Deciding to Attend the Emergency Department: Experiences of Patients With Inflammatory Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Patients may use emergency departments (EDs) to meet their health needs when ambulatory care systems are not sufficient. We aim to describe contributing factors to the decision made by persons with inflammatory arthritis (IA) to present to the ED, as well as their experiences of ED care and postdischarge follow-up. METHODS: An embedded mixed-methods approach was taken to contextualize quantitative data with associated free-text responses from an online survey distributed to residents of Alberta with a known IA condition and an ED visit. RESULTS: Eighty-two persons (63% aged 16-55 years, 48% female, 50% urban residents) with rheumatoid arthritis (48%), psoriatic arthritis (12%), spondyloarthritis (6%), or gout (34%) completed the survey. Presenting concerns were arthritis flare (37%), chest pain (15%), injury (12%), and infection (11%). Of all visits, 29% proceeded directly to the ED, 35% attempted accessing ambulatory care first, and 32% arrived for a return visit. In presentations for arthritis flare, patients were aware of the rheumatology service being contacted by the ED provider for advice in just 9% of events. Challenges in healthcare system coordination and system pressures resulted in patients requiring ED attendance to assess their concern. The quality of communication and relationality developed between patients with IA and healthcare providers informed experiences of ED care. CONCLUSION: Modifying rheumatology ambulatory care models could better meet patient needs and ultimately reduce avoidable ED use by patients with IA.

Primary care provider attitudes about and tendency to use non-recommended surveillance tests after curative breast cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the factors contributing to the receipt of non-recommended surveillance testing among early-stage breast cancer survivors. We assessed primary care providers (PCP) attitudes about and tendency to order non-recommended surveillance testing for asymptomatic early-stage breast cancer survivors post-adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: A stratified random sample of PCPs identified by early-stage breast cancer survivors were surveyed (N = 518, 61% response rate). PCPs were asked how likely they would be to order bone scans, imaging and/or tumor marker testing using a clinical vignette of an early-stage asymptomatic patient where these tests are non-recommended. A composite tendency to order score was created and categorized by tertiles (low, moderate, high). PCP-reported factors associated with high and moderate tendency to order non-recommended testing (vs. low) were estimated using multivariable, multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: In this sample, 26% reported a high tendency to order non-recommended surveillance tests during survivorship for early-stage breast cancer survivors. PCPs who identified as family practice physicians and PCPs reporting more confidence in ordering surveillance testing were more likely to report a high tendency to order non-recommended testing (vs. low) ((aOR family practice 2.09, CI 1.2, 3.8; aOR more confidence 1.9, CI 1.1, 3.3). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based sample of PCPs caring for breast cancer survivors, over a quarter of PCPs reported they would order non-recommended surveillance testing for asymptomatic early-stage breast cancer survivors. Efforts to better support PCPs and disseminate information about appropriate surveillance for cancer survivors are warranted.

Germline Genetic Testing After Cancer Diagnosis.

Importance: Germline genetic testing is recommended by practice guidelines for patients diagnosed with cancer to enable genetically targeted treatment and identify relatives who may benefit from personalized cancer screening and prevention. Objective: To describe the prevalence of germline genetic testing among patients diagnosed with cancer in California and Georgia between 2013 and 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational study including patients aged 20 years or older who had been diagnosed with any type of cancer between January 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, that was reported to statewide Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries in California and Georgia. These patients were linked to genetic testing results from 4 laboratories that performed most germline testing for California and Georgia. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was germline genetic testing within 2 years of a cancer diagnosis. Testing trends were analyzed with logistic regression modeling. The results of sequencing each gene, including variants associated with increased cancer risk (pathogenic results) and variants whose cancer risk association was unknown (uncertain results), were evaluated. The genes were categorized according to their primary cancer association, including breast or ovarian, gastrointestinal, and other, and whether practice guidelines recommended germline testing. Results: Among 1 369 602 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2013 and 2019 in California and Georgia, 93 052 (6.8%) underwent germline testing through March 31, 2021. The proportion of patients tested varied by cancer type: male breast (50%), ovarian (38.6%), female breast (26%), multiple (7.5%), endometrial (6.4%), pancreatic (5.6%), colorectal (5.6%), prostate (1.1%), and lung (0.3%). In a logistic regression model, compared with the 31% (95% CI, 30%-31%) of non-Hispanic White patients with male breast cancer, female breast cancer, or ovarian cancer who underwent testing, patients of other races and ethnicities underwent testing less often: 22% (95% CI, 21%-22%) of Asian patients, 25% (95% CI, 24%-25%) of Black patients, and 23% (95% CI, 23%-23%) of Hispanic patients (P < .001 using the χ2 test). Of all pathogenic results, 67.5% to 94.9% of variants were identified in genes for which practice guidelines recommend testing and 68.3% to 83.8% of variants were identified in genes associated with the diagnosed cancer type. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients diagnosed with cancer in California and Georgia between 2013 and 2019, only 6.8% underwent germline genetic testing. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, rates of testing were lower among Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients.

