Predicting Incident Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus or Gastric Cardia Using Machine Learning of Electronic Health Records.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Tools that can automatically predict incident esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) using electronic health records to guide screening decisions are needed. METHODS: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse was accessed to identify Veterans with 1 or more encounters between 2005 and 2018. Patients diagnosed with EAC (n = 8430) or GCA (n = 2965) were identified in the VHA Central Cancer Registry and compared with 10,256,887 controls. Predictors included demographic characteristics, prescriptions, laboratory results, and diagnoses between 1 and 5 years before the index date. The Kettles Esophageal and Cardia Adenocarcinoma predictioN (K-ECAN) tool was developed and internally validated using simple random sampling imputation and extreme gradient boosting, a machine learning method. Training was performed in 50% of the data, preliminary validation in 25% of the data, and final testing in 25% of the data. RESULTS: K-ECAN was well-calibrated and had better discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AuROC], 0.77) than previously validated models, such as the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (AuROC, 0.68) and Kunzmann model (AuROC, 0.64), or published guidelines. Using only data from between 3 and 5 years before index diminished its accuracy slightly (AuROC, 0.75). Undersampling men to simulate a non-VHA population, AUCs of the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study and Kunzmann model improved, but K-ECAN was still the most accurate (AuROC, 0.85). Although gastroesophageal reflux disease was strongly associated with EAC, it contributed only a small proportion of gain in information for prediction. CONCLUSIONS: K-ECAN is a novel, internally validated tool predicting incident EAC and GCA using electronic health records data. Further work is needed to validate K-ECAN outside VHA and to assess how best to implement it within electronic health records.

Primary Care Physician and Urologist Perspectives on Optimizing Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We conducted a study to understand primary care physician (PCP) and urologist perspectives on determinants of active surveillance care delivery for men with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semistructured, virtual interviews with a purposive sample of 19 PCPs and 15 urologists between June 2020 and March 2021. We used the behavioral theory-informed Theoretical Domains Framework to understand barriers to and facilitators of active surveillance care delivery. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded into framework domains and constructs by 3 independent coders. Participant recruitment continued until data saturation by group. RESULTS: Our study included 19 PCPs (9 female; 4 in community practices, 15 in academic medical centers) and 15 urologists (3 female; 5 in private practice, 3 in academic medical centers). The most commonly reported Theoretical Domains Framework domains affecting active surveillance care were (1) knowledge and (2) environmental context and resources. Although urologists were knowledgeable about active surveillance, PCPs mentioned limitations in their understanding of active surveillance (eg, what follow-up entails). Both groups noted the importance of an informed patient, especially how a patient's understanding of active surveillance facilitates their receipt of recommended follow-up. Physicians viewed patient loss to follow-up as a barrier, but identified a favorable organizational culture/climate (eg, good communication between physicians) as a facilitator. CONCLUSIONS: With patients increasingly involving their PCPs in their cancer care, our study presents factors both PCPs and urologists perceive (or identify) as affecting optimal active surveillance care delivery. We provide insights that can help inform multilevel supportive interventions for patients, physicians, and organizations to ensure the success of active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer.

