Clinico-pathologic factors and survival of patients with breast cancer diagnosed with de novo brain metastasis: a national cancer database analysis.

PURPOSE: Patients with Breast Cancer (BC) with Brain Metastasis (BCBM) have poor survival outcomes. We aimed to explore the clinico-pathologic and therapeutic factors predicting the survival in patients with de novo BCBM using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The NCDB was queried for patients with BC between 2010 and 2020. Survival analysis with Kaplan-Meier curves and log rank tests were used to find median overall survival (OS) in months (95% CI) across the different variables. A multivariate cox regression model was computed to identify significant predictors of survival. RESULTS: Out of n = 2,610,598 patients, n = 9005 (0.34%) had de novo BCBM. A trend of decreasing OS was observed with increasing age, Charlson-Deyo score (CDS), and number of extracranial metastatic sites. The highest median OS was observed in the Triple Positive and the lowest OS in the Triple Negative subgroup. Based on treatment regimen, combination of systemic therapy and local therapy achieved the highest OS. A positive trend in OS was observed in the BC subgroup analysis with targeted therapy demonstrating a survival benefit when added to systemic therapy. The multivariate cox regression model showed that age, race, ethnicity, insurance, median income, facility type, CDS, BC subtype, metastatic location sites, and treatment combinations received were significantly associated with risk of death. Receiving only local treatment for BM without systemic therapy more than doubled the risk of death compared to combining it with systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that treatment of systemic disease is the major factor influencing survival in patients with BCBM. Moreover, targeted therapy with anti-HER2 increased survival when added to systemic therapy explaining the highest median OS noted in the Triple Positive subgroup.

Germline pathogenic variants associated with triple-negative breast cancer in US Hispanic and Guatemalan women using hospital and community-based recruitment strategies.

PURPOSE: Recruit and sequence breast cancer subjects in Guatemalan and US Hispanic populations. Identify optimum strategies to recruit Latin American and Hispanic women into genetic studies of breast cancer. METHODS: We used targeted gene sequencing to identify pathogenic variants in 19 familial breast cancer susceptibility genes in DNA from unselected Hispanic breast cancer cases in the US and Guatemala. Recruitment across the US was achieved through community-based strategies. In addition, we obtained patients receiving cancer treatment at major hospitals in Texas and Guatemala. RESULTS: We recruited 287 Hispanic US women, 38 (13%) from community-based and 249 (87%) from hospital-based strategies. In addition, we ascertained 801 Guatemalan women using hospital-based recruitment. In our experience, a hospital-based approach was more efficient than community-based recruitment. In this study, we sequenced 103 US and 137 Guatemalan women and found 11 and 10 pathogenic variants, respectively. The most frequently mutated genes were BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and ATM. In addition, an analysis of 287 US Hispanic patients with pathology reports showed a significantly higher percentage of triple-negative disease in patients with pathogenic variants (41% vs. 15%). Finally, an analysis of mammography usage in 801 Guatemalan patients found reduced screening in women with a lower socioeconomic status (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Guatemalan and US Hispanic women have rates of hereditary breast cancer pathogenic variants similar to other populations and are more likely to have early age at diagnosis, a family history, and a more aggressive disease. Patient recruitment was higher using hospital-based versus community enrollment. This data supports genetic testing in breast cancer patients to reduce breast cancer mortality in Hispanic women.

"You matter": patients perceptions and disparities about cancer care and telehealth during and after COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Disparities in cancer care have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study is to establish how telehealth mitigated the effect of COVID-19 on the healthcare sector and to identify potential disparities in perception and experience with telehealth in cancer care during and after the pandemic. METHODS: We identified individuals with an established cancer diagnosis who received treatment at a comprehensive academic cancer center with a diverse patient population between 2019 and 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were asked to complete a self-administrated survey intended to collect patient-reported outcomes on socioeconomic and mental health challenges incurred during the pandemic as well as participants' experience with telehealth. The assessment was adapted from a 21-question-based survey applied for mental health. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize participant characteristics and the response to the survey items. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess and analyze the contributing factors to the survey responses. RESULTS: A total of N = 136 participants were included in this analysis. The majority of participants (60.6%) reported increased anxiety, stress, or experience of distress as a direct result of COVID-19. However, among 54.1% of survey responders participated in a telehealth appointment and 84.4% agreed it was an easy and effective experience. CONCLUSION: Elderly, male, and black participants reported the worst impact related to the pandemic. The majority of patients had a positive experience with telehealth. The results of the study suggest that telehealth services can serve as a tool for patients with cancer during and beyond active treatment to access supportive services.

Biomarker Testing Disparities in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), data are limited on disparate biomarker testing and its association with clinical outcomes on a national scale. Objective: To evaluate the socioeconomic and demographic inequities in microsatellite instability (MSI) and KRAS biomarker testing among patients with mCRC and to explore the association of testing with overall survival (OS). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study, conducted between November 2022 and March 2024, included patients who were diagnosed with mCRC between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017. The study obtained data from the National Cancer Database, a hospital-based cancer registry in the US. Patients with mCRC and available information on biomarker testing were included. Patients were classified based on whether they completed or did not complete MSI or KRAS tests. Exposure: Demographic and socioeconomic factors, such as age, race, ethnicity, educational level in area of residence, median household income, insurance type, area of residence, facility type, and facility location were evaluated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were MSI and KRAS testing between the date of diagnosis and the date of first-course therapy. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify the relevant factors in MSI and KRAS testing. The OS outcomes were also evaluated. Results: Among the 41 061 patients included (22 362 males [54.5%]; mean [SD] age, 62.3 [10.1] years; 17.3% identified as Black individuals, 78.0% as White individuals, 4.7% as individuals of other race, with 6.5% Hispanic or 93.5% non-Hispanic ethnicity), 28.8% underwent KRAS testing and 43.7% received MSI testing. A significant proportion of patients had Medicare insurance (43.6%), received treatment at a comprehensive community cancer program (40.5%), and lived in an area with lower educational level (51.3%). Factors associated with a lower likelihood of MSI testing included age of 70 to 79 years (relative risk [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66-0.74; P < .001), treatment at a community cancer program (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.70-0.79; P < .001), rural residency (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.92; P < .001), lower educational level in area of residence (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.89; P < .001), and treatment at East South Central facilities (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.61-0.73; P < .001). Similar patterns were observed for KRAS testing. Survival analysis showed modest OS improvement in patients with MSI testing (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.96; P < .001). The median (IQR) follow-up time for the survival analysis was 13.96 (3.71-29.34) months. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with mCRC found that older age, community-setting treatment, lower educational level in area of residence, and treatment at East South Central facilities were associated with a reduced likelihood of MSI and KRAS testing. Highlighting the sociodemographic-based disparities in biomarker testing can inform the development of strategies that promote equity in cancer care and improve outcomes for underserved populations.