Perceived financial decline related to breast reconstruction following mastectomy in a diverse population-based cohort.

BACKGROUND: Despite mandated insurance coverage for breast reconstruction following mastectomy, health care costs are increasingly passed on to women through cost-sharing arrangements and high-deductible health plans. In this population-based study, the authors assessed perceived financial and employment declines related to breast reconstruction following mastectomy. METHODS: Women with early-stage breast cancer (stages 0-II) diagnosed between July 2013 and May 2015 who underwent mastectomy were identified through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and Los Angeles and were surveyed. Primary outcome measures included patients' appraisal of their financial and employment status after cancer treatment. Multivariable models evaluated the association between breast reconstruction and primary outcomes. RESULTS: Among 883 patients with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy, 44.2% did not undergo breast reconstruction, and 55.8% underwent reconstruction. Overall, 21.9% of the cohort reported being worse off financially since their diagnosis (25.8% with reconstruction vs 16.6% without reconstruction; P = .002). Women who underwent reconstruction reported higher out-of-pocket medical expenses (32.1% vs 15.6% with expenses greater than $5000; P < .001). Reconstruction was independently associated with a perceived decline in financial status (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-3.22; P = .013). Among women who were employed at the time of their diagnosis, there was no association between reconstruction and a perceived decline in employment status (P = .927). CONCLUSIONS: In this diverse cohort of women who underwent mastectomy, those who elected to undergo reconstruction experienced higher out-of-pocket medical expenses and self-reported financial decline. Patients, providers, and policymakers should be aware of the potential financial implications related to reconstruction despite mandatory insurance coverage.

Primary Care Providers' Perceptions About Participating in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions.

BACKGROUND: Primary care provider's (PCP) role in cancer care is expanding and may include supporting patients in their treatment decisions. However, the degree to which PCPs engage in this role for low-risk prostate cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Characterize PCP perceptions regarding their role in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, national survey. MAIN MEASURES: For men with low-risk prostate cancer, PCP reports of (1) confidence in treatment decision-making (high vs. low); (2) intended participation in key aspects of active surveillance treatment decision-making (more vs. less). KEY RESULTS: A total of 347 from 741 eligible PCPs responded (adjusted response rate 56%). Half of respondent PCPs (50.3%) reported high confidence about engaging in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making. The odds of PCPs reporting high confidence were greater among those in solo practice (vs working with > 1 PCP) (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.14-4.17) and with higher volume of prostate cancer patients (> 15 vs. 6-10 in past year) (OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.02-4.61). PCP report of their intended participation in key aspects of active surveillance treatment decision-making varied: discussing worry (62.4%), reviewing benefits (48.5%) and risks (41.8%), and reviewing all treatment options (34.2%). PCPs who reported high confidence had increased odds of more participation in all aspects of active surveillance decision-making: reviewing all treatment options (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.82-5.32), discussing worry (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.28-3.51), and reviewing benefits (OR 3.13; 95% CI 1.89-5.16) and risks (OR 3.20; 95% CI 1.91-5.36). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of PCPs were confident about engaging with patients in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making, though their intended participation varied widely across four key aspects of active surveillance care. With active surveillance being considered for other low-risk cancers (such as breast and thyroid), understanding factors influencing PCP involvement will be instrumental to supporting team-based cancer care.

Internet search results correlate with seasonal variation of sarcoidosis.

