Lung cancer care: the impact of facilities and area measures
Review Article

Lung cancer care: the impact of facilities and area measures

Christopher S. Lathan

McGraw/Patterson Center for Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

Contributions: (I) Conception and design: CS Lathan; (II) Administrative support: A Kalisz; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: Not applicable; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: Not applicable; (V) Data analysis and interpretation: Not applicable; (VI) Manuscript writing: CS Lathan; (VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors.

Correspondence to: Christopher S. Lathan, MD, MS, MPH. McGraw/Patterson Center for Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Center, 450 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. Email: Christopher_Lathan@dfci.harvard.edu.

Abstract: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related mortality in the US, and while treatment disparities by race and class have been well described in the literature, the impact of social determinates of health, and specific characteristics of the treatment centers have been less well characterized. As the treatment of lung cancer relies more upon a precision and personalized medicine approach, where patients obtain treatment has an impact on outcomes and could be a major factor in treatment disparities. The purpose of this manuscript is to discuss the manner in which lung cancer care can be impacted by poor access to high quality treatment centers, and how the built environment can be a mitigating factor in the pursuit of treatment equity.

Keywords: Disparities; lung cancer; social determinates of health


Submitted Jul 17, 2015. Accepted for publication Jul 30, 2015.

doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2218-6751.2015.07.23


The reality of treatment disparities in lung cancer outcomes in the US has been well documented (1). Much of the research has focused on the individual effect of race and socioeconomic status in the attainment of stage appropriate therapies (2,3). Repeatedly, it has been shown that poorer patients of all races, and African Americans are less likely to receive stage-appropriate care, including surgery, radiation, and systemic therapy for their lung cancer (4-10). The reasons for treatment-based disparities are multifactorial, with contributions from patients, providers, and disease-related factors, which have garnered much of the research scrutiny (11). Along with race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic position, the role of access to care has been very important in the discussion of racial disparities (11-16). Given the importance of multidisciplinary team approaches and precision personalized treatment options, access to care takes on increased importance.

Referral patterns, residential segregation, institutional characteristics, and the overall ethos of the facility can drastically impact the ability of individual patients to obtain high quality treatment. Over 50 years of descriptive research has focused on patient level variables in disparities, but the impact of area measures has been less well characterized.


The impact of surgery

For lung cancer, the greatest impact on survival has always been in surgically resectable disease, and for this reason the focus of this review will be on the impact of the institutional and area effects, on attaining high quality surgical resection. Although early stage lung cancer only comprises a small percentage of the total cases of lung cancer (17), not having the opportunity to obtain curative treatment in even a small subset of patients can have a major impact on survival. This can affect African-Americans, and patients of lower SEP disproportionately (18). Being self- identified as Black or African American, race is a negative predictor of obtaining surgery for early stage disease. Bach et al. (4) in their seminal paper used the SEER-Medicare database to evaluate surgery patterns, and discovered treatment disparities in surgery for early stage lung cancer by race in an equal access system. This suggested that differences in survival between African-Americans and Whites could be explained by the difference in rates of surgery. When they did have surgery, however, similar treatment resulted in similar outcomes, with no difference in survival between the races (5).

Due to the results of these studies, patient preference has been considered as one factor in the lack of surgical attainment among ethnic minorities (19). Margolis et al. (20) evaluated beliefs about surgery, in African American men. The authors found that African American men at various hospitals believed that surgery for lung cancer caused the disease to spread. Some patients indicated that they would decline lung cancer surgery if offered for this very reason. While this could be a factor, in a SEER-Medicare data analysis of health care claims data in the US, review of the reasons that lung cancer surgery was not performed indicated that African-American patients had surgery recommended less often than Whites and also refused surgery slightly more than White patients (5). This has been replicated in state cancer registries (6).


Surgical volume and access to care

Expertise of the institution is often measured in volume of surgery. Surgical volume is one of the most studied variables in the literature. There is clearly a link between the volume of surgeries performed in a facility and the measured quality outcomes of the procedure (21). Work by Birkmeyer et al. examined this question in lung cancer, but also in cardiothoracic, and orthopedic surgery (22-27). The concentration of surgical oncology specialties in specific high volume centers reflects a pattern that can have deleterious effects on poor, and minority patient populations (28). If the hospitals that have the most expertise are also the least diverse, this could lead to an exacerbation of the known disparities in lung cancer.


