Information transparency with immediate release: Oncology clinician and patient perceptions.

INTRODUCTION: As part of the 21st Century Cures Act (April 2021), electronic health information (EHI) must be immediately released to patients. In this study, we sought to evaluate clinician and patient perceptions regarding this immediate release. METHODS: After surveying 33 clinicians and 30 patients, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subset of the initial sample, comprising 8 clinicians and 12 patients. Open-ended questions explored clinicians' and patients' perceptions of immediate release of EHI and how they adjusted to this change. RESULTS: Ten themes were identified: Interpreting Results, Strategies for Patient Interaction, Patient Experiences, Communication Strategies, Provider Limitations, Provider Experiences, Health Information Interfaces, Barriers to Patient Understanding, Types of Results, and Changes due to Immediate Release. Interviews demonstrated differences in perceived patient distress and comprehension, emphasizing the impersonal nature of electronic release and necessity for therapeutic clinician-patient communication. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and patients have unique insights on the role of immediate release. Understanding these perspectives will help improve communication and develop patient-centered tools (glossaries, summary pages, additional resources) to aid patient understanding of complex medical information.

Are Diagnostic Delays Associated with Distress in Breast Cancer Patients?

Introduction: Receiving a new breast cancer diagnosis can cause anxiety and distress, which can lead to psychologic morbidity, decreased treatment adherence, and worse clinical outcomes. Understanding sources of distress is crucial in providing comprehensive care. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between delays in breast cancer diagnosis and patient-reported distress. Secondary outcomes include assessing patient characteristics associated with delay. Methods: Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients who completed a distress screening tool at their initial evaluation at an academic institution between 2014 and 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. The tool captured distress levels in the emotional, social, health, and practical domains with scores of "high distress" defined by current clinical practice guidelines. Delay from mammogram to biopsy, whether diagnostic or screening mammogram, was defined as >30 days. Result: 745 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients met inclusion criteria. Median time from abnormal mammogram to core biopsy was 12 days, and 11% of patients experienced a delay in diagnosis. The non-delayed group had higher emotional (p = 0.04) and health (p = 0.03) distress than the delayed group. No statistically significant differences in social distress were found between groups. Additionally, patients with higher practical distress had longer time interval between mammogram and surgical intervention compared to those with lower practical distress. Older age, diagnoses of invasive lobular carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ, and clinical anatomic stages 0-I were associated with diagnostic delay. Conclusion: Patients with higher emotional or health-related distress were more likely to have timely diagnoses of breast cancer, suggesting that patients with higher distress may seek healthcare interventions more promptly. Improved understanding of sources of distress will permit early intervention regarding the devastating impact of breast cancer diagnosis.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis provide health care providers with a practical, consistent framework for screening and evaluating a spectrum of clinical presentations and breast lesions. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel is composed of a multidisciplinary team of experts in the field, including representation from medical oncology, gynecologic oncology, surgical oncology, internal medicine, family practice, preventive medicine, pathology, diagnostic and interventional radiology, as well as patient advocacy. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel meets at least annually to review emerging data and comments from reviewers within their institutions to guide updates to existing recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's decision-making and discussion surrounding the most recent updates to the guideline's screening recommendations.

Patient comprehension of breast pathology report terminology: The need for patient-centered resources.

BACKGROUND: As health care continues to evolve toward information transparency, an increasing number of patients have access to their medical records, including result reports that were not originally designed to be patient-facing. Previous studies have demonstrated that patients have poor understanding of medical terminology. However, patient comprehension of terminology specific to breast pathology reports has not been well studied. We assessed patient understanding of common medical terms found in breast pathology reports. METHODS: A survey was administered electronically to patients scheduled for a screening mammogram within a multisite health care system. Participants were asked to objectively define and interpret 8 medical terms common to breast biopsy pathology reports. Patient perception of the utility of various educational tools was also assessed. Demographic information including health literacy, education level, previous cancer diagnosis, and primary language was collected. RESULTS: In total, 527 patients completed the survey. Terms including "malignant" and "benign" were the most correctly defined at 80% and 73%, respectively, whereas only 1% correctly defined "high grade." Factors including race/ethnicity and education level were correlated with more correct scores. Patients preferred educational tools that were specific to their diagnosis and available at the time they were reviewing their results. CONCLUSION: Patient comprehension of common medical terminology is poor. Potential assumptions of understanding based on patient factors including education, past medical history, and occupation are misinformed. With the newly mandated immediate release of information to patients, there is a pressing need to develop and integrate educational tools to support patients through all aspects of their care.

