A randomized controlled trial of shared decision-making treatment planning process to enhance shared decision-making in patients with MBC.

PURPOSE: Opportunities exist for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) to engage in shared decision-making (SDM). Presenting patient-reported data, including patient treatment preferences, to oncologists before or during a treatment plan decision may improve patient engagement in treatment decisions. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial evaluated the standard-of-care treatment planning process vs. a novel treatment planning process focused on SDM, which included oncologist review of patient-reported treatment preferences, prior to or during treatment decisions among women with MBC. The primary outcome was patient perception of shared decision-making. Secondary outcomes included patient activation, treatment satisfaction, physician perception of treatment decision-making, and use of treatment plans. RESULTS: Among the 109 evaluable patients from December 2018 to June 2022, 28% were Black and 12% lived in a highly disadvantaged neighborhood. Although not reaching statistical significance, patients in the intervention arm perceived SDM more often than patients in the control arm (63% vs. 59%; Cramer's V = 0.05; OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.55-2.57). Among patients in the intervention arm, 31% were at the highest level of patient activation compared to 19% of those in the control arm (V = 0.18). In 82% of decisions, the oncologist agreed that the patient-reported data helped them engage in SDM. In 45% of decision, they reported changing management due to patient-reported data. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologist engagement in the treatment planning process, with oncologist review of patient-reported data, is a promising approach to improve patient participation in treatment decisions which should be tested in larger studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03806738.

Accuracy of Cancer Registry Primary Payer Information and Implications for Policy Research.

BACKGROUND: Cancer registry-based "primary payer at diagnosis" (PPDx) data are commonly used to evaluate the effect of insurance on cancer care outcomes, yet little is known about how well they capture Medicaid or Medicare enrollment. METHODS: We linked the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data to monthly Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicaid and Medicare enrollment records, state-year Medicaid policy, and managed care enrollment. We selected adults aged 19-64 years diagnosed between 2007 and 2011. We used bivariate analyses to compare PPDx to CMS enrollment at diagnosis month and assessed underreporting rates by patient characteristics and state-year policy. RESULTS: PPDx reported 7.8% Medicare and 10.1% Medicaid, whereas CMS enrollment indicated 5.5% Medicare, 10.4% Medicaid, and 3.4% dual Medicare-Medicaid (N = 896,031). Positive predictive values for PPDx assignment to Medicaid and Medicare were 65.3% and 75.4%, with false negative rates of 52.0% and 33.8%, respectively. Medicaid underreporting was higher in low (56.5%) versus high (50.8%) poverty areas, for males (56.1%) versus females (48.9%), for Medicaid poverty expansion or waiver enrolled (63.8%) versus cash assistance-related eligibility (47.3%), and in states with large managed care enrollment (all P < 0.001). If Medicaid and Medicare enrollment data were used to edit PPDx, 12.0% of persons would switch primary payer assignment. CONCLUSIONS: Registry-reported PPDx fails to fully capture Medicaid and Medicare enrollment, which may result in biased estimates of insurance-related policy impacts. Enhancement with objective enrollment data could reduce measurement error and bias in estimates necessary to support policy assessment.

Dedicated financial hardship screening adds value to routine distress screening among gynecologic cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate existing distress screening to identify patients with financial hardship (FH) compared to dedicated FH screening and assess patient attitudes toward FH screening. METHODS: We screened gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy. Existing screening included: (1) Moderate/severe distress defined as Distress Thermometer score ≥ 4, (2) practical concerns identified from Problem Checklist, and (3) a single question assessing trouble paying for medications. FH screening included: (1) Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and (2) 10-item Financial Needs Checklist to guide referrals. FH was defined as COST score < 26. We calculated sensitivity (patients with moderate/severe distress + FH over total patients with FH) and specificity (patients with no/mild distress + no FH over total patients with no FH) to assess the extent distress screening could capture FH. Surveys and exit interviews assessed patient perspectives toward screening. RESULTS: Of 364 patients screened for distress, average age was 62 years, 25% were Black, 45% were Medicare beneficiaries, 32% had moderate/severe distress, 15% reported ≥1 practical concern, and 0 reported trouble paying for medications. Most (n = 357, 98%) patients also completed FH screening: of them, 24% screened positive for FH, 32% reported ≥1 financial need. Distress screening had 57% sensitivity and 77% specificity for FH. Based on 79 surveys and 43 exit interviews, FH screening was acceptable with feedback to improve the timing and setting of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated FH screening was feasible and acceptable, but sensitivity was low. Importantly, 40% of women with FH would not have been identified with distress screening alone.