The Acceptance and Use of Digital Technologies for Self-Reporting Medication Safety Events After Care Transitions to Home in Patients With Cancer: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Actively engaging patients with cancer and their families in monitoring and reporting medication safety events during care transitions is indispensable for achieving optimal patient safety outcomes. However, existing patient self-reporting systems often cannot address patients' various experiences and concerns regarding medication safety over time. In addition, these systems are usually not designed for patients' just-in-time reporting. There is a significant knowledge gap in understanding the nature, scope, and causes of medication safety events after patients' transition back home because of a lack of patient engagement in self-monitoring and reporting of safety events. The challenges for patients with cancer in adopting digital technologies and engaging in self-reporting medication safety events during transitions of care have not been fully understood. OBJECTIVE: We aim to assess oncology patients' perceptions of medication and communication safety during care transitions and their willingness to use digital technologies for self-reporting medication safety events and to identify factors associated with their technology acceptance. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted with adult patients with breast, prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer (N=204) who had experienced care transitions from hospitals or clinics to home in the past 1 year. Surveys were conducted via phone, the internet, or email between December 2021 and August 2022. Participants' perceptions of medication and communication safety and perceived usefulness, ease of use, attitude toward use, and intention to use a technology system to report their medication safety events from home were assessed as outcomes. Potential personal, clinical, and psychosocial factors were analyzed for their associations with participants' technology acceptance through bivariate correlation analyses and multiple logistic regressions. RESULTS: Participants reported strong perceptions of medication and communication safety, positively correlated with medication self-management ability and patient activation. Although most participants perceived a medication safety self-reporting system as useful (158/204, 77.5%) and easy to use (157/204, 77%), had a positive attitude toward use (162/204, 79.4%), and were willing to use such a system (129/204, 63.2%), their technology acceptance was associated with their activation levels (odds ratio [OR] 1.83, 95% CI 1.12-2.98), their perceptions of communication safety (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.08-2.47), and whether they could receive feedback after self-reporting (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.37-7.78). CONCLUSIONS: In general, oncology patients were willing to use digital technologies to report their medication events after care transitions back home because of their high concerns regarding medication safety. As informed and activated patients are more likely to have the knowledge and capability to initiate and engage in self-reporting, developing a patient-centered reporting system to empower patients and their families and facilitate safety health communications will help oncology patients in addressing their medication safety concerns, meeting their care needs, and holding promise to improve the quality of cancer care.

Primary care provider attitudes about and tendency to use non-recommended surveillance tests after curative breast cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the factors contributing to the receipt of non-recommended surveillance testing among early-stage breast cancer survivors. We assessed primary care providers (PCP) attitudes about and tendency to order non-recommended surveillance testing for asymptomatic early-stage breast cancer survivors post-adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: A stratified random sample of PCPs identified by early-stage breast cancer survivors were surveyed (N = 518, 61% response rate). PCPs were asked how likely they would be to order bone scans, imaging and/or tumor marker testing using a clinical vignette of an early-stage asymptomatic patient where these tests are non-recommended. A composite tendency to order score was created and categorized by tertiles (low, moderate, high). PCP-reported factors associated with high and moderate tendency to order non-recommended testing (vs. low) were estimated using multivariable, multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: In this sample, 26% reported a high tendency to order non-recommended surveillance tests during survivorship for early-stage breast cancer survivors. PCPs who identified as family practice physicians and PCPs reporting more confidence in ordering surveillance testing were more likely to report a high tendency to order non-recommended testing (vs. low) ((aOR family practice 2.09, CI 1.2, 3.8; aOR more confidence 1.9, CI 1.1, 3.3). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based sample of PCPs caring for breast cancer survivors, over a quarter of PCPs reported they would order non-recommended surveillance testing for asymptomatic early-stage breast cancer survivors. Efforts to better support PCPs and disseminate information about appropriate surveillance for cancer survivors are warranted.

Perceived financial decline related to breast reconstruction following mastectomy in a diverse population-based cohort.

BACKGROUND: Despite mandated insurance coverage for breast reconstruction following mastectomy, health care costs are increasingly passed on to women through cost-sharing arrangements and high-deductible health plans. In this population-based study, the authors assessed perceived financial and employment declines related to breast reconstruction following mastectomy. METHODS: Women with early-stage breast cancer (stages 0-II) diagnosed between July 2013 and May 2015 who underwent mastectomy were identified through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and Los Angeles and were surveyed. Primary outcome measures included patients' appraisal of their financial and employment status after cancer treatment. Multivariable models evaluated the association between breast reconstruction and primary outcomes. RESULTS: Among 883 patients with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy, 44.2% did not undergo breast reconstruction, and 55.8% underwent reconstruction. Overall, 21.9% of the cohort reported being worse off financially since their diagnosis (25.8% with reconstruction vs 16.6% without reconstruction; P = .002). Women who underwent reconstruction reported higher out-of-pocket medical expenses (32.1% vs 15.6% with expenses greater than $5000; P < .001). Reconstruction was independently associated with a perceived decline in financial status (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-3.22; P = .013). Among women who were employed at the time of their diagnosis, there was no association between reconstruction and a perceived decline in employment status (P = .927). CONCLUSIONS: In this diverse cohort of women who underwent mastectomy, those who elected to undergo reconstruction experienced higher out-of-pocket medical expenses and self-reported financial decline. Patients, providers, and policymakers should be aware of the potential financial implications related to reconstruction despite mandatory insurance coverage.

