Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Adjuvant Radiation Dose for Pediatric Patients (≤22 years) with Nonmetastatic Intracranial Ependymomas.

PURPOSE: Ependymomas are the third most common brain tumors in children. Standard of care is surgery followed by adjuvant radiation therapy. Controversy in the literature still exists over optimal radiation therapy dose. We completed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the optimal dose for local control (LC), event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS) in pediatric patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science through January 2024. We included cohort studies that compared adjuvant radiation therapy of ≤54 Gy with >54 Gy in pediatric patients (≤22 years) with nonmetastatic intracranial ependymomas. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale of Cohort Studies. We pooled studies using a random effects meta-analysis for hazard ratios (HR), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and assessed statistical heterogeneity via I2. When HRs were unavailable, we transformed risks using established methods. We narratively summarized qualitative outcomes. RESULTS: Seven studies met our inclusion criteria, covering a combined 1321 patients. Studies included a range of doses from 45 to 66.6 Gy. Compared with >54 Gy, we found no difference in LC for those receiving ≤54 Gy (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56-1.24; I2, 49.1%), in EFS (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95-1.09; I2, 0.00%), and OS (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.82-1.20; I2, 37.5%). Two studies reported on subtotal resection by radiation therapy dose, neither study reporting statistical differences in LC, EFS, or OS, although the number of patients was small (n ≤ 30). Five studies reported on late effects, with brainstem radionecrosis, radiation-induced vasculopathy, and secondary tumors being the most frequent. Overall study quality was high, although lower scores were consistently seen in comparability of cohorts. To our knowledge, no studies reported on molecular subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in LC, EFS, or OS for those treated with ≤54 Gy compared with >54 Gy. There were insufficient data to complete a subgroup meta-analysis on radiation therapy dosing based on extent of resection or molecular subgroups.

The impact of limited English proficiency on oncological outcomes in the United States: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The increasing number of immigrants in the United States (U.S.) has resulted in more patients with limited English proficiency (LEP). LEP contributes to patient-provider language discordance, which may impact oncologic health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of LEP compared to English proficiency (EP) for oncological outcomes in adult cancer patients in the United States. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), the Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus from data inception to 26 January 2023. We also searched the reference lists and cited lists of included studies. Studies were limited to the United States and the English language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included retrospective and cross-sectional studies that analyzed one or more clinical outcomes (survival, readmission, length of stay, complications and discharge disposition) in LEP and EP cancer patients. Studies were eligible if they assessed cancer patients in the United States who were 18 years and older. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a piloted, standardized data collection form, two non-blinded, independent reviewers extracted data in duplicate from studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Reviewers resolved discrepancies through discussion. We then performed a qualitative assessment of the findings. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 2425 records from the database searches. We screened 1496 records by title and abstract and reviewed the full text of eight records. We retrieved 347 records from additional search methods and reviewed the full text of six records. We included 14 papers in total for analysis. The studies included 55,141 total patients and assessed outcomes in brain, oesophageal, head and neck, pancreatic and skin cancer. Our qualitative assessment demonstrated limited information on whether LEP impacted survival, complications and discharge disposition. We found no significant association between LEP and readmission or length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Studies assessing the impact of LEP and EP on the health outcomes of cancer patients are sparse and inconsistent in the measurements of outcomes and data reporting. The inconclusiveness of our study indicates that further standardized research is needed to assess the impact of LEP on the outcomes of cancer patients in the United States.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Role of Preoperative MRI in In-breast Tumor Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Surgery.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether the identification of additional tumors in the breast using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (pMRI) results in a lower risk of in-breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies were performed. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: From 768 citations, 20 studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. The 20 studies consisted of 14 retrospective reviews, 3 matched cohorts, and 3 randomized controlled trials. Whereas 2 studies reported a statistically significant lower rate of IBTR with pMRI, 18 studies showed no difference, and no studies reported a higher rate. Of the 18 studies showing no significant difference, 12 demonstrated a trend toward a lower IBTR rate in the pMRI group. The criteria for meta-analysis were met by 16 studies. A meta-analysis of 11 studies that reported hazard ratios (HR) for IBTR showed a trend toward a lower rate of IBTR for patients who received preoperative MRI (hazard ratio (HR), 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74-1.05). A meta-analysis of five studies that reported event rates and had similar follow-up duration for both groups demonstrated a lower relative risk (RR) of IBTR (RR, 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Although some evidence supports the hypothesis that identification of additional tumors in the breast using pMRI results in lower rates of IBTR after BCS, the main meta-analysis in this study did not confirm this hypothesis.

