What Do Patients Prefer? Understanding Patient Perspectives on Receiving a New Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is variability in physician practice regarding delivery method and timeliness of test results to cancer patients. Our aim was to survey patients to determine if there was a difference between actual and preferred care for disclosure of test results. METHODS: A de-identified survey was distributed to online cancer support groups to query patients about their experience regarding communication of cancer testing and timeliness. Analyses of the differences between actual and preferred communication and wait times were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 1000 patients completed the survey. The analysis herein was restricted to 784 breast cancer survivors. Survey responders were predominately White (non-Hispanic; 89 %), college educated (78 %), and media 'savvy' (online medical media usage; 97 %). Differences between actual and preferred care were identified for the domains of mode of communication and wait times for initial breast cancer diagnostic biopsies and other tests. A total of 309 (39 %) of 784 patients received face-to-face communication for a new cancer diagnosis, with 394 (50 %) patients preferring this option (p < 0.0001). In addition, 315 (40 %) of 784 patients received their cancer biopsy result within 2 days, with 646 (82 %) patients preferring this option (p < 0.0001). Differences were also identified between actual and preferred care for multiple other test types. CONCLUSIONS: Actual care for timeliness and modes of communication did not reflect patient-desired care. National and local initiatives to improve performance are needed. As a first step, we recommend that each patient be queried about their preference for mode of communication and timeliness, and efforts made to comply.

Disparities in breast cancer surgery delay: the lingering effect of race.

BACKGROUND: Delays to surgical breast cancer treatment of 90 days or more may be associated with greater stage migration. We investigated racial disparities in time to receiving first surgical treatment in breast cancer patients. METHODS: Insured black (56 %) and white (44 %) women with primary breast cancer completed telephone interviews regarding psychosocial (e.g., self-efficacy) and health care factors (e.g., communication). Clinical data were extracted from medical charts. Time to surgery was measured as the days between diagnosis and definitive surgical treatment. We also examined delays of more than 90 days. Unadjusted hazard ratios (HRs) examined univariate relationships between delay outcomes and covariates. Cox proportional hazard models were used for multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Mean time to surgery was higher in blacks (mean 47 days) than whites (mean 33 days; p = .001). Black women were less likely to receive therapy before 90 days compared to white women after adjustment for covariates (HR .58; 95 % confidence interval .44, .78). Health care process factors were nonsignificant in multivariate models. Women with shorter delay reported Internet use (vs. not) and underwent breast-conserving surgery (vs. mastectomy) (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged delays to definitive breast cancer surgery persist among black women. Because the 90-day interval has been associated with poorer outcomes, interventions to address delay are needed.

A peer-led decision support intervention improves decision outcomes in black women with breast cancer.

Previous reports suggest that Black breast cancer patients receive less patient-centered cancer care than their White counterparts. Interventions to improve patient-centered care (PCC) in Black breast cancer patients are lacking. Seventy-six women with histologically confirmed breast cancer were recruited from the Washington, DC area. After a baseline telephone interview, women received an in-person decision support educational session led by a trained survivor coach. The coach used a culturally appropriate guidebook and decision-making model-TALK Back!(©) A follow-up assessment assessed participants' acceptability of the intervention and intermediate outcomes. After the intervention, participants reported increased: self-efficacy in communicating with providers (70 %) and self-efficacy in making treatment decisions (70 %). Compared to baseline scores, post-intervention communication with providers significantly increased (p= .000). This is the first outcome report of an intervention to facilitate PCC in Black breast cancer patients. Testing this intervention using RCTs or similar designs will be important next steps.

Differential expression of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) splice variants in whole blood of colon cancer patients and healthy volunteers: implication for the detection of circulating colon cancer cells.

Quantification of circulating cancer cells in whole blood samples by real time quantitative RT-PCR might be of clinical value for monitoring therapeutic effectiveness. In colon cancer patients, carcinoembrynic antigen (CEA) and cytokeratin 20 (CK20) have been frequently used for RT-PCR based tumor cell detection, but the specificity in particular for CEA has been questioned. In this study, we compared real-time RT-PCR for CEA and CK20 and analysed patients with metastatic disease (n=32) and healthy volunteers (n=17). CK20 mean values were elevated in cancer patients (P<0.001) and defined a subgroup (38%) who showed CK20 levels at least 100-fold above the highest value of the healthy control group. In contrast, only two cancer patients (6%) showed elevated CEA levels. Samples of the healthy control group showed exclusively a CEA-PCR product of 79 degrees C melting temperature. Thirty per cent of the colon cancer patients showed an additional product of 82 degrees C melting temperature. The 82 degrees C product was identical with the amplification product of CEA-cDNA and cDNA from different colon cancer cell lines. Colon cancer cells were spiked into normal blood in 10-fold dilutions that resulted in a dose dependent shift of the melt curve from 79 degrees C to the 82 degrees C. Sequencing of the PCR products showed that white blood cells express a splice variant of CEA, which hinders detection of tumor cell cDNA in whole blood samples. Our findings have implications for the use of CEA as a diagnostic molecule (e.g. by RT-PCR). The discovery of a physiologically expressed CEA splice variant might lead to a better understanding of the biological function of CEA and its family members.

Utility of CEA and CA 19-9 tumor markers in diagnosis and prognostic assessment of mucinous epithelial cancers of the appendix.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Tumor markers are a clinical tool frequently used in oncology in association with other clinical and radiologic information. For gastrointestinal cancer, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) tumor markers have found selected clinical application. The use of these tumor markers in mucinous epithelial tumors of the appendix has not been previously determined. METHODS: In patients with peritoneal dissemination of a mucinous epithelial malignancy of the appendix, tumor markers CEA and CA 19-9 were prospectively recorded preoperatively within 1 week prior to definitive treatment. Also, if the appendiceal tumor recurred, the tumor marker was determined. The accuracy of these two tumor markers in the management of this disease was determined for these two specific clinical situations. RESULTS: CEA was elevated in 56% of 532 patients and CA 19-9 was elevated in 67.1% of these patients. Although the absolute level of tumor marker did not correlate with prognosis, a normal value indicated an improved survival. CEA was elevated in 35.2% of 110 patients determined to have recurrent disease; CA 19-9 was elevated in 62.9% and at least one of the tumor markers was elevated in 68.2% of patients. An elevated CEA tumor marker at the time of recurrence indicated a reduced prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Both CEA and CA 19-9 tumor markers were elevated in a majority of these patients and should be a valuable diagnostic tool previously underutilized in this group of patients. These tumor markers were also of benefit in the assessment of prognosis in that a normal level indicated an improved prognosis. At the time of a reoperative procedure, CEA and CA 19-9 tumor markers gave information regarding the progression of disease. These tumor markers have practical value in the management of epithelial appendiceal malignancy with peritoneal dissemination.