BACKGROUND: The etiology and pathophysiology of sarcoidosis remains unclear, with epidemiologic studies limited by its relatively low prevalence. The internet has prompted patients to seek information about medical diagnoses online; Google Trends provides access to an anonymized version of this data, which has a new role in epidemiology. We hypothesize that there is seasonal variation in the relative search interest of sarcoidosis, which would suggest seasonal variation in the incidence of sarcoidosis. METHODS: Google Trends was used to assess the relative search volume from 2010 to 2020 for "sarcoidosis" and "sarcoid" in 7 countries. ANOVA with multiple comparisons was performed to compare the mean relative search volume by month and by season for each country, with a p-value less than 0.05 indicating statistical significance. RESULTS: Our analysis revealed a significant seasonal variation in search popularity in 4 of the 7 countries and in the Northern Hemispheric countries combined. Direct comparison showed search terms to be more popular in spring, specifically March & April, than in the winter. Southern Hemisphere data was not statistically significant but showed a trend towards a nadir in December and a peak in September and October. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these findings suggest seasonal variation with a possible peak in spring and nadir in winter. This supports the hypothesis that sarcoidosis has seasonal variation and is more commonly diagnosed in spring, but more evidence is needed to support this, as well as investigation into the pathophysiology of sarcoidosis to explain this phenomenon.

A population-based study of invitation to and participation in clinical trials among women with early-stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Although many studies clearly demonstrate disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment, there is a lack of consensus on potential causes. Furthermore, virtually nothing is known about associations between patients' decision-making style and their participation in clinical trials. METHODS: Women with newly diagnosed, stage 0-II breast cancer reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles County Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries in 2013-2014 were surveyed approximately seven months after diagnosis. We investigated two primary outcome variables: (1) invitation to participate in a clinical trial, (2) participation in a clinical trial. We evaluated bivariate associations using Chi-squared tests and used multivariable logistic regression models to investigate associations between patient variables, including decision-making style, and the primary outcomes. RESULTS: 2578 patients responded (71% response rate); 30% were > age 65, 18% were black, 18% were Latina, 29% had ≤ high school education. 10% of patients reported invitation to participate in a clinical trial; 5% reported participation in a clinical trial. After adjustment younger age, receipt of chemotherapy or radiation, disease stage, and a more rational (versus more intuitive) decision-making style were associated with a higher odds of invitation to participate. Being married was associated with a higher odds of participation; having an annual family income ≥ $40,000 was associated with a lower odds of participation. CONCLUSIONS: 10% of patients reported invitation to participate in a clinical trial, and half of these reported participation. Invitation to participate varied by age and decision-making style, and participation varied by marital status and income.

Understanding the engagement of key decision support persons in patient decision making around breast cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Patients with breast cancer involve multiple decision support persons (DSPs) in treatment decision making, yet little is known about DSP engagement in decision making and its association with patient appraisal of the decision process. METHODS: Patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer reported to Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries in 2014-2015 were surveyed 7 months after their diagnosis. The individual most involved in each respondent's decision making (the key DSP) was surveyed. DSP engagement was measured across 3 domains: 1) informed about decisions, 2) involved in decisions, and 3) aware of patient preferences. Patient decision appraisal included subjective decision quality (SDQ) and deliberation. This study evaluated bivariate associations with chi-square tests between domains of DSP engagement and independent DSP variables. Analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare domains of DSP engagement with patient decision appraisal. RESULTS: In all, 2502 patients (68% response rate) and 1203 eligible DSPs (70% response rate) responded. Most DSPs were husbands/partners or daughters, were white, and were college graduates. Husbands/partners were more likely to be more informed, involved, and aware (all P values < .01). English- and Spanish-speaking Latinos had a higher extent of (P = .02) but lower satisfaction with involvement (P < .01). A highly informed DSP was associated with higher odds of patient-reported SDQ (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.08; P = .03). A highly aware DSP was associated with higher odds of patient-reported deliberation (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-2.47; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, informal DSPs were engaged with and positively contributed to patients' treatment decision making. To improve decision quality, future interventions should incorporate DSPs.