TrueNTH Sexual Recovery Intervention for couples coping with prostate cancer: Randomized controlled trial results.

BACKGROUND: Despite significant sexual dysfunction and distress after localized prostate cancer treatment, patients typically receive only physiologic erectile dysfunction management. The authors performed a randomized controlled trial of an online intervention supporting couples' posttreatment recovery of sexual intimacy. METHODS: Patients treated with surgery, radiation, or combined radiation and androgen deprivation therapy who had partners were recruited and randomized to an online intervention or a control group. The intervention, tailored to treatment type and sexual orientation, comprised 6 modules addressing expectations for sexual and emotional sequelae of treatment, rehabilitation, and guidance toward sexual intimacy recovery. Couples, recruited from 6 sites nationally, completed validated measures at the baseline and 3 and 6 months after treatment. Primary outcome group differences were assessed with t tests for individual outcomes. RESULTS: Among 142 randomized couples, 105 patients (mostly surgery) and 87 partners completed the 6-month survey; this reflected challenges with recruitment and attrition. There were no differences between the intervention and control arms in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Satisfaction With Sex Life scores 6 months after treatment (the primary outcome). Three months after treatment, intervention patients and partners reported more engagement in penetrative and nonpenetrative sexual activities than controls. More than 73% of the intervention participants reported high or moderate satisfaction with module content; more than 85% would recommend the intervention to other couples. CONCLUSIONS: Online psychosexual support for couples can help couples to connect and experience sexual pleasure early after treatment despite patients' sexual dysfunction. Participants' high endorsement of the intervention reflects the importance of sexual health support to couples after prostate cancer treatment. LAY SUMMARY: This study tested a web-based program supporting couples' sexual recovery of sexual intimacy after prostate cancer treatment. One hundred forty-two couples were recruited and randomly assigned to the program (n = 60) or to a control group (n = 82). The program did not result in improvements in participants' satisfaction with their sex life 6 months after treatment, but couples in the intervention group engaged in sexual activity sooner after treatment than couples in the control group. Couples evaluated the program positively and would recommend it to others facing prostate cancer treatment.

Exploring Variation in the Receipt of Recommended Active Surveillance for Men with Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer do not receive all the recommended testing. Reasons for variation in receipt are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We combined prospective registry data from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, a collaborative of 46 academic and community urology practices across Michigan, with insurance claims from 2014 to 2018 for men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer. We defined receipt of recommended surveillance according to the collaborative's low-intensity criteria as: annual prostate specific antigen testing and either magnetic resonance imaging or prostate biopsy every 3 years. We assessed receipt of recommended surveillance among men with ≥36 months of followup (246). We conducted multilevel analyses to examine the influence of the urologist, urologist and primary care provider visits, and patient demographic and clinical factors on variation in receipt. RESULTS: During 3 years of active surveillance, just over half of men (56.5%) received all recommended surveillance testing (69.9% annual prostate specific antigen testing, 72.8% magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy). We found 19% of the variation in receipt was attributed to individual urologists. While increasing provider visits were not significantly associated with receipt, older men were less likely to receive magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy (≥75 vs <55 years, adjusted odds ratio 0.07; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer did not receive all recommended surveillance. While urologists substantially influenced receipt of recommended testing, exploring how to leverage patients and their visits with their primary care providers to positively influence receipt appears warranted.