Assessing the association between quantity and quality of family caregiver participation in decision-making clinical encounters on patient activation in the metastatic breast cancer setting.

OBJECTIVE: Caregivers support individuals undergoing cancer treatment by assisting with activities, managing care, navigating healthcare systems, and communicating with care teams. We explored the quality and quantity of caregiver participation during recorded decision-making clinical appointments in women with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: This was a convergent parallel mixed methods study that utilized qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. Caregiver participation quality was operationalized using a summative thematic content analysis to identify and sum caregiver actions performed during appointments. Performance of a greater number of actions was considered greater quality of participation. Caregiver participation quantity was measured by calculating the proportion of speaking time. Participation quality and quantity were compared to patient activation, assessed using the Patient Activation Measure 1-month post decision-making appointment. RESULTS: Fifty-three clinical encounters between patients with MBC, their caregivers, and oncologists were recorded. Identified caregiver actions included: General Support; Management of Treatment or Medication; Treatment History; Decision-Making; Insurance or Money; Pharmacy; Scheduling; Travel Concerns; General Cancer Understanding; Patient Specific Cancer Understanding; Caregiver-Initiated or Emphasis on Symptom Severity; and Caregiver Back-Up of Patient Symptom Description. Caregivers averaged 5 actions (SD 3): 48% of patient's caregivers had low quality (< 5 actions) and 52% had high quality (> 6 actions) participation. Regarding quantity, caregivers spoke on average for 4% of the encounter, with 60% of caregivers speaking less than 4% of the encounter (low quantity) and 40% of caregivers speaking more than 4% (high quantity). Greater quality and quantity of caregiver participation was associated with greater patient activation. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers perform a variety of actions during oncological decision-making visits aiding both patient and provider. Greater participation in terms of quantity and quality by the caregiver was associated with greater patient activism, indicating a need for better integration of the caregiver in clinical decision-making environments.

Associations Between Rehabilitation Utilization and Out-of-Pocket Costs Among Older Adults With Breast Cancer in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between rehabilitation utilization within 12 months of breast cancer diagnosis and out-of-pocket costs in the second year (12-24mo after diagnosis). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the 2009-2019 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked database. Individuals who received rehabilitation services were propensity-score matched to individuals who did not receive services. Overall and health care service-specific models were examined using generalized linear models with a gamma distribution. SETTING: Inpatient and outpatient medical facilities. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 35,212 individuals diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer and were continuously enrolled in Medicare Fee-For Service (parts A, B, and D) in the 12 months before and 24 months postdiagnosis. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Individual cost responsibility, a proxy for out-of-pocket costs, which was defined as deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments during the second year after diagnosis (12-24mo postdiagnosis). RESULTS: The mean individual cost responsibility was higher in individuals who used rehabilitation than those who did not ($4013 vs $3783), although it was not a clinically meaningful difference (d=0.06). Individuals who received rehabilitative services had significantly higher costs attributed to individual provider care ($1634 vs $1476), institutional outpatient costs ($886 vs $812), and prescription drugs ($959 vs $906), and significantly lower costs attributed to institutional inpatient costs ($455 vs $504), and durable medical equipment ($81 vs $86). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with breast cancer who received rehabilitation services had higher cost responsibility during the second year after diagnosis than those who did not. Future work is needed to examine the relationship between rehabilitation and out-of-pocket costs across longer periods of time and in conjunction with perceived benefit.

Cancer-Related Financial Hardship Screening as Part of Practice Transformation.

BACKGROUND: Data on financial hardship, an "adverse event" in individuals with cancer, are needed to inform policy and supportive care interventions and reduce adverse economic outcomes. METHODS: Lay navigator-led financial hardship screening was piloted among University of Alabama at Birmingham oncology patients initiating treatment in October 2020. Financial hardship screening, including reported financial distress and difficulty, was added to a standard-of-care treatment planning survey. Screening feasibility and completion and proportions of reported financial distress and difficulty were calculated overall and by patient race and rurality. The risk of financial distress by patient sociodemographics was estimated. RESULTS: Patients who completed a treatment planning survey (N=2741) were 18% Black, Indigenous, or persons of color (BIPOC) and 16% rural dwelling. The majority of patients completed financial hardship screening (90%), surpassing the target feasibility completion rate of 75%. The screening revealed 34% of patients were experiencing financial distress, including 49% of BIPOC and 30% of White patients. Adjusted models revealed BIPOC patients had a 48% higher risk of financial distress compared with those who were White (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI, 1.31-1.66). Large differences in reported financial difficulties were seen comparing patients who were BIPOC and White (utilities: 33% vs. 10%, upfront medical payments: 44% vs. 23%, transportation: 28% vs. 12%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The collection of patient-reported financial hardship data via routine clinical care was feasible and identified racial inequities at treatment initiation. Efforts to collect patient economic data should support the design, implementation, and evaluation of patient-centered interventions to improve equity and reduce the impact of financial hardship.