Primary care provider-reported involvement in breast cancer treatment decisions.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decisions for patients with early-stage breast cancer often involve discussions with multiple oncology providers. However, the extent to which primary care providers (PCPs) are involved in initial treatment decisions remains unknown. METHODS: A stratified random sample of PCPs identified by newly diagnosed patients with early-stage breast cancer from the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries were surveyed (n = 517; a 61% response rate). PCPs were asked how frequently they discussed surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy options with patients; how comfortable they were with these discussions; whether they had the necessary knowledge to participate in decision making; and what their confidence was in their ability to help (on 5-item Likert-type scales). Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify PCP-reported attitudes associated with more PCP participation in each treatment decision. RESULTS: In this sample, 34% of PCPs reported that they discussed surgery, 23% discussed radiation, and 22% discussed chemotherapy options with their patients. Of those who reported more involvement in surgical decisions, 22% reported that they were not comfortable having a discussion, and 17% did not feel that they had the necessary knowledge to participate in treatment decision making. PCPs who positively appraised their ability to participate were more likely to participate in all 3 decisions (odds ratio [OR] for surgery, 6.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16-8.68; OR for radiation, 8.37; 95% CI, 5.16-13.58; OR for chemotherapy, 6.56; 95% CI, 4.23-10.17). CONCLUSIONS: A third of PCPs reported participating in breast cancer treatment decisions, yet gaps in their knowledge about decision making and in their confidence in their ability to help exist. Efforts to increase PCPs' knowledge about breast cancer treatment options may be warranted.

Physician attitudes about cost consciousness for breast cancer treatment: differences by cancer sub-specialty.

PURPOSE: High costs of cancer care place considerable burden on patients and society. Despite increasing recognition that providers should play a role in reducing care costs, how physicians across cancer specialties differ in their cost-consciousness has not been reported. We examined cost-consciousness regarding breast cancer care among medical oncologists, surgeons, and radiation oncologists. METHODS: We identified 514 cancer surgeons, 504 medical oncologists, and 251 radiation oncologists by patient report through the iCanCare study. iCanCare identified newly diagnosed women with breast cancer through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and Los Angeles. We queried providers on three dimensions of cost-consciousness: (1) perceived importance of cost saving for society, patients, practice, and payers; (2) awareness of patient out-of-pocket expenses; and (3) discussion of financial burden. RESULTS: We received responses from 376 surgeons (73%), 304 medical oncologists (60%), and 169 radiation oncologists (67%). Overall levels of cost-consciousness were moderate, with scores ranging from 2.5 to 3.0 out of 5. After adjusting for covariates, surgeons had the lowest scores on all three cost-consciousness measures; medical oncologists had the highest scores. Pairwise contrasts showed surgeons had significantly lower scores than medical oncologists for all three measures and significantly lower scores than radiation oncologists for two of the three cost-consciousness variables: importance of cost saving and discussion of financial burden. CONCLUSIONS: How cost-consciousness impacts medical decision-making across specialty and how policy, structural, and behavioral interventions might sensitize providers regarding cost-related matters merit further examination.

Knowledge regarding and patterns of genetic testing in patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer participating in the iCanDecide trial.

BACKGROUND: The current study reports rates of knowledge regarding the probability of a BRCA1 and/or S pathogenic variant and genetic testing in patients with breast cancer, collected as part of a randomized controlled trial of a tailored, comprehensive, and interactive decision tool (iCanDecide). METHODS: A total of 537 patients newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer were enrolled at the time of their first visit in 22 surgical practices, and were surveyed 5 weeks (496 patients; Response Rate [RR], 92%) after enrollment after treatment decision making. Primary outcomes included knowledge regarding the probability of carrying a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 pathogenic variant and genetic testing after diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall knowledge regarding the probability of having a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 pathogenic variant was low (29.8%). Significantly more patients in the intervention group compared with the control group had knowledge regarding the probability of a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 pathogenic variant (35.8% vs 24.4%; P <.006). In multivariable logistic regression, the intervention arm remained significantly associated with knowledge regarding the probability of having a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 pathogenic variant (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.70). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study suggest that although knowledge concerning the probability of having a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 pathogenic variant remains low in this patient population, the interactive decision tool improved rates compared with a static Web site. As interest in genetic testing continues to rise, so will the need to integrate tools into the treatment decision process to improve informed decision making.