Patient and clinician perceptions of the immediate release of electronic health information.

OBJECTIVES: The 21st Century Cures Act requires that institutions release all electronic health information (EHI) to patients immediately. We aimed to understand patient and clinician attitudes toward the immediate release of EHI to patients. METHODS: Patients and clinicians representing distinct specialties at a single academic medical center completed a survey to assess attitudes toward the immediate release of results. Differences between patient and clinician responses were compared using chi-square and student's t-test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all statistical tests. RESULTS: 69 clinicians and 57 patients completed the survey. Both patients (89.7%) and clinicians (80.6%) agreed or strongly agreed-here after referred to as agreed, that providing patients with access to their health information is necessary in delivering high-quality care. However, 62.7% of clinicians agreed that results released immediately would be more confusing than helpful, whereas the minority of patients agreed with this statement (15.8%) (p < 0.05). Providers were also more likely to disagree that patients are comfortable independently interpreting blood work results (p < 0.05), radiology results (p < 0.05) and pathology reports (p < 0.05). With regard to timing, the majority of patients (75.1%) felt their provider should contact them within 24 h of the release of an abnormal result, whereas only 9.0% of clinicians agreed with this timeframe (p < 0.05). DISCUSSIONS: Patients and clinicians value information transparency. However, the immediate release of results is controversial, especially among clinicians. The discrepancy between patient and clinician perceptions underlines the importance of setting expectations about the communication of results. Additionally, our results emphasize the need to implement strategies to help improve patient comprehension, decrease patient distress and improve clinician workflows.

Breast MRI during Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Lack of Background Parenchymal Enhancement Suppression and Inferior Treatment Response.

Background Suppression of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) is commonly observed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) at contrast-enhanced breast MRI. It was hypothesized that nonsuppressed BPE may be associated with inferior response to NAC. Purpose To investigate the relationship between lack of BPE suppression and pathologic response. Materials and Methods A retrospective review was performed for women with menopausal status data who were treated for breast cancer by one of 10 drug arms (standard NAC with or without experimental agents) between May 2010 and November 2016 in the Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response with Imaging and Molecular Analysis 2, or I-SPY 2 TRIAL (NCT01042379). Patients underwent MRI at four points: before treatment (T0), early treatment (T1), interregimen (T2), and before surgery (T3). BPE was quantitatively measured by using automated fibroglandular tissue segmentation. To test the hypothesis effectively, a subset of examinations with BPE with high-quality segmentation was selected. BPE change from T0 was defined as suppressed or nonsuppressed for each point. The Fisher exact test and the Z tests of proportions with Yates continuity correction were used to examine the relationship between BPE suppression and pathologic complete response (pCR) in hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HR-negative cohorts. Results A total of 3528 MRI scans from 882 patients (mean age, 48 years ± 10 [standard deviation]) were reviewed and the subset of patients with high-quality BPE segmentation was determined (T1, 433 patients; T2, 396 patients; T3, 380 patients). In the HR-positive cohort, an association between lack of BPE suppression and lower pCR rate was detected at T2 (nonsuppressed vs suppressed, 11.8% [six of 51] vs 28.9% [50 of 173]; difference, 17.1% [95% CI: 4.7, 29.5]; P = .02) and T3 (nonsuppressed vs suppressed, 5.3% [two of 38] vs 27.4% [48 of 175]; difference, 22.2% [95% CI: 10.9, 33.5]; P = .003). In the HR-negative cohort, patients with nonsuppressed BPE had lower estimated pCR rate at all points, but the P values for the association were all greater than .05. Conclusions In hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, lack of background parenchymal enhancement suppression may indicate inferior treatment response. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Philpotts in this issue.