Influence of Cost-Related Considerations on Clinical Trial Participation: Results from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS).

BACKGROUND: People experiencing financial burden are underrepresented in clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: Describe the prevalence of cost-related considerations influential to trial participation and their associations with person-level characteristics. DESIGN: This cross-sectional study used and assessed how three cost-related considerations would influence the decision to participate in a hypothetical clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3682 US adult respondents to the Health Information National Trends Survey MAIN MEASURES: Survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression estimated associations between respondent characteristics and odds of reporting cost-related considerations as very influential to participation. KEY RESULTS: Among 3682 respondents, median age was 48 (IQR 33-61). Most were non-Hispanic White (60%), living comfortably or getting by on their income (74%), with ≥ 1 medical condition (61%). Over half (55%) of respondents reported at least one cost-related consideration as very influential to trial participation, including if usual care was not covered by insurance (reported by 42%), payment for participation (24%), or support for participation (24%). Respondents who were younger (18-34 vs. ≥ 75, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.3, 95% CI 2.3-8.1), more educated (high school vs.

Patient-reported discrimination among limited-resourced cancer survivors: a brief report.

PURPOSE: Healthcare discrimination has been associated with health disparities including lower cancer screenings, higher medical mistrust, and strained patient-provider relationships. Our study sought to understand patient-reported discrimination among cancer survivors with limited resources living in the United States. DESIGN AND METHODS: We used cross-sectional survey data distributed by the Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF) in 12/2020 and 07/2021. Respondents reported source and reason of healthcare discrimination. Age, sex, race and ethnicity, annual household income, Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA), Area Deprivation Index (ADI), employment status, cancer type, and number of comorbidities were independent variables of interest. The association between these variables and patient-reported healthcare discrimination was estimated using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from a multivariable modified Poisson regression model with robust standard errors. FINDINGS: A total of 587 cancer survivors were included in our analysis. Most respondents were female (72%) and aged ≥56 (62%); while 33% were Black, Indigenous, or Person of Color. Overall, 23% reported receipt of discrimination, with the majority reporting doctor, nurse, or healthcare provider as the source (58%). Most common reasons for discrimination included disease status (42%), income/ability to pay (36%), and race and ethnicity (17%). In the adjusted model, retired survivors were 62% less likely to report discrimination compared to those employed (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.23-0.64). Additionally, survivors with ≥3 comorbidities were 86% more likely to report discrimination compared to those survivors with no non-cancer comorbidities (RR 1.86; 95% CI 1.26-2.72). IMPLICATIONS: Cancer survivors with limited resources reported substantial discrimination most often from a healthcare provider and most commonly for disease status and income. Discrimination should be mitigated to provide equitable and high-quality cancer care.

Associations between geography, decision-making style, and interest in cancer clinical trial participation.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials offer novel treatments, which are essential to high quality cancer care. Patients living in rural areas are often underrepresented in clinical trials due to several factors. This study evaluated the association between rurality and interest in clinical trial participation, change in interest, and treatment decision-making style preference. METHODS: This cohort study included patients with cancer receiving oncology care at the University of Alabama at Birmingham from 2017 to 2019. Associations between treatment decision-making preference and the interaction between rurality and area deprivation were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression. Initial interest in clinical trial participation and change in interest were analyzed using modified Poisson regressions with robust standard errors. Initial interest model was stratified by Area Deprivation Index (ADI; higher vs. lower disadvantaged). RESULTS: In adjusted models, patients in rural versus urban areas had similar initial interest in clinical trials, both those in higher (40% vs. 50%) and lower disadvantaged settings (54% vs. 62%). Additionally, rural versus urban patients had similar change of clinical trial interest for both those who changed from uninterested-to-interested (31% vs. 26%) and interested-to-uninterested (47% vs. 42%). CONCLUSION: This study compares the interest in clinical trial participation among patients living in rural and urban settings. Lack of interest may be secondary to barriers that patients in rural areas face (e.g., transportation, financial, access). Most rural patients prefer a shared treatment decision-making style, which should be considered when identifying interventions to increase enrollment of underserved rural patients in clinical trials.

