Utilization, Timing, and Outcomes of BRCA Genetic Testing Among Women With Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer From a National Commercially Insured Population: The ABOARD Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate timing and outcomes of BRCA testing and definitive surgical treatment among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. METHODS: Patient-reported (n = 1,381) and deidentified health-plan (n = 2,369) data were analyzed from a consecutive national series of 3,750 women whose healthcare providers ordered BRCA testing between March 2014 and June 2015, within 1 year following breast cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 1,209 respondents, 54.4% received the genetic test results presurgery, 23.2% tested presurgery but received the results postsurgery, and 22.3% tested postsurgery. Patients aware of mutation-positive results presurgery were more likely to choose bilateral mastectomy (BLM) (n = 32/37) compared with patients who learned of positive results postsurgery (n = 14/32), (odds ratio [OR] = 8.23, 95% CI = 2.55 to 26.59, P < .001). When compared with women tested postsurgery, only women unaware of negative results presurgery had higher BLM rates (adjusted OR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.07 to 2.69, P = .02). Among women > 50 tested presurgery, those unaware of negative results presurgery were more likely to choose BLM (n = 28/81) compared with those aware of negative results (n = 32/168) (OR = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.23 to 4.08, negative results awareness × age interaction, and P = .007). CONCLUSION: Nearly half of participants did not receive BRCA results presurgery, which limited their ability to make fully informed surgical treatment decisions. This may represent suboptimal care for unaware mutation-positive patients compared with those who were aware presurgery. Women > 50 who test negative are significantly less likely to choose BLM, a costly surgery that does not confer survival advantage, if they are aware of negative results presurgery. These results have important implications for quality of care and costs in the US health system.

Initial Management of Noncastrate Advanced, Recurrent, or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: Update all preceding ASCO guidelines on initial hormonal management of noncastrate advanced, recurrent, or metastatic prostate cancer. METHODS: The Expert Panel based recommendations on a systematic literature review. Recommendations were approved by the Expert Panel and the ASCO Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee. RESULTS: Four clinical practice guidelines, one clinical practice guidelines endorsement, 19 systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, 47 phase III randomized controlled trials, nine cohort studies, and two review papers informed the guideline update. RECOMMENDATIONS: Docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, or apalutamide, each when administered with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), represent four separate standards of care for noncastrate metastatic prostate cancer. Currently, the use of any of these agents in any particular combination or series cannot be recommended. ADT plus docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, or apalutamide should be offered to men with metastatic noncastrate prostate cancer, including those who received prior therapies, but have not yet progressed. The combination of ADT plus abiraterone and prednisolone should be considered for men with noncastrate locally advanced nonmetastatic prostate cancer who have undergone radiotherapy, rather than castration monotherapy. Immediate ADT may be offered to men who initially present with noncastrate locally advanced nonmetastatic disease who have not undergone previous local treatment and are unwilling or unable to undergo radiotherapy. Intermittent ADT may be offered to men with high-risk biochemically recurrent nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Active surveillance may be offered to men with low-risk biochemically recurrent nonmetastatic prostate cancer. The panel does not support use of either micronized abiraterone acetate or the 250 mg dose of abiraterone with a low-fat breakfast in the noncastrate setting at this time.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines.

Employment Outcomes Among Cancer Survivors in the United States: Implications for Cancer Care Delivery.

The national prevalence of employment changes after a cancer diagnosis has not been fully documented. Cancer survivors who worked for pay at or since diagnosis (n = 1490) were identified from the 2011, 2016, and 2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and Experiences with Cancer supplement. Analyses characterized employment changes due to cancer and identified correlates of those employment changes. Employment changes were made by 41.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 38.0% to 44.6%) of cancer survivors, representing more than 3.5 million adults in the United States. Of these, 75.4% (95% CI = 71.3% to 79.2%) took extended paid time off and 46.1% (95% CI = 41.6% to 50.7%) made other changes, including switching to part-time or to a less demanding job. Cancer survivors who were younger, female, non-White, or multiple races and ethnicities, and younger than age 20 years since last cancer treatment were more likely to make employment changes. Findings highlight the need for patient-provider communication about the effects of cancer and its treatment on employment.