Predicting breast cancer response to neoadjuvant treatment using multi-feature MRI: results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI provides both morphological and functional information regarding breast tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The purpose of this retrospective study is to test if prediction models combining multiple MRI features outperform models with single features. Four features were quantitatively calculated in each MRI exam: functional tumor volume, longest diameter, sphericity, and contralateral background parenchymal enhancement. Logistic regression analysis was used to study the relationship between MRI variables and pathologic complete response (pCR). Predictive performance was estimated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The full cohort was stratified by hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status (positive or negative). A total of 384 patients (median age: 49 y/o) were included. Results showed analysis with combined features achieved higher AUCs than analysis with any feature alone. AUCs estimated for the combined versus highest AUCs among single features were 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76, 0.86) versus 0.79 (95% CI: 0.73, 0.85) in the full cohort, 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.92) versus 0.73 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.84) in HR-positive/HER2-negative, 0.88 (95% CI: 0.79, 0.97) versus 0.78 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.89) in HR-positive/HER2-positive, 0.83 (95% CI not available) versus 0.75 (95% CI: 0.46, 0.81) in HR-negative/HER2-positive, and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.91) versus 0.75 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.83) in triple negatives. Multi-feature MRI analysis improved pCR prediction over analysis of any individual feature that we examined. Additionally, the improvements in prediction were more notable when analysis was conducted according to cancer subtype.

The Waiting Game: How Long Are Breast Cancer Patients Waiting for Definitive Diagnosis?

BACKGROUND: Receiving a new breast cancer (BC) diagnosis can cause significant patient anxiety, which is amplified by delays in diagnosis. There is a lack of defined time periods for delays in the workup of BC. This study aims to evaluate national variations in timing from first abnormal mammogram to first biopsy and to determine independent predictors of delay in diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were derived from SEER-Medicare linked claims database from 2007 to 2013. Time intervals from abnormal mammogram, either screening or diagnostic, to biopsy were assessed. The fourth quartile for timing from first mammogram to first biopsy was utilized to define delay in diagnosis. Multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the association between clinicopathologic variables and delays in diagnosis. RESULTS: We analyzed 53,758 patients with stage 0-II BC who underwent upfront surgery. Significant variations in timing of care were identified, with mean times from mammogram to biopsy, surgeon visit, and breast surgery of 23.3, 31.6, and 52.6 days, respectively. Over the study period, there was a decrease in delays from mammogram to biopsy. Non-White race, Northeast location, and earlier stage disease were found to be independent predictors of delays in the diagnosis of BC (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates significant variations in time to diagnostic biopsy. More efficient processes of care to address these delays should be implemented, and further studies are needed to determine whether improved efficiency decreases patient anxiety. The large variations in time to diagnosis speak to the need for consensus guidelines to establish a standard of care.

TCIApathfinder: An R Client for the Cancer Imaging Archive REST API.

The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA) hosts publicly available deidentified medical images of cancer from over 25 body sites and over 30,000 patients. Over 400 published studies have utilized freely available TCIA images. Images and metadata are available for download through a web interface or a REST API. Here, we present TCIApathfinder, an R client for the TCIA REST API. TCIApathfinder wraps API access in user-friendly R functions that can be called interactively within an R session or easily incorporated into scripts. Functions are provided to explore the contents of the large database and to download image files. TCIApathfinder provides easy access to TCIA resources in the highly popular R programming environment. TCIApathfinder is freely available under the MIT license as a package on CRAN (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/TCIApathfinder/index.html) and from https://github.com/pamelarussell/TCIApathfinderSignificance: These findings present a new tool, TCIApathfinder, the first client for The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA) for use in the highly popular R computing environment, that will dramatically lower the barrier of access to the valuable tools in TCIA. Cancer Res; 78(15); 4424-6. ©2018 AACR.

Outcome of long term active surveillance for estrogen receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ.

INTRODUCTION: An option for active surveillance is not currently offered to patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS); however a small number of women decline standard surgical treatment for noninvasive cancer. The purpose of this study was to assess outcomes in a cohort of 14 well-informed women who elected non-surgical active surveillance with endocrine treatment alone for estrogen receptor-positive DCIS. METHODS: Retrospective review of 14 women, 12 of whom were enrolled in an IRB-approved single-arm study of 3 months of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy prior to definitive surgical management. The patients in this report withdrew from the parent study opting instead for active surveillance with endocrine treatment and imaging. RESULTS: 8 women had surgery at a median follow up of 28.3 months (range 10.1-70 months), 5 had stage I IDC at surgical excision, and 3 had DCIS alone. 6 women remain on surveillance without evidence of invasive disease for a median of 31.8 months (range 11.8-80.8 months). CONCLUSION: Long-term active surveillance for DCIS is feasible in a well-informed patient population, but is associated with risk of invasive cancer at surgical excision.