Clinician-Spoken Plain Language in Health Care Encounters: A Qualitative Analysis to Assess Measurable Elements.

PURPOSE: Good communication and use of plain language in health care encounters improve outcomes, including emotional health, symptom resolution, and functional status. Yet there is limited research on how to measure and report spoken plain language, which is the use of familiar, clear language. The authors aimed to describe key, measurable elements of spoken plain language that can be assessed and reported back to clinicians for self-reflection. METHOD: The authors conducted secondary analysis of transcripts from recorded encounters between breast cancer surgeons and patients with early-stage breast cancer. Two coders used a hybrid qualitative analysis with a framework based on U.S. Federal Plain Language Guidelines. To develop major themes, they examined (1) alignment with the Guidelines and (2) code frequencies within and across transcripts. They also noted minor themes. RESULTS: From 74 transcripts featuring 13 surgeons, the authors identified 2 major themes representing measurable elements of spoken plain language: (1) clinicians had a propensity to use both explained and unexplained medical terms, and (2) clinicians delivered information using either short turns (one unit of someone speaking) with 1 topic or long turns with multiple topics. There were 3 minor themes that were not indicative of whether or not clinicians used spoken plain language. First, clinicians regularly used absolute risk communication techniques. Second, question-asking techniques varied and included open-ended, close-ended, and comprehension checks. Third, some clinicians used imagery to describe complex topics. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians' propensity to use medical terms with and without explanation and parse encounters into shorter or longer turns are measurable elements of spoken plain language. These findings will support further research on the development of a tool that can be used in medical education and other settings. This tool could provide direct and specific feedback to improve the plain language practices of clinicians in training and beyond.

Implementing shared decision making for early-stage breast cancer treatment using a coproduction learning collaborative: the SHAIR Collaborative protocol.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) in breast cancer care improves outcomes, but it is not routinely implemented. Results from the What Matters Most trial demonstrated that early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, when used by surgeons after brief training, improved SDM and patient-reported outcomes. Trial surgeons and patients both encouraged using the conversation aids in routine care. We will develop and evaluate an online learning collaborative, called the SHared decision making Adoption Implementation Resource (SHAIR) Collaborative, to promote early-stage breast cancer surgery SDM by implementing the conversation aids into routine preoperative care. Learning collaboratives are known to be effective for quality improvement in clinical care, but no breast cancer learning collaborative currently exists. Our specific aims are to (1) provide the SHAIR Collaborative resources to clinical sites to use with eligible patients, (2) examine the relationship between the use of the SHAIR Collaborative resources and patient reach, and (3) promote the emergence of a sustained learning collaborative in this clinical field, building on a partnership with the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS). METHODS: We will conduct a two-phased implementation project: phase 1 pilot at five sites and phase 2 scale up at up to an additional 32 clinical sites across North America. The SHAIR Collaborative online platform will offer free access to conversation aids, training videos, electronic health record and patient portal integration guidance, a feedback dashboard, webinars, support center, and forum. We will use RE-AIM for data collection and evaluation. Our primary outcome is patient reach. Secondary data will include (1) patient-reported data from an optional, anonymous online survey, (2) number of active sites and interviews with site champions, (3) Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire data from phase 1 sites, adaptations data utilizing the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Extended/-Implementation Strategies, and tracking implementation facilitating factors, and (4) progress on sustainability strategy and plans with ASBrS. DISCUSSION: The SHAIR Collaborative will reach early-stage breast cancer patients across North America, evaluate patient-reported outcomes, engage up to 37 active sites, and potentially inform engagement factors affecting implementation success and may be sustained by ASBrS.