Medical Financial Hardship Intensity and Financial Sacrifice Associated with Cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: With rising costs of cancer care, this study aims to estimate the prevalence of, and factors associated with, medical financial hardship intensity and financial sacrifices due to cancer in the United States. METHODS: We identified 963 cancer survivors from the 2016 Medical Expenditures Panel Survey - Experiences with Cancer. Medical financial hardship due to cancer was measured in material (e.g., filed for bankruptcy), psychological (e.g., worry about paying bills and finances), and behavioral (e.g., delaying or forgoing care due to cost) domains. Nonmedical financial sacrifices included changes in spending and use of savings. Multivariable logistic models were used to identify characteristics associated with hardship intensity and sacrifices stratified by age group (18-64 or 65+ years). RESULTS: Among cancer survivors ages 18 to 64 years, 53.6%, 28.4%, and 11.4% reported at least one, two, or all three domains of hardship, respectively. Among survivors ages 65+ years, corresponding percentages were 42.0%, 12.7%, and 4.0%, respectively. Moreover, financial sacrifices due to cancer were more common in survivors ages 18 to 64 years (54.2%) than in survivors 65+ years (38.4%; P < 0.001). Factors significantly associated with hardship intensity in multivariable analyses included low income and educational attainment, racial/ethnic minority, comorbidity, lack of private insurance coverage, extended employment change, and recent cancer treatment. Most were also significantly associated with financial sacrifices. CONCLUSIONS: Medical financial hardship and financial sacrifices are substantial among cancer survivors in the United States, particularly for younger survivors. IMPACT: Efforts to mitigate financial hardship for cancer survivors are warranted, especially for those at high risk.

The social and economic toll of cancer survivorship: a complex web of financial sacrifice.

PURPOSE: To assess the financial outcomes and associated social and economic effects on cancer survivors and their families. METHODS: We assessed the responses of 1656 cancer survivors to a survey with both closed- and open-ended questions about cancer-related financial sacrifices they and their family experienced and evaluated differences in financial sacrifice by reported levels of cancer-related debt. RESULTS: The most commonly reported financial sacrifices included cutbacks on household budgets, challenges with health care insurance and costs, career/self-advancement constraints, reduction/depletion of assets, and inability to pay bills. Survivors who incurred $10,000 or more in debt were significantly more likely to report social and economic impacts, including housing concerns and strained relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis demonstrates both the frequency with which cancer survivors and families must make financial sacrifices as a result of their cancer, and the variety of forms that this sacrifice can take, even for individuals who have health insurance. The many types of financial hardship create challenges that are unique to each survivor and family. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Interventions that allow for personalized assistance with the specific financial and social needs of cancer survivors and their families have the potential to address a critical aspect of the long-term wellbeing of this important population.

ROLE OF CANCER HISTORY AND GENDER IN MAJOR HEALTH INSURANCE TRANSITIONS: A LONGITUDINAL NATIONALLY REPRESENTATIVE STUDY.

PURPOSE ­: To examine associations by gender between cancer history and major health insurance transitions (gains and losses), and relationships between insurance transitions and access to care. METHODOLOGY ­: Longitudinal 2008-2013 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data pooled yielding 2,223 cancer survivors and 50,692 individuals with no cancer history ages 18-63 years upon survey entry, with gender-specific sub-analyses. Access-to-care implications of insurance loss or gain were compared by cancer history and gender. FINDINGS ­: Initially uninsured cancer survivors were significantly more likely to gain insurance coverage than individuals with no cancer history (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.08-1.44). Females in particular were significantly more likely to gain insurance (unmarried RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.06-1.28; married RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.02-1.16). Significantly higher rates of difficulty accessing needed medical care and prescription medications were reported by those remaining uninsured, those who lost insurance, and women in general. Remaining uninsured, losing insurance, and male gender were associated with lack of a usual source of care. RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS ­: Additional outreach to disadvantaged populations is needed to improve access to affordable insurance and medical care. Future longitudinal studies should assess whether major Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions enacted after the 2008-2013 study period (or those of ACA's replacement) are addressing these important issues. ORIGINALITY ­: Loss of health insurance coverage can reduce health care access resulting in poor health outcomes. Cancer survivors may be particularly at risk of insurance coverage gaps due to the long-term chronic disease trajectory. This study is novel in exploring associations between cancer history by gender and health insurance transitions, both gains and losses, in a national non-elderly adult sample.

Impact of sociodemographic characteristics on underemployment in a longitudinal, nationally representative study of cancer survivors: Evidence for the importance of gender and marital status.