Magnetic resonance imaging captures the biology of ductal carcinoma in situ.

PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important tool for characterizing invasive breast cancer but has proven to be more challenging in the setting of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We investigated whether MRI features of DCIS reflect differences in biology and pathology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty five of 100 patients with biopsy-proven DCIS who underwent MRI and had sufficient tissue to be characterized by pathologic (nuclear grade, presence of comedo necrosis, size, and density of disease) and immunohistochemical (IHC) findings (proliferation, Ki67; angiogenesis, CD34; and inflammation, CD68). Pathology and MRI features (enhancement patterns, distribution, size, and density) were analyzed using pairwise and canonical correlations. RESULTS: Histopathologic and IHC variables correlated with MRI features (r = 0.73). The correlation was largely due to size, density (by either MRI or pathology), and inflammation (P < .05). Most small focal masses were estrogen receptor-positive. MRI enhancement patterns that were clumped were more likely than heterogeneous patterns to be high-grade lesions. Homogenous lesions were large, high grade, and rich in macrophages. Presence of comedo necrosis and size could be distinguished on MRI (P < .05). MRI was most likely to over-represent the size of less dense, diffuse DCIS lesions. CONCLUSION: The heterogeneous presentation of DCIS on MRI reflects underlying histopathologic differences.

Combined diffuse optical spectroscopy and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for monitoring breast cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a case study.

Monitoring tumor response to therapy can enable assessment of treatment efficacy, maximizing patient outcome and survival. We employ a noninvasive, handheld laser breast scanner (LBS) based on broadband diffuse optical spectroscopy (DOS) in conjunction with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) to assess tumor response to presurgical neoadjuvant chemotherapy. DOS and cMRI scans are performed after the first and fourth cycles of a doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide regimen in a patient with invasive ductal carcinoma. DOS measurements are used to quantify bulk tissue optical and physiological parameters, which are mapped to T2- and T1-weighted cMRI images. Initial DOS measurements show high tumor/normal contrast in total hemoglobin concentration (THC, 56+/-7 versus 27+/-4 microM) and water fraction (81.4+/-1% versus 24+/-3%) colocalized with regions of strongly enhancing T2-weighted and cMRI signals. After the fourth cycle of chemotherapy, we observe decreases in peak MRI contrast-enhancement values (37.6%) and apparent lesion volume (21.9 versus 13.7 cm3), which corresponds to physiological changes measured by DOS, including a 20 to 25% reduction in the spatial extent of the tumor and a 38.7% drop in mean total hemoglobin content (THC, 41.6 versus 23.4 microM). These data provide in vivo validation of the accuracy of broadband DOS and the sensitivity of optical methods to changes in tumor physiology.

Fibroepithelial lesions with cellular stroma on breast core needle biopsy: are there predictors of outcome on surgical excision?

Fibroepithelial lesions with cellular stroma (FELCS) in breast core needle biopsy (CNB) specimens may result in either fibroadenoma or phyllodes tumor at excision. We evaluated histologic features, proliferation indices (by Ki-67 and topoisomerase II a immunostaining) and p53 expression in 29 cases of FELCS in CNB specimens and correlated these with excision findings in a blinded manner. On excision, 16 patients had fibroadenomas and 12 had phyllodes tumors. All CNB specimens with mildly increased stromal cellularity were fibroadenomas on excision (n=4), and all with markedly cellular stroma were phyllodes tumors (n=4). Among CNB specimens with moderate cellularity (12 fibroadenomas and 8 phyllodes tumors), only stromal mitoses were discriminatory histologically. Stromal proliferation indices were significantly higher in CNB that were phyllodes tumors vs fibroadenomas. Assessment of stromal cellularity, mitoses, and proliferation indices might help determine the probability of phyllodes tumor occurring and guide management of these cases.