Access to specialized cancer centers

A systematic review by Reade and Elit found survival and other patient outcomes in ovarian cancer were more favorable for patients treated by “specialized high-volume physicians at specialized high-volume centers” (29). Research by Onega et al. has further suggested that the effects of racial disparities on African Americans, particularly mortality risk for lung, breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers, were attenuated for patients at National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers (28). A key challenge to increasing access to NCI cancer centers for underserved populations is access to referral pathways. Typically, cancer-related care may be obtained through multiple pathways depending on: the presence and severity of symptoms, whether a patient has an established primary care provider, and subsequent evaluation findings. In each leg of each pathway, delays in diagnosis and treatment may occur due to missed appointments, time lags in appointments with specialists, lack of follow up by primary or specialist care providers, or lack of patient follow up. Delays and under-referral to these specialists are problematic given evidence that the care specialized cancer centers provide yields improved outcomes (30-33).

The idea that African-American patients refuse treatment more that White patients due to distrust of the medical system is prevalent, and is often attributed to the devastating effect of the Tuskegee experiments (13). While mistrust likely plays a role in health disparities, it is but one of the many factors that account for treatment choices.

In fact, the reason for lower rates of surgery for underrepresented patients with lung cancer is likely due to a combination of factors, similar to the reasons for underrepresentation in clinical trials, including: decreased access to trials, physician triage approaches and awareness of novel therapies, distrust of medical research, and structural barriers to trial entry (34-37). As noted by Ford et al., “this lack of diversity in randomized study populations reduces opportunities for discovering effects that may be particularly relevant to underrepresented populations” (38).


Built environment

The impact of the neighborhood on public health has become a very important aspect of treatment. Area measures of socioeconomic status, including census tract, and county measures of poverty have been used to elucidate the effect of environment on disease outcomes. The use of this variable in lung cancer has been understudied. The next stage of cancer care disparities research involves combining the individual level data, with area level measures that can incorporate neighborhood effects. Work by Krieger et al. (39-42) has emphasized the importance of adding area-based socioeconomic measures to these types of analyses. The addition of area-based measures allows for further evaluation of neighborhood level factors that can cause disparities, as the built environment can affect all areas of the cancer continuum (43-45). Health behaviors, as well as the health of individuals, are a consequence of social, biological, and behavioral interactions (46,47). However, the multilevel nature of these inter-relations makes them complicated to model in ways that can disaggregate the impact of environmental factors from individual factors (43,46). Recent advances in multilevel and systems analysis methods have led to a rapidly growing literature on the influence of environments on health behaviors and chronic disease risk factors (48). Studies examining neighborhood characteristics have found persistent associations, after adjustment for individual-level variables, with health-related characteristics such as smoking, physical activity, intake of healthy foods, self-reported health, as well as chronic disease and risk factors such as overweight/obesity (49-60), hypertension, dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, kidney disease, sub-clinical atherosclerosis, and type 2 diabetes (55,60-64).


Solutions

Delivery models incorporating collaborative care between oncology specialists and primary care providers offer the potential to improve patient care in several areas, including continuity of care, managing co-morbidities, and supportive care (65). A wide range of primary-specialist collaborative care models exist: affiliations between community health centers (CHCs) and specialty practices or hospitals; telephone and videoconference provider-provider consultations; visiting specialist services/outreach clinics in primary health care settings; co-locations of independent primary and specialty care practices; specialists from other institutions stationed at CHCs; specialists employed within a CHC; CHCs that provide primary and specialized care for specific patient populations (e.g., behavioral health, substance abuse); and specialty practices that employ primary care providers (66-72). Furthermore, co-location fosters effective communication and collaborations between primary care providers and specialists, especially in the case of interventions that include multiple opportunities for interactions such as educational sessions, seminars and joint consultations (66,68). Indeed, there are well-documented problems relating to incomplete transfer of medical information from primary care to specialists and back again, especially with respect to referral for oncology and hematology (73).