Racial Disparities in Outcomes After Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Racial disparities are a major issue in health care but the overall extent of the issue in spinal surgery outcomes is unclear. We conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis of disparities in outcomes among patients belonging to different racial groups who had undergone surgery for degenerative spine disease. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Review Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 20, 2021 for relevant articles assessing outcomes after spine surgery stratified by race. We included studies that compared outcomes after spine surgery for degenerative disease among different racial groups. RESULTS: We found 30 studies that met our inclusion criteria (28 articles and 2 published abstracts). We included data from 20 cohort studies in our meta-analysis (3,501,830 patients), which were assessed to have a high risk of observation/selection bias. Black patients had a 55% higher risk of dying after spine surgery compared with white patients (relative risk [RR], 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-1.87; I2 = 70%). Similarly, black patients had a longer length of stay (mean difference, 0.93 days; 95% CI, 0.75-1.10; I2 = 73%), and higher risk of nonhome discharge (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.47-1.81; I2 = 89%), and 30-day readmission (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.03-2.04; I2 = 96%). No significant difference was noted in the pooled analyses for complication or reoperation rates. CONCLUSIONS: Black patients have a significantly higher risk of unfavorable outcomes after spine surgery compared with white patients. Further work in understanding the reasons for these disparities will help develop strategies to narrow the gap among the racial groups.

An absence of equipoise: Examining surgeons' decision talk during encounters with women considering breast cancer surgery.

Shared decision-making is recommended for decisions with multiple reasonable options, yet clinicians often subtly or explicitly guide choices. Using purposive sampling, we performed a secondary analysis of 142 audio-recorded encounters between 13 surgeons and women eligible for breast-conserving surgery with radiation or mastectomy. We trained 9 surgeons in shared decision-making and provided them one of two conversation aids; 4 surgeons practiced as usual. Based on a published taxonomy of treatment recommendations (pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, offers, assertions), we examined how surgeons framed choices with patients. Many surgeons made assertions providing information and advice (usual care 71% vs. intervention 66%; p = 0.54). Some made strong pronouncements (usual care 51% vs. intervention 36%; p = .09). Few made proposals and offers, leaving the door open for deliberation (proposals usual care 21% vs. intervention 26%; p = 0.51; offers usual care 40% vs. intervention 40%; p = 0.98). Surgeons were significantly more likely to describe options as comparable when using a conversation aid, mentioning this in all intervention group encounters (usual care 64% vs. intervention 100%; p<0.001). Conversation aids can facilitate offers of comparable options, but other conversational actions can inhibit aspects of shared decision-making.

How Does Patient Socioeconomic Position Affect Breast Cancer Surgical Treatment and Mortality?: A Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the second leading cause of death in women across the world. Despite significant improvements in overall breast cancer survival, disparities still exist. Research shows that socioeconomic position (SEP) plays a strong role in disparities in breast cancer care. Lower SEP can be a predictor of poorer breast cancer health outcomes and treatment received. No recent review has focused on SEP and breast cancer surgery outcomes. We conducted a rapid review assessing how patient SEP affects breast cancer surgical outcomes. METHODS: We developed and ran the search strategy in Ovid MEDLINE in January 2021. We assessed study eligibility using an adapted version of PICOS criteria. We included observational studies that assessed the relationship between SEP and breast cancer surgery treatment, including outcomes like surgery choice, survival, and wait time to surgery. We independently reviewed each article and independently extracted data using a pre-designed form. One reviewer narratively synthesized the data extracted from the included articles. RESULTS: We found twelve articles that met inclusion criteria. Eight out of 12 articles showed a difference in breast cancer surgery outcomes based on at least one measure of SEP. Six out of eight articles that collected surgery choice data found that women with lower SEP had lower rates of breast conserving surgery. One out of three articles that collected survival data found that higher SEP had a positive effect on survival. Additionally, one article that collected wait time to surgery data found a significant correlation between lower SEP and longer delays to surgical treatment. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our rapid review of SEP and breast cancer surgery outcomes found that there is a relationship between SEP and breast cancer surgery choice. This rapid review did not find enough evidence to see a relationship with overall survival and wait time to surgery.

Implementation and sustainability factors of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids in diverse practices.