Unmet need for clinician engagement regarding financial toxicity after diagnosis of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding whether growing awareness of the financial toxicity of a cancer diagnosis and its treatment has increased clinician engagement or changed the needs of current patients. METHODS: The authors surveyed patients with early-stage breast cancer who were identified through population-based sampling from 2 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) regions and their physicians. The authors described responses from approximately 73% of surgeons (370 surgeons), 61% of medical oncologists (306 medical oncologists), 67% of radiation oncologists (169 radiation oncologists), and 68% of patients (2502 patients). RESULTS: Approximately one-half (50.9%) of responding medical oncologists reported that someone in their practice often or always discusses financial burden with patients, as did 15.6% of surgeons and 43.2% of radiation oncologists. Patients indicated that financial toxicity remains common: 21.5% of white patients and 22.5% of Asian patients had to cut down spending on food, as did 45.2% of black and 35.8% of Latina patients. Many patients desired to talk to providers about the financial impact of cancer (15.2% of whites, 31.1% of blacks, 30.3% of Latinas, and 25.4% of Asians). Unmet patient needs for engagement with physicians about financial concerns were common. Of 945 women who worried about finances, 679 (72.8%) indicated that physicians and their staff did not help. Of 523 women who desired to talk to providers regarding the impact of breast cancer on employment or finances, 283 (55.4%) reported no relevant discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients report inadequate clinician engagement in the management of financial toxicity, even though many providers believe that they make services available. Clinician assessment and communication regarding financial toxicity must improve; cure at the cost of financial ruin is unacceptable. Cancer 2018;000:000-000. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Patient views and correlates of radiotherapy omission in a population-based sample of older women with favorable-prognosis breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The omission of radiotherapy (RT) after lumpectomy is a reasonable option for many older women with favorable-prognosis breast cancer. In the current study, we sought to evaluate patient perspectives regarding decision making about RT. METHODS: Women aged 65 to 79 years with AJCC 7th edition stage I and II breast cancer who were reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles County Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries were surveyed (response rate, 70%) regarding RT decisions, the rationale for omitting RT, decision-making values, and understanding of disease recurrence risk. We also surveyed their corresponding surgeons (response rate, 77%). Patient characteristics associated with the omission of RT were evaluated using multilevel, multivariable logistic regression, accounting for patient clustering within surgeons. RESULTS: Of 999 patients, 135 omitted RT (14%). Older age, lower tumor grade, and having estrogen receptor-positive disease each were found to be strongly associated with omission of RT in multivariable analyses, whereas the number of comorbidities was not. Non-English speakers were more likely to omit RT (adjusted odds ratio, 5.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-24.5). The most commonly reported reasons for RT omission were that a physician advised the patient that it was not needed (54% of patients who omitted RT) and patient choice (41%). Risk of local disease recurrence was overestimated by all patients: by approximately 2-fold among those who omitted RT and by approximately 8-fold among those who received RT. The risk of distant disease recurrence was overestimated by approximately 3-fold on average. CONCLUSIONS: To some extent, decisions regarding RT omission are appropriately influenced by patient age, tumor grade, and estrogen receptor status, but do not appear to be optimally tailored according to competing comorbidities. Many women who are candidates for RT omission overestimate their risk of disease recurrence. Cancer 2018;124:2714-2723. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