Collaborative care is increasingly being pursued within the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) context (71,74). The PCMH is a model for primary health care based on the following principles: (I) each patient has a personal physician who (II) leads a team responsible for the patient’s care and (III) is responsible for providing or arranging care to meet all of the patient’s health care needs; (IV) patient care is coordinated within and across institutions; a framework provides guidelines for (V) quality and safety and (VI) appropriate payment structures; and (VII) patients receive enhanced access to care, such as expanded hours for appointments and multiple forms of communication channels with providers (75). Although review articles have noted the need for greater methodological rigor in PCMH evaluations (76-79), preliminary data have been favorable overall, with reported decreases in hospitalizations and improvements in health outcomes and patient satisfaction (77,79-81). Owing to the potential for PCMHs to improve healthcare quality, access and costs, many Federally Qualified Health Centers have decided to implement the PCMH model (82).

The literature on patient-centered medical homes, co-location, integrated care and coordinated care describes successful collaborations between specialist and primary care in other disease areas (71,83-86), and calls have been made for establishing such collaborations for oncology (65,87). A review of clinical innovations included in the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) Health Care Innovations Exchange identifies several co-location models, including gynecological care co-located at an HIV clinic and a breast examination center located within a radiology department (88,89). The only AHRQ identified model that co-locates oncology and primary care (90) does not target underserved populations, but patients with comprehensive insurance, and is limited in providers, resources, and scope (91,92).

In order to alleviate some of the area based and facility based disparities in lung cancer care, collaborations with community centers are needed, and new models of care delivery are necessary to allow all patients to have access to the latest approaches and developments in lung cancer treatment. The lack of data on molecular targets in lung cancer for African Americans is a specific example of this problem (93). Without adequate access, as personalized medicine becomes standard, there is a possibility that cancer treatment outcomes could worsen for underrepresented populations, even as treatments improve for the general population (94).


Acknowledgements

The author thanks to Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon for his guidance on this topic.


Footnote

Conflicts of Interest: Current member Disparities Advisory Board for Eli Lilly and Company.