BACKGROUND: Conversation aids can facilitate shared decision-making and improve patient-centered outcomes. However, few examples exist of sustained use of conversation aids in routine care due to numerous barriers at clinical and organizational levels. We explored factors that will promote the sustained use of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids. We examined differences in opinions between the two conversation aids and across socioeconomic strata. METHODS: We nested this study within a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the effectiveness of two early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, one text-based and one picture-based. These conversation aids facilitated more shared decision-making and improved the decision process, among other outcomes, across four health systems with socioeconomically diverse patient populations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of patient participants across conversation aid assignment and socioeconomic status (SES) and collected observations and field notes. We interviewed trial surgeons and other stakeholders. Two independent coders conducted framework analysis using the NOrmalization MeAsure Development through Normalization Process Theory. We also conducted an inductive analysis. We conducted additional sub-analyses based on conversation aid assignment and patient SES. RESULTS: We conducted 73 semi-structured interviews with 43 patients, 16 surgeons, and 14 stakeholders like nurses, cancer center directors, and electronic health record (EHR) experts. Patients and surgeons felt the conversation aids should be used in breast cancer care in the future and were open to various methods of giving and receiving the conversation aid (EHR, email, patient portal, before consultation). Patients of higher SES were more likely to note the conversation aids influenced their treatment discussion, while patients of lower SES noted more influence on their decision-making. Intervention surgeons reported using the conversation aids did not lengthen their typical consultation time. Most intervention surgeons felt using the conversation aids enhanced their usual care after using it a few times, and most patients felt it appeared part of their normal routine. CONCLUSIONS: Key factors that will guide the future sustained implementation of the conversation aids include adapting to existing clinical workflows, flexibility of use, patient characteristics, and communication preferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03136367 , registered on May 2, 2017.

Women Who Are Young, Non-White, and with Lower Socioeconomic Status Report Higher Financial Toxicity up to 1 Year After Breast Cancer Surgery: A Mixed-Effects Regression Analysis.

PURPOSE: We examined self-reported financial toxicity and out-of-pocket expenses among adult women with breast cancer. METHODS: Patients spoke English, Spanish, or Mandarin Chinese, were aged 18+ years, had stage I-IIIA breast cancer, and were eligible for breast-conserving and mastectomy surgery. Participants completed surveys about out-of-pocket costs and financial toxicity at 1 week, 12 weeks, and 1 year postsurgery. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-five of 448 eligible patients (88.2%) from the parent trial completed surveys. Excluding those reporting zero costs, crude mean ± SD out-of-pocket costs were $1,512 ± $2,074 at 1 week, $2,609 ± $6,369 at 12 weeks, and $3,308 ± $5,000 at 1 year postsurgery. Controlling for surgery, cancer stage, and demographics with surgeon and clinic as random effects, higher out-of-pocket costs were associated with higher financial toxicity 1 week and 12 weeks postsurgery (p < .001). Lower socioeconomic status (SES) was associated with lower out-of-pocket costs at each time point (p = .002-.013). One week postsurgery, participants with lower SES reported financial toxicity scores 1.02 points higher than participants with higher SES (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-1.95). Black and non-White/non-Black participants reported financial toxicity scores 1.91 (95% CI, 0.46-3.37) and 2.55 (95% CI, 1.11-3.99) points higher than White participants. Older (65+ years) participants reported financial toxicity scores 2.58 points lower than younger (<65 years) participants (95% CI, -3.41, -1.74). Younger participants reported significantly higher financial toxicity at each time point. DISCUSSION: Younger age, non-White race, and lower SES were associated with higher financial toxicity regardless of costs. Out-of-pocket costs increased over time and were positively associated with financial toxicity. Future work should reduce the impact of cancer care costs among vulnerable groups. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study was one of the first to examine out-of-pocket costs and financial toxicity up to 1 year after breast cancer surgery. Younger age, Black race, race other than Black or White, and lower socioeconomic status were associated with higher financial toxicity. Findings highlight the importance of addressing patients' financial toxicity in several ways, particularly for groups vulnerable to its effects.

What matters most: Randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery conversation aids across socioeconomic strata.

