Assessing the Quality of Rectal Cancer Pathology Reports in National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol R-04/NRG Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Accurate and comprehensive surgical pathology reports are integral to the quality of cancer care. Despite guidelines from the College of American Pathologists, variations in reporting quality continue to exist. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of rectal cancer pathology reports and to identify areas of deficiency and potential sources of reporting variations. DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively obtained pathology reports. SETTING: This study is based at the hospitals participating in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol R-04 study. PATIENTS: Patients with rectal cancer undergoing surgical resection between July 2004 and August 2010 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the adherence to the College of American Pathologists guidelines and the impact of synoptic reporting, academic status, rural/urban setting, and hospital bed size on reporting quality. RESULTS: We identified 1004 surgical pathology reports for rectal cancer surgery from 383 hospitals and 755 pathologists. The overall adherence rate to the College of American Pathologists guidelines was 73.3%. Notable reporting deficiencies were found in several key pathology characteristics, including tumor histologic grade (reporting rate 77.8%), radial margin (84.6%), distance from the closest margin (47.9%), treatment effect (47.1%), and lymphovascular (73.1%)/perineural invasions (35.4%). Synoptic reporting use and urban hospital settings were associated with better adherence rates, whereas academic status and hospital bed size had no impact. Reporting variations existed not only between institutions, but also within individual hospitals and pathologists. There was a trend for improved adherence over time (2005 = 65.7% vs 2010 = 82.3%, p < 0.001), which coincided with the increased adoption of synoptic reporting by pathologists (2005 vs 2010, 9.4% vs 25.3%, p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Data were obtained from a restricted setting (ie, hospitals participating in a randomized clinical trial). CONCLUSIONS: Wide variations in the quality of pathology reporting are observed for rectal cancer. The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer mandates that programs meet strict quality standards for surgical pathology reporting. Further improvement is needed in this key aspect of oncology care for patients with rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B238.ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT00058 EVALUACIÓN DE LA CALIDAD DE LOS INFORMES DE PATOLOGÍA QUIRÚRGICA EN CASOS DE CÁNCER DE RECTO DEL NSABP R-04/ ONCOLOGÍA DEL NRG: Un informe de patología quirúrgica preciso y completo es fundamental en la calidad de atención de pacientes con cáncer. A pesar de las normas establecidas por el Colegio Americano de Patología, la variabilidad en la calidad de los informes es evidente.Evaluar la calidad de los informes de patología en casos de cáncer de recto para así identificar las áreas con deficiencias y las posibles fuentes variables en los mencionados informes.Análisis retrospectivo de informes de patología quirúrgica obtenidos prospectivamente.Hospitales que participan del Protocolo del Estudio Nacional R-04 como Adyuvantes Quirúrgicos de Mama e Intestino.Todos aquellos pacientes con cáncer de recto sometidos a resección quirúrgica entre Julio 2004 y Agosto 2010.Cumplimiento de las normas del Colegio Americano de Patología, del impacto de los informes sinópticos, del estado académico, del entorno rural / urbano y el número de camas hospitalarias en en la calidad de los informes.Identificamos 1,004 informes de patología quirúrgica en casos de cirugía en cáncer de recto en 383 hospitales y 755 patólogos. La tasa general de adherencia a las directivas del Colegio Americano de Patología fue del 73.3%. Se encontraron deficiencias notables en los informes en varias características patológicas clave incluidos, el grado histológico del tumor (tasa de informe 77.8%), margenes radiales (84.6%), distancia del margen más cercano (47.9%), efecto del tratamiento (47.1%) invasión linfovascular (73.1 %) / invasion perineural (35.4%). El uso de informes sinópticos y los entornos hospitalarios urbanos se asociaron con mejores tasas de adherencia, mientras que el estado académico y el número de camas hospitalarias no tuvieron ningún impacto. Hubo variaciones en los informes no solo entre instituciones, sino también dentro de hospitales y patólogos individuales. Hubo una tendencia a una mejor adherencia a lo largo del tiempo (2005 = 65.7% v 2010 = 82.3%, p < 0.001), que coincidió con la mayor adopción de informes sinópticos por parte de los patólogos (2005 v 2010, 9.4% v 25.3%, p < 0.001)Datos obtenidos de un entorno restringido (es decir, hospitales que participan en un ensayo clínico aleatorizado).Se observaron grandes variaciones en la calidad de los informes de patología quirúrgica en casos de cáncer de recto. El Programa Nacional de Acreditación para Cáncer de Recto exige que los programas cumplan con estrictos estándares de calidad para los informes de patología quirúrgica. Se necesita una mejoría adicional en este aspecto clave de la atención oncológica para pacientes con cáncer de recto. Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B238.Registro de Clinical Trials.gov: NCT00058.