The association between patient attitudes and values and the strength of consideration for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in a population-based sample of breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how the individual decision styles and values of breast cancer patients at the time of treatment decision making are associated with the consideration of different treatment options and specifically with the consideration of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). METHODS: Newly diagnosed patients with early-stage breast cancer who were treated in 2013-2014 were identified through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Los Angeles and Georgia and were surveyed approximately 7 months after surgery (n = 2578; response rate, 71%). The primary outcome was the consideration of CPM (strong vs less strong). The association between patients' values and decision styles and strong consideration was assessed with multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Approximately one-quarter of women (25%) reported strong/very strong consideration of CPM, and another 29% considered it moderately/weakly. Decision styles, including a rational-intuitive approach to decision making, varied. The factors most valued by women at the time of treatment decision making were as follows: avoiding worry about recurrence (82%) and reducing the need for more surgery (73%). In a multivariate analysis, patients who preferred to make their own decisions, those who valued avoiding worry about recurrence, and those who valued avoiding radiation significantly more often strongly considered CPM (P < .05), whereas those who reported being more logical and those who valued keeping their breast did so less often. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients considered CPM, and the consideration was associated with both decision styles and values. The variability in decision styles and values observed in this study suggests that formally evaluating these characteristics at or before the initial treatment encounter could provide an opportunity for improving patient clinician discussions. Cancer 2017;123:4547-4555. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Chemotherapy decisions and patient experience with the recurrence score assay for early-stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay stratifies early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer by recurrence risk. Few studies have examined the ways in which physicians use the RS to recommend adjuvant systemic chemotherapy or patients' experiences with testing and decision making. METHODS: This study surveyed 3880 women treated for breast cancer in 2013-2014; they were identified from the Los Angeles County and Georgia Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries (response rate, 71%). Women reported chemotherapy recommendations, the receipt of chemotherapy, testing experiences, and decision satisfaction. Registries linked the tumor data, RS, and surveys. Regression models examined factors associated with chemotherapy recommendations and receipt by the RS and subgroups. RESULTS: There were 1527 patients with stage I/II, estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative disease: 778 received an RS (62.6% of patients with node-negative, favorable disease, 24.3% of patients with node-negative, unfavorable disease, and 13.0% of patients with node-positive disease; P < .001). Overall, 47.2% of the patients received a recommendation against chemotherapy, and 40.5% received a recommendation for it. RS results correlated with recommendations: nearly all patients with high scores (31-100) received a chemotherapy recommendation (86.9%-96.5% across clinical subgroups), whereas the majority of the patients with low-risk results (0-18) received a recommendation against it (65.9%-78.2% across subgroups). Most patients with high RSs received chemotherapy (87.0%, 91.1%, and 100% across subgroups), whereas few patients with low scores received it (2.9%, 9.5%, and 26.6% across subgroups). There were no substantial racial/ethnic differences in testing or treatment. Women were largely satisfied with the RS and chemotherapy decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists use the RS to personalize treatment, even for those with node-positive disease. High satisfaction and an absence of disparities in testing and treatment suggest that precision-medicine advances have improved systemic breast cancer treatment. Cancer 2017;43-51. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Decision-support networks of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the size and characteristics of the decision-support networks of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer and whether their involvement improves breast cancer treatment decisions. METHODS: A population-based sample of patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer in 2014 and 2015, as reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries, were surveyed approximately 7 months after diagnosis (N = 2502; response rate, 68%). Network size was estimated by asking women to list up to 3 of the most important decision-support persons (DSPs) who helped them with locoregional therapy decisions. Decision deliberation was measured using 4 items assessing the degree to which patients thought through the decision, with higher scores reflecting more deliberative breast cancer treatment decisions. The size of the network (range, 0-3 or more) was compared across patient-level characteristics, and adjusted mean deliberation scores were estimated across levels of network size using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: Of the 2502 women included in this analysis, 51% reported having 3 or more DSPs, 20% reported 2, 18% reported 1, and 11% reported not having any DSPs. Married/partnered women, those younger than 45 years, and black women all were more likely to report larger network sizes (all P < .001). Larger support networks were associated with more deliberative surgical treatment decisions (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Most women engaged multiple DSPs in their treatment decision making, and involving more DSPs was associated with more deliberative treatment decisions. Future initiatives to improve treatment decision making among women with breast cancer should acknowledge and engage informal DSPs. Cancer 2017;123:3895-903. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Treatment-associated toxicities reported by patients with early-stage invasive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported toxicities help to appraise the breast cancer treatment experience. Yet extant data come from clinical trials and health care claims, which may be biased. Using patient surveys, the authors sought to quantify the frequency, severity, and burden of treatment-associated toxicities. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2014, the iCanCare study surveyed a population-based sample of women residing in Los Angeles County and Georgia with early-stage, invasive breast cancer. The authors assessed the frequency and severity of toxicities; correlated toxicity severity with unscheduled health care use (clinic visits, emergency department visits/hospitalizations) and physical health; and examined patient, tumor, and treatment factors associated with reporting increased toxicity severity. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 71%. From the analyzed cohort of 1945 women, 866 (45%) reported at least 1 toxicity that was severe/very severe, 9% reported unscheduled clinic visits for toxicity management, and 5% visited an emergency department or hospital. Factors associated with reporting higher toxicity severity included receipt of chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.0-2.5), receipt of both chemotherapy and radiotherapy (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7), and Latina ethnicity (OR vs whites: 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5). A nonsignificant increase in at least 1 severe/very severe toxicity report was observed for bilateral mastectomy recipients (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.4). CONCLUSIONS: Women with early-stage invasive breast cancer report substantial treatment-associated toxicities and related burden. Clinicians should collect toxicity data routinely and offer early intervention. Toxicity differences observed by treatment modality may inform decision making. Cancer 2017;123:1925-1934. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Treatment experiences of Latinas after diagnosis of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The authors examined racial/ethnic differences in patient perspectives regarding their breast cancer treatment experiences. METHODS: A weighted random sample of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer between 2013 and 2015 in Los Angeles County and Georgia were sent surveys 2 months after undergoing surgery (5080 women; 70% response rate). The analytic sample was limited to patients residing in Los Angeles County (2397 women). RESULTS: The pattern of visits with different specialists before surgery was found to be similar across racial/ethnic groups. Low acculturated Latinas (Latinas-LA) were less likely to report high clinician communication quality for both surgeons and medical oncologists (<69% vs >72% for all other groups; P<.05). The percentage of patients who reported high satisfaction regarding how physicians worked together was similar across racial/ethnic groups. Latinas-LA were more likely to have a low autonomy decision style (48% vs 24%-50% for all other groups; P<.001) and were more likely to report receiving too much information versus other ethnic groups (20% vs <16% for other groups; P<.001). Patients who reported a low autonomy decision style were more likely to rate the amount of information they received for the surgery decision as "too much" (16% vs 9%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be moderate disparity in breast cancer treatment communication and decision-making experiences reported by Latinas-LA versus other groups. The approach to treatment decision making by Latinas-LA represents an important challenge to health care providers. Initiatives are needed to improve patient engagement in decision making and increase clinician awareness of these challenges in this patient population. Cancer 2017;123:3022-30. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Treatment decisions and employment of breast cancer patients: Results of a population-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with breast cancer work for pay at the time of their diagnosis, and the treatment plan may threaten their livelihood. Understanding work experiences in a contemporary population-based sample is necessary to inform initiatives to reduce the burden of cancer care. METHODS: Women who were 20 to 79 years old and had been diagnosed with stage 0 to II breast cancer, as reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries in 2014-2015, were surveyed. Of the 3672 eligible women, 2502 responded (68%); 1006 who reported working before their diagnosis were analyzed. Multivariate models evaluated correlates of missing work for >1 month and stopping work altogether versus missing work for ≤1 month. RESULTS: In this diverse sample, most patients (62%) underwent lumpectomy; 16% underwent unilateral mastectomy (8% with reconstruction); and 23% underwent bilateral mastectomy (19% with reconstruction). One-third (33%) received chemotherapy. Most (84%) worked full-time before their diagnosis; however, only 50% had paid sick leave, 39% had disability benefits, and 38% had flexible work schedules. Surgical treatment was strongly correlated with missing >1 month of work (odds ratio [OR] for bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction vs lumpectomy, 7.8) and with stopping work altogether (OR for bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction vs lumpectomy, 3.1). Chemotherapy receipt (OR for missing >1 month, 1.3; OR for stopping work altogether, 3.9) and race (OR for missing >1 month for blacks vs whites, 2.0; OR for stopping work altogether for blacks vs whites, 1.7) also correlated. Those with paid sick leave were less likely to stop working (OR, 0.5), as were those with flexible schedules (OR, 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Working patients who received more aggressive treatments were more likely to experience substantial employment disruptions. Cancer 2017;123:4791-9. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Oncologists' influence on receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy: does it matter whom you see for treatment of curable breast cancer?