BACKGROUND: Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) with early-stage breast cancer are more likely to report poorer physician-patient communication, lower satisfaction with surgery, lower involvement in decision making, and higher decision regret compared to women of higher SES. The objective of this study was to understand how to support women across socioeconomic strata in making breast cancer surgery choices. METHODS: We conducted a 3-arm (Option Grid, Picture Option Grid, and usual care), multisite, randomized controlled superiority trial with surgeon-level randomization. The Option Grid (text only) and Picture Option Grid (pictures plus text) conversation aids were evidence-based summaries of available breast cancer surgery options on paper. Decision quality (primary outcome), treatment choice, treatment intention, shared decision making (SDM), anxiety, quality of life, decision regret, and coordination of care were measured from T0 (pre-consultation) to T5 (1-year after surgery. RESULTS: Sixteen surgeons saw 571 of 622 consented patients. Patients in the Picture Option Grid arm (n = 248) had higher knowledge (immediately after the visit [T2] and 1 week after surgery or within 2 weeks of the first postoperative visit [T3]), an improved decision process (T2 and T3), lower decision regret (T3), and more SDM (observed and self-reported) compared to usual care (n = 257). Patients in the Option Grid arm (n = 66) had higher decision process scores (T2 and T3), better coordination of care (12 weeks after surgery or within 2 weeks of the second postoperative visit [T4]), and more observed SDM (during the surgical visit [T1]) compared to usual care arm. Subgroup analyses suggested that the Picture Option Grid had more impact among women of lower SES and health literacy. Neither intervention affected concordance, treatment choice, or anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Paper-based conversation aids improved key outcomes over usual care. The Picture Option Grid had more impact among disadvantaged patients. LAY SUMMARY: The objective of this study was to understand how to help women with lower incomes or less formal education to make breast cancer surgery choices. Compared with usual care, a conversation aid with pictures and text led to higher knowledge. It improved the decision process and shared decision making (SDM) and lowered decision regret. A text-only conversation aid led to an improved decision process, more coordinated care, and higher SDM compared to usual care. The conversation aid with pictures was more helpful for women with lower income or less formal education. Conversation aids with pictures and text helped women make better breast cancer surgery choices.

Text-only and picture conversation aids both supported shared decision making for breast cancer surgery: Analysis from a cluster randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if two encounter conversation aids for early-stage breast cancer surgery increased observed and patient-reported shared decision making (SDM) compared with usual care and if observed and patient-reported SDM were associated. METHODS: Surgeons in a cluster randomized trial at four cancer centers were randomized to use an Option Grid, Picture Option Grid, or usual care. We used bivariate statistics, linear regression, and multilevel models to evaluate the influence of trial arm, patient socioeconomic status and health literacy on observed SDM (via OPTION-5) and patient-reported SDM (via collaboRATE). RESULTS: From 311 recordings, OPTION-5 scores were 73/100 for Option Grid (n = 40), 56.3/100 for Picture Option Grid (n = 144), and 41.0/100 for usual care (n = 127; p < 0.0001). Top collaboRATE scores were 81.6 % for Option Grid, 80.0 % for Picture Option Grid, and 56.4 % for usual care (p < 0.001). Top collaboRATE scores correlated with an 8.60 point (95 %CI 0.66, 13.7) higher OPTION-5 score (p = 0.008) with no correlation in the multilevel analysis. Patients of lower socioeconomic status had lower OPTION-5 scores before accounting for clustering. CONCLUSIONS: Both conversation aids led to meaningfully higher observed and patient-reported SDM. Observed and patient-reported SDM were not strongly correlated. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Healthcare providers could implement these conversation aids in real-world settings.

Encounter Decision Aids Can Prompt Breast Cancer Surgery Cost Discussions: Analysis of Recorded Consultations.

Background. Patients frequently worry about care costs, but clinicians seldom address the topic. Cost information is not typically included in patient decision aids (DAs). We examined whether including cost information in an encounter DA, with clinician training, influenced cost conversations. Method. As part of a larger trial, 14 surgeons from 4 cancer centers were randomized to 1 of 3 interventions: (1) Picture Option Grid DA that included a prompt to discuss relative treatment costs, hereafter called "cost prompt group"; (2) a text-only Option Grid DA that did not include cost information; (3) usual care. Groups 2 and 3 hereafter are referred to as "non-cost prompt groups." Adult (18+) female patients, with stages I-IIIA breast cancer, eligible for both breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy were included. We gave surgeons feedback about adherence to the study protocol at 3, 6, and 12-months. We adapted a checklist to code the content of the audio-recorded clinical encounters. Results. 424/622 (68%) patients consented; 311 (73%) were eligible and successfully recorded (143 in the cost prompt group, 168 in the non-cost prompt groups). Costs were discussed in 132/311 (42.4%) encounters, and occurred more often in the cost prompt versus non-cost prompt groups (66.7% versus 33.3%; p<.001). Surgeons initiated the cost discussion in 86.4% of encounters in the cost prompt group vs. 34.1% in the non-cost prompt groups (p<0.001). In the non-cost prompt groups, insurance or employment questions led patients to ask about costs. Cost discussions lasted about 34 seconds when present and had sparse comparative details. Conclusions. Encounter DAs containing cost information trigger cost discussions. Additional support should help clinicians improve the quality of cost discussions and address financial distress.