Determinants of telemedicine adoption among financially distressed patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from a nationwide study.

PURPOSE: Telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic among financially distressed patients with cancer, with respect to the determinants of adoption and patterns of utilization, has yet to be delineated. We sought to systematically characterize telemedicine utilization in financially distressed patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of nationwide survey data assessing telemedicine use in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic collected by Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF) in December 2020. Patients were characterized as financially distressed by self-reporting limited financial resources to manage out-of-pocket costs, psychological distress, and/or adaptive coping behaviors. Primary study outcome was telemedicine utilization during the pandemic. Secondary outcomes were telemedicine utilization volume and modality preferences. Multivariable and Poisson regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with telemedicine use. RESULTS: A convenience sample of 627 patients with cancer responded to the PAF survey. Telemedicine adoption during the pandemic was reported by 67% of patients, with most (63%) preferring video visits. Younger age (19-35 age compared to ≥ 75 age) (OR, 6.07; 95% CI, 1.47-25.1) and more comorbidities (≥ 3 comorbidities compared to cancer only) (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.13-2.65) were factors associated with telemedicine adoption. Younger age (19-35 years) (incidence rate ratios [IRR], 1.78; 95% CI, 24-115%) and higher comorbidities (≥ 3) (IRR; 1.36; 95% CI, 20-55%) were factors associated with higher utilization volume. As area deprivation index increased by 10 units, the number of visits decreased by 3% (IRR 1.03, 95% CI, 1.03-1.05). CONCLUSIONS: The rapid adoption of telemedicine may exacerbate existing inequities, particularly among vulnerable financially distressed patients with cancer. Policy-level interventions are needed for the equitable and efficient provision of this service.

Quantifying treatment preferences and their association with financial toxicity in women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to understand treatment preferences and their association with financial toxicity in Patient Advocate Foundation clients with breast cancer. METHODS: This choice-based conjoint analysis used data from a nationwide sample of women with breast cancer who received assistance from the Patient Advocate Foundation. Choice sets created from 13 attributes of 3 levels each elicited patient preferences and trade-offs. Latent class analysis segmented respondents into distinct preference archetypes. The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool captured financial toxicity. Adjusted generalized linear models estimated COST score differences by preference archetype. RESULTS: Of 220 respondents (for a response rate of 10%), the median age was 58 years (interquartile range, 49-66 years); 28% of respondents were Black, indigenous, or people of color; and approximately 60% had household incomes <$40,000. The majority of respondents were diagnosed with early-stage cancer (91%), 38% had recurrent disease, and 61% were receiving treatment. Treatment choice was most affected by preferences related to affordability and impact on activities of daily living. Two distinct treatment preference archetypes emerged. The "cost-prioritizing group" (75% of respondents) was most concerned about affordability, impact on activities of daily living, and burdening care partners. The "functional independence-prioritizing group" (25% of respondents) was most concerned about their ability to work, physical side effects, and interference with life events. COST scores were found to be similar between the archetypes in adjusted models (cost-prioritizing group COST score, 12 [95% confidence interval, 9-14]; and functional independence-prioritizing COST score, 11 [95% confidence interval, 9-13]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with breast cancer prioritized affordability or maintaining functional independence when making treatment decisions. Because of this variability, preference evaluation during treatment decision making could optimize patients' treatment experiences.

