Prevalence and Consequences of Axillary Lymph Node Dissection in the Era of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite clear guidelines for its use and wide adoption, no population-based study has examined the extent to which patients with early stage breast cancer are benefiting from sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) by being spared a potentially avoidable axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and its associated morbidity. OBJECTIVE: Examine variation in type of axillary surgery performed by surgeon volume; investigate the extent and consequences of potentially avoidable ALND. RESEARCH DESIGN/SUBJECTS: Observational study of older women with pathologically node-negative stage I-II invasive breast cancer who underwent surgery in a SEER state in 2008-2009. MEASURES: Surgeon annual volume of breast cancer cases and type of axillary surgery were determined by Medicare claims. An estimated probability of excess lymphedema due to ALND was calculated. RESULTS: Among 7686 pathologically node-negative women, 49% underwent ALND (either initially or after SLNB) and 25% were operated on by low-volume surgeons. Even after adjusting for demographic and tumor characteristics, women treated by higher volume surgeons were less likely to undergo ALND [medium volume: odds ratio, 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.82); high volume: odds ratio, 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.76)]. Potentially avoidable ALND cases were estimated to represent 21% of all expected lymphedema cases. CONCLUSIONS: In this pathologically node-negative population-based breast cancer cohort, only half underwent solely SLNB. Patients treated by low-volume surgeons were more likely to undergo ALND. Resources and guidelines on the appropriate training and competency of surgeons to assure the optimal performance of SLNB should be considered to decrease rates of potentially avoidable ALND and lymphedema.

Socioeconomic Disparities in Mortality Among Women With Incident Breast Cancer Before and After Implementation of Medicare Part D.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer patients exhibit survival disparities based on socioeconomic status (SES). Disparities may be attributable to access to expensive oral endocrine agents. OBJECTIVES: Define recent socioeconomic disparities in breast cancer survival and determine whether these improved after implementation of the Medicare Part D program. DESIGN: Difference-in-difference natural experiment of women diagnosed and treated before or after implementation of Medicare Part D. SUBJECTS: Female Medicare beneficiaries with early-stage breast cancer: 54,772 diagnosed in 2001 and 46,371 in 2007. MEASURES: SES was based on Medicaid enrollment and zip code per capita income, all-cause mortality from Medicare, and cause of death from National Death Index. RESULTS: Among women diagnosed pre-Part D, 40.5% of poor beneficiaries had died within 5 years compared with 20.3% of high-income women (P<0.0001). Post-Part D, 33.6% of poor women and 18.4% of high-income women died by 5 years. After adjustment for potential confounders, improvement in all-cause mortality post-Part D was greater for poorer women compared with more affluent women (P=0.002). However, absolute improvement in breast cancer-specific mortality was 1.8%, 1.2%, and 0.8% (P=0.88 for difference in improvement by SES), respectively for poor, near-poor, and high-income women, whereas analogous improvement in mortality from other causes was 5.1%, 3.8%, and 0.9% (P=0.067 for difference in improvement by SES). CONCLUSIONS: Large survival disparities by SES exist among breast cancer patients. The Part D program successfully ameliorated SES disparities in all-cause mortality. However, improvement was concentrated in causes of death other than breast cancer, suggesting remaining gaps in care.

Adherence to chronic opioid therapy prescribing guidelines in a primary care clinic.

OBJECTIVE: Characterize primary care patients prescribed opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), explore guideline-recommended opioid-monitoring practices, and investigate predictors of pain agreements. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Primary care clinic at a tertiary academic medical center. PATIENTS: Adults prescribed chronic opioids (three or more monthly prescriptions within a year) for CNCP between April 1, 2014 and April 1, 2015. Patients without CNCP served as controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Patient demographics, medical diagnoses, tobacco status, provider status, documentation of guideline-recommended opioid-monitoring practices, pain agreement status, and opioid prescription. Univariate statistics were used to explore differences in patient demographics, comorbidities, and guideline-recommended opioid-monitoring practices by chronic pain and pain agreement status. Logistic regression was used to investigate predictors of agreement status. RESULTS: The clinic had 834 (9 percent) patients on chronic opioids, with 335 on a pain agreement. Documentation of opioid-monitoring practices was lacking. Logistic regression indicated that patients were significantly more likely to be on an agreement if they were Caucasian (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.17 [95% CI 1.41, 3.39]), had a baseline urine drug screen (adjusted OR 10.72 [95% CI 6.16, 19.41]), were prescribed a schedule II controlled medication (adjusted OR 11.92 [95% CI 6.93, 21.62]), and had risk assessed to some degree (adjusted OR 3.06 [95% CI 1.90, 4.96]). CONCLUSIONS: Aside from race, most patient characteristics were not predictive of pain agreement implementation. However, controlled medication of higher schedules and the use of certain guideline-recommended practices were associated with an agreement. Studies are needed to examine whether pain agreement or guideline-adherence influence clinical outcomes.

The introduction of generic aromatase inhibitors and treatment adherence among Medicare D enrollees.

BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) substantially reduce breast cancer mortality in clinical trials, but high rates of nonadherence to these long-term oral therapies have reduced their impact outside of trials. We examined the association of generic AI availability with AI adherence among a large national breast cancer cohort. METHODS: Using a quasi-experimental prepost design, we examined the effect of generic AI introductions (7/2010 and 4/2011) on adherence among a national cohort of women with incident breast cancer in 2006 and 2007 who were enrolled in the Medicare D pharmaceutical coverage program. Medicare D claims were used to calculate AI adherence, defined as a medication possession ratio of 80% or more of eligible days, over 36 months. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations were applied to longitudinal adherence data to control for possible confounders, including receipt of a Medicare D low-income subsidy, and to account for repeated measures. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Sixteen thousand four hundred sixty-two Medicare D enrollees were eligible. Adherence declined throughout the study. However, among women without a subsidy, the median quarterly out-of-pocket cost of anastrozole fell from $183 in the fourth quarter of 2009 to $15 in 2011, and declines in adherence were attenuated with generic AI introductions. Regression-adjusted adherence probabilities were estimated to be 5.4% higher after generic anastrozole was introduced in 2010 and 11% higher after generic letrozole/exemestane was introduced in 2011. Subsidy recipients had higher adherence rates throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of generic medications attenuated the decline in adherence to AIs over three years of treatment among breast cancer survivors not receiving low-income subsidies for Medicare D coverage.