References

  1. Nguyen KS, Sanford RA, Huberman MS, et al. Patterns of care for non-small-cell lung cancer at an academic institution affiliated with a national cancer institute-designated cancer center. J Oncol Pract 2012;8:57-62. [PubMed]
  2. Singh GK, Williams SD, Siahpush M, et al. Socioeconomic, Rural-Urban, and Racial Inequalities in US Cancer Mortality: Part I-All Cancers and Lung Cancer and Part II-Colorectal, Prostate, Breast, and Cervical Cancers. J Cancer Epidemiol 2011;2011:107497.
  3. Underwood JM, Townsend JS, Tai E, et al. Racial and regional disparities in lung cancer incidence. Cancer 2012;118:1910-8. [PubMed]
  4. Bach PB, Cramer LD, Warren JL, et al. Racial differences in the treatment of early-stage lung cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1198-205. [PubMed]
  5. Lathan CS, Neville BA, Earle CC. The effect of race on invasive staging and surgery in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:413-8. [PubMed]
  6. Esnaola NF, Gebregziabher M, Knott K, et al. Underuse of surgical resection for localized, non-small cell lung cancer among whites and African Americans in South Carolina. Ann Thorac Surg 2008;86:220-6; discussion 227. [PubMed]
  7. Farjah F, Wood DE, Yanez ND 3rd, et al. Racial disparities among patients with lung cancer who were recommended operative therapy. Arch Surg 2009;144:14-8. [PubMed]
  8. Geyer S. Social inequalities in the incidence and case fatality of cancers of the lung, the stomach, the bowels, and the breast. Cancer Causes Control 2008;19:965-74. [PubMed]
  9. Hardy D, Liu CC, Xia R, et al. Racial disparities and treatment trends in a large cohort of elderly black and white patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer 2009;115:2199-211. [PubMed]
  10. Hede K. Drilling down to the causes of racial disparities in lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:1385-7. [PubMed]
  11. Institute of Medicine. Unequal Treatment. Washington, DC, The National Academies Press, 2003.
  12. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures for Hispanics/Latinos 2012-2014. Atlanta, American Cancer Society, 2012
  13. Clayton B.The African American Health Dilemma Volume I-II, 2002.
  14. Mulligan CR, Meram AD, Proctor CD, et al. Unlimited access to care: effect on racial disparity and prognostic factors in lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:25-31. [PubMed]
  15. Jack RH, Gulliford MC, Ferguson J, et al. Explaining inequalities in access to treatment in lung cancer. J Eval Clin Pract 2006;12:573-82. [PubMed]
  16. Bradley CJ, Dahman B, Given CW. Inadequate access to surgeons: reason for disparate cancer care? Med Care 2009;47:758-64. [PubMed]
  17. NCI. SEER Registry Statistics by Cancer Site, 2005. Available online: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts
  18. Potosky AL, Saxman S, Wallace RB, et al. Population variations in the initial treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3261-8. [PubMed]
  19. Cykert S, Phifer N. Surgical decisions for early stage, non-small cell lung cancer: which racially sensitive perceptions of cancer are likely to explain racial variation in surgery? Med Decis Making 2003;23:167-76. [PubMed]
  20. Margolis ML, Christie JD, Silvestri GA, et al. Racial differences pertaining to a belief about lung cancer surgery: results of a multicenter survey. Ann Intern Med 2003;139:558-63. [PubMed]
  21. von Meyenfeldt EM, Gooiker GA, van Gijn W, et al. The relationship between volume or surgeon specialty and outcome in the surgical treatment of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Oncol 2012;7:1170-8. [PubMed]
  22. Morris AM, Rhoads KF, Stain SC, et al. Understanding racial disparities in cancer treatment and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 2010;211:105-13. [PubMed]
  23. Morris AM, Billingsley KG, Hayanga AJ, et al. Residual treatment disparities after oncology referral for rectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:738-44. [PubMed]
  24. Lucas FL, Stukel TA, Morris AM, et al. Race and surgical mortality in the United States. Ann Surg 2006;243:281-6. [PubMed]
  25. Goodney PP, Lucas FL, Stukel TA, et al. Surgeon specialty and operative mortality with lung resection. Ann Surg 2005;241:179-84. [PubMed]
  26. Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Variation in hospital mortality associated with inpatient surgery. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1368-75. [PubMed]
  27. Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2117-27. [PubMed]
  28. Onega T, Duell EJ, Shi X, et al. Race versus place of service in mortality among medicare beneficiaries with cancer. Cancer 2010;116:2698-706. [PubMed]
  29. Reade C, Elit L. Trends in gynecologic cancer care in North America. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2012;39:107-29. [PubMed]
  30. Luo R, Giordano SH, Freeman JL, et al. Referral to medical oncology: a crucial step in the treatment of older patients with stage III colon cancer. Oncologist 2006;11:1025-33. [PubMed]
  31. Luo R, Giordano SH, Zhang DD, et al. The role of the surgeon in whether patients with lymph node-positive colon cancer see a medical oncologist. Cancer 2007;109:975-82. [PubMed]
  32. Onega T, Duell EJ, Shi X, et al. Influence of NCI cancer center attendance on mortality in lung, breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients. Med Care Res Rev 2009;66:542-60. [PubMed]