Taking Care of Yourself and Your Risk for Breast Cancer (CUIDARSE): A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Health Communication Intervention for Latinas.

Latinas in the United States are more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer (BC) compared to non-Latinas. Literacy-appropriate and culturally sensitive cancer communication interventions can help address existing racial/ethnic BC disparities. We formatively developed a new BC prevention brochure for Spanish-speaking Latinas (≥35 years). Eligible women (n = 240) from a large public hospital in California were randomly assigned to one of three study arms: Group 1 received the new brochure, Group 2 included a community health worker (CHW) who delivered the new brochure's content, and a control group received a standard educational brochure. Participants completed three surveys (baseline, postintervention, 3-month follow-up) with a 100% completion rate for the first two surveys and 80.4% completion after 3 months. We assessed the difference in outcomes for BC risk knowledge, perceived BC susceptibility, and BC information self-efficacy between groups. Participant mean age was 52.3 years, and 82.1% reported low English proficiency. Mean knowledge scores increased and perceived BC susceptibility improved for all groups (p ≤ .05), yet treatment effects were not significant between groups for these outcomes. BC information self-efficacy also increased from baseline to postintervention for all groups to >80%. After 3 months, only Group 2 and the control group retained their increases and treatment effects were significant only for Group 2 compared to other groups in unadjusted and adjusted models. A CHW-delivered intervention may be more effective in improving BC information self-efficacy among Latinas compared to print material alone. More research is needed to examine the efficacy of CHW-delivered interventions.

Improving breast cancer survivors' knowledge using a patient-centered intervention.

BACKGROUND: Low-income, minority women with breast cancer experience a range of barriers to receiving survivorship information. Our objective was to test a novel, patient-centered intervention aimed at improving communication about survivorship care. METHODS: We developed a wallet card to provide oncologic and follow-up care survivorship information to breast cancer patients. We used a prospective, pre-post design to assess the intervention at a safety net hospital. The intervention was given by a patient navigator or community health worker. RESULTS: Patient knowledge (n = 130) of personal cancer history improved from baseline pretest to 1 week after the intervention for stage (66-93%; P < .05), treatment (79-92%; P < .05), and symptoms of recurrence (48-89%; P < .05), which was retained at 3 months. The intervention reduced the number of patients who were unsure when their mammogram was due (15-5% at 1 week and 6% at 3 months; P < .05). Nearly 90% reported they would be likely to share their survivorship card with their providers. CONCLUSION: A patient-centered survivorship card improved short-term recall of key survivorship care knowledge and seems to be effective at reducing communication barriers for this population. Further studies are warranted to assess long-term retention and the impact on receipt of appropriate survivorship follow-up care.

Are primary care providers prepared to care for survivors of breast cancer in the safety net?

BACKGROUND: With the growing number of survivors of breast cancer outpacing the capacity of oncology providers, there is pressure to transition patients back to primary care. Primary care providers (PCPs) working in safety-net settings may have less experience treating survivors, and little is known about their knowledge and views on survivorship care. The current study was performed to determine the knowledge, attitudes, and confidence of PCPs in the safety net at delivering care to survivors of breast cancer. METHODS: A modified version of the National Cancer Institute's Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding Care of Cancer Survivors was given to providers at 2 county hospitals and 5 associated clinics (59 providers). Focus groups were held to understand barriers to survivorship care. RESULTS: Although the majority of providers believed PCPs have the skills necessary to provide cancer-related follow-up, the vast majority were not comfortable providing these services themselves. Providers were adherent to American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations for mammography (98%) and physical examination (87%); less than one-third were guideline-concordant for laboratory testing and only 6 providers (10%) met all recommendations. PCPs universally requested additional training on clinical guidelines and the provision of written survivorship care plans before transfer. Concerns voiced in qualitative sessions included unfamiliarity with the management of endocrine therapy and confusion regarding who would be responsible for certain aspects of care. CONCLUSIONS: Safety-net providers currently lack knowledge of and confidence in providing survivorship care to patients with breast cancer. Opportunities exist for additional training in evidence-based guidelines and improved coordination of care between PCPs and oncology specialists.