Clinical trial representativeness and treatment intensity in a real-world sample of women with early stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The extent to which evidence-based treatments are applied to populations not well represented in early stage breast cancer (EBC) trials remains unknown. This study evaluated treatment intensity for patients traditionally well represented, underrepresented, and unrepresented in clinical trials. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used real-world data to evaluate the intensity (high or low) of EBC chemotherapy by patient characteristics (age, race and ethnicity, presence of comorbidity) denoting clinical trial representation status (well represented, underrepresented, unrepresented) for patients diagnosed from 2011 to 2020. Odds ratios (OR) from a logistic regression model was used to evaluate the association between receipt of high-intensity chemotherapy and clinical trial representation status characteristics adjusting for cancer stage and subtype. RESULTS: Of 970 patients with EBC, 41% were characterized as well represented, 45% as underrepresented, and 13% as unrepresented in clinical trials. In adjusted models, patients aged ≥ 70 versus 45-69 had lower odds of receiving a high-intensity treatment (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26-0.60), while those aged < 45 versus 45-69 had higher odds of receiving high-intensity treatment (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.10-3.01). In predicted estimates, the proportion of patients receiving a high-intensity treatment was 87% for patients aged < 45, 79% for patients aged 45-69, and 60% for patients aged ≥ 70. CONCLUSION: 59% of the EBC population is not well represented in clinical trials. Age was associated with differential treatment intensity. Widening clinical trial eligibility criteria should be considered to better understand survival outcomes, toxicity effects, and ultimately make evidence-based treatment decisions using a more diverse sample.

"It's important to me": A qualitative analysis on shared decision-making and patient preferences in older adults with early-stage breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision-making (SDM) occurs when physicians and patients jointly select treatment that aligns with patient care goals. Incorporating patient preferences into the decision-making process is integral to successful decision-making. This study explores factors influencing treatment selection in older patients with early-stage breast cancer (EBC). METHODS: This qualitative study included women age ≥65 years with EBC. To understand role preferences, patients completed the Control Preferences Scale. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore patients' treatment selection rationale. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a constant comparative method identifying major themes related to treatment selection. RESULTS: Of 33 patients, the majority (48%) desired shared responsibility in treatment decision-making. Interviews revealed that EBC treatment incorporated three domains: Intrinsic and extrinsic influences, clinical characteristics, and patient values. Patients considered 19 treatment selection themes, the most prioritized including physician trust and physical side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Because preferences and approach to treatment selection varied widely in this sample of older, EBC patients, more research is needed to determine best practices for preference incorporation to optimize SDM at the time of treatment decisions.

Importance of quality-of-life priorities and preferences surrounding treatment decision making in patients with cancer and oncology clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) occurs when a patient partners with their oncologist to integrate personal preferences and values into treatment decisions. A key component of SDM is the elicitation of patient preferences and values, yet little is known about how and when these are elicited, communicated, prioritized, and documented within clinical encounters. METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated nationwide data collected by CancerCare to better understand current patterns of SDM between patients and their oncology clinicians. Patient surveys included questions about the importance of quality-of-life preferences and discussions regarding quality-of-life priorities with their clinicians. Clinician surveys included questions about the discussion of quality-of-life priorities and preferences with patients, the effect of quality-of-life priorities on treatment recommendations, and quality-of-life priority documentation in practice. RESULTS: Patient survey completers (n = 320; 33% response rate) were predominantly women (95%), had a diagnosis of breast cancer (59%), or were receiving active cancer treatment (59%). Clinician survey completers (n = 112; 5% response rate) predominately identified as hematologists or oncologists (66%). Although 67% of clinicians reported knowing their patients' personal quality-of-life priorities and preferences before finalizing treatment plans, only 37% of patients reported that these discussions occurred before treatment initiation. Most patients (95%) considered out-of-pocket expenses important during treatment planning, yet only 59% reported discussing out-of-pocket expenses with their clinician before finalizing treatment plans. A majority of clinicians (52%) considered clinic questionnaires as feasible to document quality-of-life priorities and preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and clinicians reported that preferences related to quality-of-life should be considered in treatment decision making, yet barriers to SDM, preference elicitation, and documentation remain.

Should we be talking about guidelines with patients? A qualitative analysis in metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little data exist on perceptions of guideline-based care in oncology. This qualitative analysis describes patients' and oncologists' views on the value of guideline-based care as well as discussing guidelines when making metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatment decisions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In-person interviews completed with MBC patients and community oncologists and focus groups with academic oncologists were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts independently using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. RESULTS: Participants included 20 MBC patients, 6 community oncologists, and 5 academic oncologists. Most patients were unfamiliar with the term "guidelines." All patients desired to know if they were receiving guideline-discordant treatment but were often willing to accept this treatment. Five themes emerged explaining this including trusting the oncologist, relying on the oncologist's experiences, being informed of rationale for deviation, personalized treatment, and openness to novel therapies. Physician discussions regarding the importance of guidelines revealed three themes: consistency with scientific evidence, insurance coverage, and limiting unusual practices. Oncologists identified three major limitations in using guidelines: lack of consensus, inability to "think outside the box" to personalize treatment, and lack of guideline timeliness. Although some oncologists discussed guidelines, it was often not considered a priority. CONCLUSIONS: Patients expressed a desire to know whether they were receiving guideline-based care but were amenable to guideline-discordant treatment if the rationale was made clear. Providers' preference to limit discussions of guidelines is discordant with patients' desire for this information and may limit shared decision-making.