  33. Skinner KA, Helsper JT, Deapen D, et al. Breast cancer: do specialists make a difference? Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:606-15. [PubMed]
  34. Colon-Otero G, Smallridge RC, Solberg LA Jr, et al. Disparities in participation in cancer clinical trials in the United States: a symptom of a healthcare system in crisis. Cancer 2008;112:447-54. [PubMed]
  35. Shaya FT, Gbarayor CM. A perspective on African American participation in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials 2007;28:213-7. [PubMed]
  36. Schmotzer GL. Barriers and facilitators to participation of minorities in clinical trials. Ethn Dis 2012;22:226-30. [PubMed]
  37. Jimenez R, Zhang B, Joffe S, et al. Clinical trial participation among ethnic/racial minority and majority patients with advanced cancer: what factors most influence enrollment? J Palliat Med 2013;16:256-62. [PubMed]
  38. Ford JG, Howerton MW, Lai GY, et al. Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review. Cancer 2008;112:228-42. [PubMed]
  39. 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;22:2992-6. [PubMed]
  40. Krieger N. Overcoming the absence of socioeconomic data in medical records: validation and application of a census-based methodology. Am J Public Health 1992;82:703-10. [PubMed]
  41. Krieger N. A century of census tracts: health & the body politic (1906-2006). J Urban Health 2006;83:355-61. [PubMed]
  42. Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD, et al. Painting a truer picture of US socioeconomic and racial/ethnic health inequalities: the Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project. Am J Public Health 2005;95:312-23. [PubMed]
  43. Gomez SL, Glaser SL, McClure LA, et al. The California Neighborhoods Data System: a new resource for examining the impact of neighborhood characteristics on cancer incidence and outcomes in populations. Cancer Causes Control 2011;22:631-47. [PubMed]
  44. Lynch J, Kaplan GA. Socioeconomic Position. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
  45. Weissman JS, Schneider EC. Social disparities in cancer: lessons from a multidisciplinary workshop. Cancer Causes Control 2005;16:71-4. [PubMed]
  46. Marmot M. Multilevel approaches to understanding social determinants. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
  47. Subramanian SV, Chen JT, Rehkopf DH, et al. Racial disparities in context: a multilevel analysis of neighborhood variations in poverty and excess mortality among black populations in Massachusetts. Am J Public Health 2005;95:260-5. [PubMed]
  48. Casagrande SS, Whitt-Glover MC, Lancaster KJ, et al. Built environment and health behaviors among African Americans: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2009;36:174-81. [PubMed]
  49. Morgan PD, Tyler ID, Fogel J. Fatalism revisited. Semin Oncol Nurs 2008;24:237-45. [PubMed]
  50. Sharkey JR, Horel S, Dean WR. Neighborhood deprivation, vehicle ownership, and potential spatial access to a variety of fruits and vegetables in a large rural area in Texas. Int J Health Geogr 2010;9:26. [PubMed]
  51. Zenk SN, Lachance LL, Schulz AJ, et al. Neighborhood retail food environment and fruit and vegetable intake in a multiethnic urban population. Am J Health Promot 2009;23:255-64. [PubMed]
  52. Dubowitz T, Heron M, Bird CE, et al. Neighborhood socioeconomic status and fruit and vegetable intake among whites, blacks, and Mexican Americans in the United States. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:1883-91. [PubMed]
  53. Fisher KJ, Li F, Michael Y, et al. Neighborhood-level influences on physical activity among older adults: a multilevel analysis. J Aging Phys Act 2004;12:45-63. [PubMed]
  54. Smith DM, Cummins S, Taylor M, et al. Neighbourhood food environment and area deprivation: spatial accessibility to grocery stores selling fresh fruit and vegetables in urban and rural settings. Int J Epidemiol 2010;39:277-84. [PubMed]
  55. Bodor JN, Rice JC, Farley TA, et al. The association between obesity and urban food environments. J Urban Health 2010;87:771-81. [PubMed]
  56. Black JL, Macinko J. The changing distribution and determinants of obesity in the neighborhoods of New York City, 2003-2007. Am J Epidemiol 2010;171:765-75. [PubMed]
  57. Do DP, Dubowitz T, Bird CE, et al. Neighborhood context and ethnicity differences in body mass index: a multilevel analysis using the NHANES III survey (1988-1994). Econ Hum Biol 2007;5:179-203. [PubMed]
  58. Mujahid MS, Diez Roux AV, Shen M, et al. Relation between neighborhood environments and obesity in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Am J Epidemiol 2008;167:1349-57. [PubMed]
  59. Mujahid MS, Diez Roux AV, Borrell LN, et al. Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations of BMI with socioeconomic characteristics. Obes Res 2005;13:1412-21. [PubMed]
  60. Li F, Harmer PA, Cardinal BJ, et al. Built environment, adiposity, and physical activity in adults aged 50-75. Am J Prev Med 2008;35:38-46. [PubMed]
  61. Merkin SS, Coresh J, Diez Roux AV, et al. Area socioeconomic status and progressive CKD: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. Am J Kidney Dis 2005;46:203-13. [PubMed]
  62. Li F, Harmer P, Cardinal BJ, et al. Built environment and changes in blood pressure in middle aged and older adults. Prev Med 2009;48:237-41. [PubMed]
