40
    Karliner LS, Jacobs EA, Chen AH, Mutha S. Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Serv Res. 2007; 42: 727-754.
  • 41
    Rose DE, Tisnado DM, Malin JL, et al. Use of interpreters by physicians treating limited English proficient women with breast cancer: results from the provider survey of the Los Angeles Women's Health Study. Health Serv Res. 2010; 45: 172-194.
  • 42
    Pham JT, Allen LJ, Gomez SL. Why do Asian-American women have lower rates of breast conserving surgery: results of a survey regarding physician perceptions. BMC Public Health. 2009; 9: 246.
  • 43
    Lurie N, Zhan C, Sangl J, Bierman AS, Sekscenski ES. Variation in racial and ethnic differences in consumer assessments of health care. Am J Manag Care. 2003; 9: 502-509.
  • 44
    Weech -Maldonado R, Elliott MN, Oluwole A, Cameron Schiller K, Hays RD. Survey response style and differential use of CAHPS rating scales by Hispanics. Med Care. 2008; 46: 963-968.
  • 45
    Pew Hispanic Center. Demographic Profile of Hispanics in California. Pew Hispanic Center; 2008. Available at: http://pewhispanic.org/states/?stateid=CA. Accessed December 4, 2009.