BACKGROUND: We examined the longitudinal association between sociodemographic factors and an expanded definition of underemployment among those with and without cancer history in the United States. METHODS: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (2007-2013) were used in multivariable regression analyses to compare employment status between baseline and two-year follow-up among adults aged 25-62 years at baseline (n = 1,614 with and n = 39,324 without cancer). Underemployment was defined as becoming/staying unemployed, changing from full to part-time, or reducing part-time work significantly. Interaction effects between cancer history/time since diagnosis and predictors known to be associated with employment patterns, including age, gender/marital status, education, and health insurance status at baseline were modeled. RESULTS: Approximately 25% of cancer survivors and 21% of individuals without cancer reported underemployment at follow-up (p = 0.002). Multivariable analyses indicated that those with a cancer history report underemployment more frequently (24.7%) than those without cancer (21.4%, p = 0.002) with underemployment rates increasing with time since cancer diagnosis. A significant interaction between gender/marital status and cancer history and underemployment was found (p = 0.0004). There were no other significant interactions. Married female survivors diagnosed >10 years ago reported underemployment most commonly (38.7%), and married men without cancer reported underemployment most infrequently (14.0%). A wider absolute difference in underemployment reports for married versus unmarried women as compared to married versus unmarried men was evident, with the widest difference apparent for unmarried versus married women diagnosed >10 years ago (18.1% vs. 38.7%). CONCLUSION: Cancer survivors are more likely to experience underemployment than those without cancer. Longer time since cancer diagnosis and gender/marital status are critical factors in predicting those at greatest risk of underemployment. The impact of cancer on work should be systematically studied across sociodemographic groups and recognized as a component of comprehensive survivorship care.

Exploring barriers to the receipt of necessary medical care among cancer survivors under age 65 years.

PURPOSE: With increasing cancer care costs and greater patient cost-sharing in the USA, understanding access to medical care among cancer survivors is imperative. This study aims to identify financial, psychosocial, and cancer-related barriers to the receipt of medical care, tests, or treatments deemed necessary by the doctor or patient for cancer among cancer survivors age < 65 years. METHODS: We used data on 4321 cancer survivors aged 18-64 years who completed the 2012 LIVESTRONG Survey. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors associated with the receipt of necessary medical care, including sociodemographic, financial hardship, debt amount, caregiver status, and cancer-related variables. RESULTS: Approximately 28% of cancer survivors were within 1 year, and 43% between 1 and 5 years, since their last treatment at the time of survey. Nearly 9% of cancer survivors reported not receiving necessary medical care. Compared to survivors without financial hardship, the likelihood of not receiving necessary medical care significantly increased as the amount of debt increased among those with financial hardship (RRFinancial hardship w/< $10,000 debt = 1.94, 95% CI 1.55-2.42, and RR RRFinancial hardship w/≥ $10,000 debt = 3.41, 95% CI 2.69-4.33, p < 0.001). Survivors who reported lack of a caregiver, being uninsured, and not receiving help understanding medical bills were significantly more likely to not receive necessary medical care. CONCLUSION: We identified key financial and insurance risk factors that may serve as significant barriers to the receipt of necessary medical care among cancer survivors age < 65 in the USA IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The majority of cancer survivors reported receiving medical care either they or their doctors deemed necessary. However, identifying potentially modifiable barriers to receipt of necessary medical cancer care among cancer survivors age < 65 is imperative for developing interventions to ensure equitable access to care and reducing cancer disparities.

Second-Line Hormonal Therapy for Men With Chemotherapy-Naïve, Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion.

Purpose ASCO provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) offer direction to the ASCO membership after publication or presentation of potential practice-changing data. This PCO addresses second-line hormonal therapy for chemotherapy-naïve men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who range from being asymptomatic with only biochemical evidence of CRPC to having documented metastases but minimal symptoms. Clinical Context The treatment goal for CRPC is palliation. Despite resistance to initial androgen deprivation therapy, most men respond to second-line hormonal therapies. However, guidelines have neither addressed second-line hormonal therapy for nonmetastatic CRPC nor provided specific guidance with regard to the chemotherapy-naïve population. Recent Data Six phase III randomized controlled trials and expert consensus opinion inform this PCO. Provisional Clinical Opinion For men with CRPC, a castrate state should be maintained indefinitely. Second-line hormonal therapy (eg, antiandrogens, CYP17 inhibitors) may be considered in patients with nonmetastatic CRPC at high risk for metastatic disease (rapid prostate-specific antigen doubling time or velocity) but otherwise is not suggested. In patients with radiographic evidence of metastases and minimal symptoms, enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone should be offered after discussion with patients about potential harms, benefits, costs, and patient preferences. Radium-223 and sipuleucel-T also are options. No evidence provides guidance about the optimal order of hormonal therapies for CRPC beyond second-line treatment. Prostate-specific antigen testing every 4 to 6 months is reasonable for men without metastases. Routine radiographic restaging generally is not suggested but can be considered for patients at risk for metastases or who exhibit symptoms or other evidence of progression. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Employment implications of informal cancer caregiving.