Trust but Verify: Exploring the Role of Treatment-Related Information and Patient-Physician Trust in Shared Decision Making Among Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer.

An ideal model for decision making in cancer is shared decision-making (SDM). Primary facilitators in this model are information-seeking about treatment options and patient-physician trust. Previous studies have investigated the role of each of these parameters individually. However, little is known about their convergent role in treatment decision-making. Therefore, we explored perspectives of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients and healthcare professionals about the influence of health information-seeking and physician trust in the SDM process. Qualitative interviews with 20 MBC patients and 6 community oncologists, as well as 3 separate focus groups involving lay navigators, nurses, and academic oncologists, were conducted, recorded, and transcribed. Qualitative data analysis employed a content analysis approach, which included a constant comparative method to generate themes from the transcribed textual data. Five emergent themes were identified (1) physicians considered themselves as the patients' primary source of treatment information; (2) patients trusted their physician's treatment recommendations; (3) patients varied in their approach to seeking further health information regarding the discussed treatment options (e.g., internet websites, family and friends, support groups); (4) other healthcare professionals were cognizant of their fundamental role in facilitating further information-seeking; and (5) patient and physician discordant perspectives on shared decision making were present. Patient procurement of treatment information and the capacity to use it effectively in conjunction with patient trust in physicians play an important role in the shared decision-making process.

Unmet social support needs among older adults with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adequate social support for older adults is necessary to maintain quality of life and reduce mortality and morbidity. However, little is known regarding the social support needs of older adults with cancer. The objective of the current study was to examine social support needs, specifically the unmet needs, among older adults with cancer. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries (those aged ≥65 years) with cancer were identified from the University of Alabama at Birmingham Health System Cancer Community Network. Social support needs were assessed using a modified version of the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey. The authors defined an "unmet need" if participants reported having some/a little/never availability of support and requiring support for that need. RESULTS: Of the 1460 participants in the current study, the average age was 74 years (standard deviation, 5.8 years). Approximately two-thirds of participants (986 participants; 67.5%) reported having at least 1 social support need, with the highest needs noted in the emotional (49.5%) and physical (47.4%) support subdomains. Of those individuals with a support need, approximately 45% had at least 1 unmet need, with the greatest percentages noted in the medical (39%) and informational (36%) subdomains. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that participants who were nonwhite, were divorced or never married, or had a high symptom burden were at greatest risk of having unmet social support needs across subdomains. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of older adults with cancer, the authors found high levels of unmet social support needs, particularly in the medical and informational support subdomains. Participants who were nonwhite, were divorced or never married, or had a high symptom burden were found to be at greatest risk of having unmet needs.

Impact of Guideline-Discordant Treatment on Cost and Health Care Utilization in Older Adults with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline-based treatment is a marker of high-quality care. The impact of guideline discordance on cost and health care utilization is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of Medicare claims data from 2012 to 2015 included women age ≥65 with stage I-III breast cancer receiving care within the University of Alabama at Birmingham Cancer Community Network. Concordance with NCCN guidelines was assessed for treatment regimens. Costs to Medicare and health care utilization were identified from start of cancer treatment until death or available follow-up. Adjusted monthly cost and utilization rates were estimated using linear mixed effect and generalized linear models. RESULTS: Of 1,177 patients, 16% received guideline-discordant treatment, which was associated with nonwhite race, estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor negative, human epidermal growth receptor 2 (HER2) positive, and later-stage cancer. Discordant therapy was primarily related to reduced-intensity treatments (single-agent chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapy without chemotherapy, bevacizumab without chemotherapy, platinum combinations without anthracyclines). In adjusted models, average monthly costs for guideline-discordant patients were $936 higher compared with concordant (95% confidence limits $611, $1,260). For guideline-discordant patients, adjusted rates of emergency department visits and hospitalizations per thousand observations were 25% higher (49.9 vs. 39.9) and 19% higher (24.0 vs. 20.1) per month than concordant patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: One in six patients with early-stage breast cancer received guideline-discordant care, predominantly related to undertreatment, which was associated with higher costs and rates of health care utilization. Additional randomized trials are needed to test lower-toxicity regimens and guide clinicians in treatment for older breast cancer patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Previous studies lack details about types of deviations from chemotherapy guidelines that occur in older early-stage breast cancer patients. Understanding the patterns of guideline discordance and its impact on patient outcomes will be particularly important for these patients. This study found 16% received guideline-discordant care, predominantly related to reduced intensity treatment and associated with higher costs and rates of health care utilization. Increasing older adult participation in clinical trials should be a priority in order to fill the knowledge gap about how to treat older, less fit patients with breast cancer.