MRI measurements of breast tumor volume predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and recurrence-free survival.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the value of MRI measurements of breast tumor size for predicting recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients undergoing neoadjuvant (preoperative) chemotherapy and to compare the predictive value of MRI with that of established prognostic indicators. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study included 62 patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The longest diameter and volume of each tumor were measured on MRI before and after one and four cycles of treatment. Change in diameter on clinical examination, tumor size at pathology, and the number of positive nodes were determined. Each measure of tumor extent was assessed for the ability to predict RFS. RESULTS: Univariate Cox analysis showed initial MRI volume was the strongest predictor of RFS (p = 0.002). Final change in MRI volume (p = 0.015) was more predictive than change in diameter on MRI (p = 0.077) or clinical examination (p = 0.27). Initial diameter on MRI (p = 0.003) and clinical examination (p = 0.033), tumor size at pathology (p = 0.016), and number of positive nodes (p = 0.045) were also significantly predictive of RFS. Early change in MRI volume (p = 0.071) and diameter (p = 0.081) after one chemotherapy cycle showed trends of association with RFS. Multivariate analysis showed initial MRI volume (p = 0.005) and final change in MRI volume (p = 0.003) were significant independent predictors. CONCLUSION: MRI tumor volume was more predictive of RFS than tumor diameter, suggesting that volumetric changes measured using MRI may provide a more sensitive assessment of treatment efficacy.

Computerized analysis of digitized mammograms of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers.

PURPOSE: To evaluate, by using computer image analysis, the mammographic density patterns of women with germ-line mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in comparison with those of women at low risk of developing breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mammograms from 30 carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and from 142 low-risk women were collected retrospectively and digitized. In addition, 60 of the 142 low-risk women were randomly selected and age matched at 5-year intervals with the 30 mutation carriers. Mammographic features were extracted from the central regions of the breast images to characterize the mammographic density and heterogeneity of dense portions of the breast. These features were then merged into a single value related to the risk of breast cancer by using linear discriminant analysis. The applicability of these computer-extracted features and the output from linear discriminant analysis to differentiate between the carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and the low-risk women in the entire database and in an age-matched group were evaluated by using receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis of mammograms demonstrated that carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations tended to have dense breast tissue, and their mammographic patterns tended to be low in contrast, with a coarse texture. Linear discriminant analysis resulted in values of the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.91 and 0.92 in distinguishing between the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and the low-risk women in the entire database and the age-matched group, respectively. CONCLUSION: The computerized analysis of mammograms suggests that mammographic patterns in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations differ from those of women at low risk for breast cancer. Our computer-extracted features may be useful as radiographic markers for identifying women at high risk for breast cancer.

Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists.

PURPOSE: To evaluate performance parameters for radiologists in a practice of breast imaging specialists and general diagnostic radiologists who interpret a large series of consecutive screening and diagnostic mammographic studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data (ie, patient age; family history of breast cancer; availability of previous mammograms for comparison; and abnormal interpretation, cancer detection, and stage 0-I cancer detection rates) were derived from review of mammographic studies obtained from January 1997 through August 2001. The breast imaging specialists have substantially more initial training in mammography and at least six times more continuing education in mammography, and they interpret 10 times more mammographic studies per year than the general radiologists. Differences between specialist and general radiologist performances at both screening and diagnostic examinations were assessed for significance by using Student t and chi(2) tests. RESULTS: The study involved 47,798 screening and 13,286 diagnostic mammographic examinations. Abnormal interpretation rates for screening mammography (ie, recall rate) were 4.9% for specialists and 7.1% for generalists (P <.001); and for diagnostic mammography (ie, recommended biopsy rate), 15.8% and 9.9%, respectively (P <.001). Cancer detection rates at screening mammography were 6.0 cancer cases per 1,000 examinations for specialists and 3.4 per 1,000 for generalists (P =.007); and at diagnostic mammography, 59.0 per 1,000 and 36.6 per 1,000, respectively (P <.001). Stage 0-I cancer detection rates at screening mammography were 5.3 cancer cases per 1,000 examinations for specialists and 3.0 per 1,000 for generalists (P =.012); and at diagnostic mammography, 43.9 per 1,000 and 27.0 per 1,000, respectively (P <.001). CONCLUSION: Specialist radiologists detect more cancers and more early-stage cancers, recommend more biopsies, and have lower recall rates than general radiologists.