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.

Workplace Gender Inequity Is Driven by Broader Societal Inequity: A Qualitative Study of Senior Japanese and American Radiation Oncologists.

PURPOSE: Gender inequity in medicine harms society, and often originates in the context of broader societal discrimination. This study explores the experiences of older women in the radiation oncology specialty in Japan and the United States, with an emphasis on understanding how broader gender inequity affects career trajectory. Radiation oncology is an ideal setting to investigate cross-cultural physician gender equity issues, because few women enter the field despite fewer barriers (eg, frequent emergencies, evening/weekend hours, long procedures) that are commonly cited by women as deterrents in specialty selection. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2012 and 2016, the authors interviewed 14 older women in radiation oncology (department chairs or full professors), with 6 from Japan and 8 from the United States. Multiple analysts identified themes to explore the impact of societal gender inequity on female radiation oncologists' careers. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: (1) childhood gender constructs affect career aspirations, (2) persistent sexism and gender-based workplace challenges affect women's careers, (3) gender inequity in the home affects women's careers, (4) non-gender-related factors intersect to affect women's career satisfaction, and (5) attaining gender equity appears to be even more challenging in Japan compared with the United States. CONCLUSIONS: Female radiation oncologists in 2 of the most technologically advanced countries report that gender discrimination across their lifespans substantially affects career success. Because gender inequality reflects societal injustice and negatively affects scientific progress and patient outcomes, future research should focus on global approaches to address professional and domestic gender constructs that impede women's career progress.

Use and Outcomes of SBRT for Early Stage NSCLC Without Pathologic Confirmation in the Veterans Health Care Administration.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) use has increased among patients without pathologic confirmation (PC) of lung cancer. Empirical SBRT without PC raises concerns about variation in workup and patient selection, but national trends have not been well described. In this study, we assessed patterns of empirical SBRT use, workup, and causes of death among a large national non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 2221 patients treated with SBRT for cT1-T2aN0M0 NSCLC in the Veterans Affairs health care system from 2008 to 2015. We reviewed their pretreatment workup and assessed associations between absence of PC and clinical and demographic factors. We compared causes of death between PC and non-PC groups and used Cox proportional hazards modeling to compare overall survival and lung cancer specific survival (LCSS) between these groups. RESULTS: Treatment without PC varied from 0% to 61% among Veterans Affairs medical centers, with at least 5 cases of stage I NSCLC. Overall, 14.9% of patients were treated without PC and 8.8% did not have a biopsy attempt. Ten percent of facilities were responsible for almost two-thirds (62%) of cases of treatment without PC. Of non-PC patients, 95.5% had positron emission tomography scans, 40.6% had biopsy procedures attempted, and 12.7% underwent endobronchial ultrasound. Non-PC patients were more likely to have cT1 tumors and live outside the histoplasmosis belt. Age, sex, smoking status, and Charlson comorbidity index were similar between groups. Lung cancer was the most common cause of death in both groups. Overall survival was similar between groups, whereas non-PC patients had better LCSS (hazard ratio = 0.77, P = .031). CONCLUSIONS: Empirical SBRT use varied widely among institutions and appropriate radiographic workup was consistently used in this national cohort. Future studies should investigate determinants of variation and reasons for higher LCSS among non-PC patients.