What Is Important When Making Treatment Decisions in Metastatic Breast Cancer? A Qualitative Analysis of Decision-Making in Patients and Oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is an ideal environment for shared decision-making because of the large number of guideline-based treatment options with similar efficacy but different toxicity profiles. This qualitative analysis describes patient and provider factors that influence decision-making in treatment of MBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients and community oncologists completed in-person interviews. Academic medical oncologists participated in focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo. Using an a priori model based on the Ottawa Framework, two independent coders analyzed transcripts using a constant comparative method. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. RESULTS: Participants included 20 patients with MBC, 6 community oncologists, and 5 academic oncologists. Analysis of patient interviews revealed a decision-making process characterized by the following themes: decision-making style, contextual factors, and preferences. Patient preference subthemes include treatment efficacy, physical side effects of treatment, emotional side effects of treatment, cognitive side effects of treatment, cost and financial toxicity, salience of cutting-edge treatment options (clinical trial or newly approved medication), treatment logistics and convenience, personal and family responsibilities, treatment impact on daily activities, participation in self-defining endeavors, attending important events, and pursuing important goals. Physician decisions emphasized drug-specific characteristics (treatment efficacy, side effects, cost) rather than patient preferences, which might impact treatment choice. CONCLUSION: Although both patients with MBC and oncologists considered treatment characteristics when making decisions, patients' considerations were broader than oncologists', incorporating contextual factors such as the innovative value of the treatment and life responsibilities. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggests the value of tools to facilitate systematic communication of preferences in the setting of MBC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Both patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and oncologists emphasized importance of efficacy and physical side effects when making treatment decisions. However, other patient considerations for making treatment decisions were broader, incorporating contextual factors such as the logistics of treatments, personal and family responsibilities, and ability to attend important events. Furthermore, individual patients varied substantially in priorities that they want considered in treatment decisions. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggest the value of tools to facilitate systematic elicitation of preferences and communication of those preferences to oncologists for integration into decision-making in MBC.

Guideline Discordance and Patient Cost Responsibility in Medicare Beneficiaries With Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) that is not concordant with the NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer has been associated with higher healthcare utilization and payer costs. However, a significant knowledge gap exists regarding the impact of guideline-discordant care on patient cost responsibility. This study examined this question among patients with MBC in the year postdiagnosis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from the SEER-Medicare linked database from 2000 through 2013. Guideline discordance, defined by year-specific NCCN Guidelines, was assessed for first-line antineoplastic treatment and grouped into discrete categories. Patient cost responsibility (deductibles, coinsurance, copayments) in women with MBC were summed for all medical care received in the year postdiagnosis. The difference in patient cost responsibility by guideline discordance status was estimated using linear mixed-effect models. RESULTS: Of 3,709 patients with MBC surviving at least 1 year postdiagnosis, 17.6% (n=651) received guideline-discordant treatment. Median cost responsibility in the year postdiagnosis for patients receiving guideline-discordant treatment was $7,421 (interquartile range [IQR], $4,359-$12,983) versus $5,171 (IQR, $3,006-$8,483) for those receiving guideline-concordant care. In adjusted models, guideline-discordant treatment was significantly associated with $1,841 higher patient costs in the first year from index diagnosis date (95% CI, $1,280-$2,401) compared with guideline-concordant care. Patient cost responsibility differed by category of guideline discordance, with those receiving nonapproved bevacizumab having the highest cost responsibility (ß=$3,330; 95% CI, $1,711-$4,948). CONCLUSIONS: Deviations from current treatment guidelines may have implications on patient healthcare cost responsibility. Additional research is needed to fully understand the mechanisms underlying how guideline deviation leads to greater costs for patients with MBC.