  63. Hickson DA, Diez Roux AV, Smith AE, et al. Associations of fast food restaurant availability with dietary intake and weight among African Americans in the Jackson Heart Study, 2000-2004. Am J Public Health 2011;101 Suppl 1:S301-9. [PubMed]
  64. Hickson DA, Diez Roux AV, Wyatt SB, et al. Socioeconomic position is positively associated with blood pressure dipping among African-American adults: the Jackson Heart Study. Am J Hypertens 2011;24:1015-21. [PubMed]
  65. Sussman J, Baldwin LM. The interface of primary and oncology specialty care: from diagnosis through primary treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010;2010:18-24.
  66. Forrest CB. A typology of specialists' clinical roles. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1062-8. [PubMed]
  67. Neuhausen K, Grumbach K, Bazemore A, et al. Integrating community health centers into organized delivery systems can improve access to subspecialty care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2012;31:1708-16. [PubMed]
  68. Gruen RL, Weeramanthri TS, Knight SE, et al. Specialist outreach clinics in primary care and rural hospital settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004.CD003798. [PubMed]
  69. Kwan L, Ho CJ, Preston C, et al. Puentes clinic: an integrated model for the primary care of vulnerable populations. Perm J 2008;12:10-5. [PubMed]
  70. Nash JM, McKay KM, Vogel ME, et al. Functional roles and foundational characteristics of psychologists in integrated primary care. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 2012;19:93-104. [PubMed]
  71. Amiel JM, Pincus HA. The medical home model: new opportunities for psychiatric services in the United States. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2011;24:562-8. [PubMed]
  72. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2001.
  73. Abel GA, Friese CR, Neville BA, et al. Referrals for suspected hematologic malignancy: a survey of primary care physicians. Am J Hematol 2012;87:634-6. [PubMed]
  74. Bojadzievski T, Gabbay RA. Patient-centered medical home and diabetes. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1047-53. [PubMed]
  75. American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, et al: Joint Principles of the Patient-Centered Medical Home, 2007.
  76. Peikes D, Zutshi A, Genevro JL, et al. Early evaluations of the medical home: building on a promising start. Am J Manag Care 2012;18:105-16. [PubMed]
  77. Fields D, Leshen E, Patel K. Analysis & commentary. Driving quality gains and cost savings through adoption of medical homes. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010;29:819-26. [PubMed]
  78. Crabtree BF, Chase SM, Wise CG, et al. Evaluation of patient centered medical home practice transformation initiatives. Med Care 2011;49:10-6. [PubMed]
  79. Arend J, Tsang-Quinn J, Levine C, et al. The patient-centered medical home: history, components, and review of the evidence. Mt Sinai J Med 2012;79:433-50. [PubMed]
  80. Rosenthal TC. The medical home: growing evidence to support a new approach to primary care. J Am Board Fam Med 2008;21:427-40. [PubMed]
  81. Schram AP. The Patient-Centered Medical Home: transforming primary care. Nurse Pract 2012;37:33-9. [PubMed]
  82. Quinn MT, Gunter KE, Nocon RS, et al. Undergoing transformation to the patient centered medical home in safety net health centers: perspectives from the front lines. Ethn Dis 2013;23:356-62. [PubMed]
  83. Judd F, Davis J, Hodgins G, et al. Rural Integrated Primary Care Psychiatry Programme: a systems approach to education, training and service integration. Australas Psychiatry 2004;12:42-7. [PubMed]
  84. Katon W, Unützer J. Consultation psychiatry in the medical home and accountable care organizations: achieving the triple aim. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2011;33:305-10. [PubMed]
  85. Walker BB, Collins CA. Developing an integrated primary care practice: strategies, techniques, and a case illustration. J Clin Psychol 2009;65:268-80. [PubMed]
  86. Butcher L. Building a medical neighborhood. Hosp Health Netw 2011;85:31-2, 34. [PubMed]
  87. Wender RC, Altshuler M. Can the medical home reduce cancer morbidity and mortality? Prim Care 2009;36:845-58. table of contents. [PubMed]
  88. AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange: Co-located gynecologic services within an HIV clinic increases cervical cancer screening rates, leading to identification and treatment of many cancer cases, 2013.
  89. AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange: Nurse practitioner-staffed clinic offers same-day, comprehensive appointments to patients with breast symptoms, leading to faster diagnosis and lower costs, 2013.
  90. AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange: Co-located, independent primary care and specialty practices collaborate to enhance access, improve quality and satisfaction, 2013.
  91. Available online: https://innovations.ahrq.gov/
  92. Village Legacy Medical. Hematology and oncology 2013.
  93. Ma PC. Molecular Genetic Variations of Lung Cancer between Human Populations. Presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Mccormick Place Chigago, Illinois June 7 2010, 2010.
  94. Kaur JS, Petereit DG. Personalized medicine: challenge and promise. J Cancer Educ 2012;27:S12-7. [PubMed]
Cite this article as: Lathan CS. Lung cancer care: the impact of facilities and area measures. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2015;4(4):385-391. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2218-6751.2015.07.23