PURPOSE: Previous research describing how informal cancer caregiving impacts employment has been conducted in small samples or a single disease site. This paper provides population-based estimates of the effect of informal cancer caregiving on employment and characterizes employment changes made by caregivers. METHODS: The samples included cancer survivors with a friend or family caregiver, participating in either the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Survey (ECSS) (n = 458) or the LIVESTRONG 2012 Survey for People Affected by Cancer (SPAC) (n = 4706). Descriptive statistics characterized the sample of survivors and their caregivers' employment changes. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of caregivers' extended employment changes, comprising time off and changes to hours, duties, or employment status. RESULTS: Among survivors with an informal caregiver, 25 % from the ECSS and 29 % from the SPAC reported that their caregivers made extended employment changes. Approximately 8 % of survivors had caregivers who took time off from work lasting ≥2 months. Caregivers who made extended employment changes were more likely to care for survivors: treated with chemotherapy or transplant; closer to diagnosis or end of treatment; who experienced functional limitations; and made work changes due to cancer themselves compared to caregivers who did not make extended employment changes. CONCLUSIONS: Many informal cancer caregivers make employment changes to provide care during survivors' treatment and recovery. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This study describes cancer caregiving in a prevalent sample of cancer survivors, thereby reflecting the experiences of individuals with many different cancer types and places in the cancer treatment trajectory.

Comparison of Comorbid Medical Conditions in the National Cancer Database and the SEER-Medicare Database.

BACKGROUND: Physicians routinely factor comorbidities into diagnostic and treatment decisions. Analyses of treatment patterns and outcomes using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) usually adjust for comorbidities; however, the completeness of comorbidity ascertainment in the NCDB has never been assessed. We compared the prevalence of comorbidities captured in the NCDB and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare among female breast, non-small-cell lung, and colorectal cancer patients aged ≥66. METHODS: In the NCDB, ten fields were searched for comorbidities. In the SEER-Medicare dataset, Medicare claims were used to identify comorbidities for two time periods: 12 months prior to diagnosis (Prior) and Index claim alone. Chi-square tests were used to compare comorbidity prevalence using propensity score-matched subsamples from each dataset. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses by Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score and data source were conducted. RESULTS: Comorbidity prevalence in NCDB did not differ significantly from that identified in SEER-Medicare Index claims across all three cancer sites, except for congestive heart failure, chronic pulmonary disease, and renal disease. However, when compared to the prevalence identified through SEER-Medicare Prior claims, comorbidity prevalence in the NCDB was lower. Overall survival rates by NCDB comorbidity scores were nearly identical to those based on SEER-Medicare Index claims but were lower than those based on SEER-Medicare Prior claims, particularly in higher comorbidity score categories. CONCLUSIONS: The study found overall similarity of comorbidity prevalence between NCDB and SEER-Medicare Index claims, but much less similarity between NCDB and SEER-Medicare Prior claims. Future researchers should understand the limitation of comorbidities ascertained in the NCDB and interpret results accordingly.

Quality of Patient-Provider Communication Among Cancer Survivors: Findings From a Nationally Representative Sample.

PURPOSE: Although patient-provider communication is an essential component of health care delivery, little is known about the quality of these discussions among patients with cancer. METHODS: Data are from the 2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer survey among 1,202 adult cancer survivors. We evaluated discussions with any provider after a cancer diagnosis about: (1) follow-up care; (2) late or long-term treatment effects; (3) lifestyle recommendations, such as diet, exercise, and quitting smoking; and (4) emotional or social needs. Using a response scale ranging from "did not discuss" to "discussed in detail," a summary score was constructed to define communication quality as high, medium, or low. Patient factors associated with the quality of provider discussions were examined using multivariable polytomous logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: At the time of the survey, approximately one half of the patients (46%) were either within 1 year (24.1%) or between 1 and 5 years (22.0%) of treatment. More than one third of cancer survivors reported that they did not receive detailed communication about follow-up care, and more than one half reported that they did not receive detailed communication regarding late or long-term effects, lifestyle recommendations, or emotional and social needs. Only 24% reported high-quality communication for all four elements, indicating that the vast majority experienced suboptimal communication. In multivariable analysis, survivors reporting a high communication quality with providers included those who were within 1 year of treatment, between the ages of 18 and 64 years, non-Hispanic black or other ethnicity, and married. CONCLUSION: Study findings demonstrate gaps in the communication quality experienced by cancer survivors in the United States and help identify survivors for targeted interventions.