PURPOSE: We know little about whether it matters which oncologist a breast cancer patient sees with regard to receipt of chemotherapy. We examined oncologists' influence on use of recurrence score (RS) testing and chemotherapy in the community. METHODS: We identified 7810 women with stages 0-II breast cancer treated in 2013-15 through the SEER registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. Surveys were sent 2 months post-surgery, (70% response rate, n = 5080). Patients identified their oncologists (n = 504) of whom 304 responded to surveys (60%). We conducted multi-level analyses on patients with ER-positive HER2-negative invasive disease (N = 2973) to examine oncologists' influence on variation in RS testing and chemotherapy receipt, using patient and oncologist survey responses merged to SEER data. RESULTS: Half of patients (52.8%) received RS testing and 27.7% chemotherapy. One-third (35.9%) of oncologists treated >50 new breast cancer patients annually; mean years in practice was 15.8. Oncologists explained 17% of the variation in RS testing but little of the variation in chemotherapy receipt (3%) controlling for clinical factors. Patients seeing an oncologist who was one standard deviation above the mean use of RS testing had over two-times higher odds of receiving RS (2.47, 95% CI 1.47-4.15), but a parallel estimate of the association of oncologist with the odds of receiving chemotherapy was much smaller (1.39, CI 1.03-1.88). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical algorithms have markedly reduced variation in chemotherapy use across oncologists. Oncologists' large influence on variation in RS use suggests that they variably seek tumor profiling to inform treatment decisions.