Financial Toxicity in Breast Reconstruction: A National Survey of Women Who have Undergone Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Despite awareness regarding financial toxicity in breast cancer care, little is known about the financial strain associated with breast reconstruction. This study aims to describe financial toxicity and identify factors independently associated with financial toxicity for women pursuing post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. METHODS: A 33-item electronic survey was distributed to members of the Love Research Army. Women over 18 years of age and at least 1 year after post-mastectomy breast reconstruction were invited to participate. The primary outcome of interest was self-reported financial toxicity due to breast reconstruction, while secondary outcomes of interest were patient-reported out-of-pocket expenses and impact of financial toxicity on surgical decision making. RESULTS: In total, 922 women were included (mean age 58.6 years, standard deviation 10.3 years); 216 women (23.8%) reported financial toxicity from reconstruction. These women had significantly greater out-of-pocket medical expenses. When compared with women who did not experience financial toxicity, those who did were more likely to have debt due to reconstruction (50.9% vs. 3.2%, p < 0.001). Younger age, lower annual household income, greater out-of-pocket expenses, and a postoperative major complication were independently associated with an increased risk for financial toxicity. If faced with the same decision, women experiencing financial toxicity were more likely to decide against reconstruction (p < 0.001) compared with women not experiencing financial toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one in four women experienced financial toxicity from breast reconstruction. Women who reported higher levels of financial toxicity were more likely to change their decisions about surgery. Identified factors predictive of financial toxicity could guide preoperative discussions to inform decision making that mitigates undesired financial decline.

A dyadic survey study of partner engagement in and patient receipt of guideline-recommended colorectal cancer surveillance.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether partner (spouse or intimate partner) engagement in colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance is associated with patient receipt of surveillance. METHODS: From 2019 to 2020 we surveyed Stage III CRC survivors diagnosed 2014-2018 at an academic cancer center, a community oncology practice and the Georgia SEER registry, and their partners. Partner engagement was measured across 3 domains: Informed about; Involved in; and Aware of patient preferences around surveillance. We evaluated bivariate associations between domains of partner engagement and independent partner variables. Analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare domains of engagement with patient-reported receipt of surveillance. RESULTS: 501 patients responded (51% response rate); 428 had partners. 311 partners responded (73% response rate). Partners were engaged across all domains. Engagement varied by sociodemographics. Greater partner involvement was associated with decreased odds of receipt of composite surveillance (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.93) and trended towards significance for decreased odds of receipt of endoscopy (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.34-1.03) and CEA (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55-1.04). Greater partner awareness was associated with increased odds of patients' receipt of endoscopy (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.15-4.12) and trended towards significance for increased odds of receipt of composite surveillance (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.91-2.04). CONCLUSION: Partners are engaged (informed, involved, and aware) in CRC surveillance. Future research to develop dyadic interventions that capitalize on the positive aspects of partner engagement may help partners effectively engage in surveillance to improve patient care.

Using Tailored Messages to Target Overuse of Low-Value Breast Cancer Care in Older Women.

BACKGROUND: National recommendations allow for the omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and post-lumpectomy radiotherapy in women ≥ 70 y/o with early-stage, hormone-receptor positive invasive breast cancer, but these therapies remain common. Previous work demonstrates an individual's maximizing-minimizing trait-an inherent preference for more or less medical care-may influence the preference for low-value care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited an equal number of women ≥ 70 yrs who were maximizers, minimizers, or neutral based on a validated measure between September 2020 and November 2020. Participants were presented a hypothetical breast cancer diagnosis before randomization to one of three follow-up messages: maximizer-tailored, minimizer-tailored, or neutral. Tailored messaging aimed to redirect maximizers and minimizers toward declining SLNB and radiotherapy. The main outcome measure was predicted probability of choosing SLNB or radiotherapy. RESULTS: The final analytical sample (n = 1600) was 515 maximizers (32%), 535 neutral (33%) and 550 (34%) minimizers. Higher maximizing tendency positively correlated with electing both SLNB and radiotherapy on logistic regression (P < 0.01). Any tailoring (maximizer- or minimizer-tailored) reduced preference for SLNB in maximizing and neutral women but had no effect in minimizing women. Tailoring had no impact on radiotherapy decision, except for an increased probability of minimizers electing radiotherapy when presented with maximizer-tailored messaging. CONCLUSIONS: Maximizing-minimizing tendencies are associated with treatment preferences among women facing a hypothetical breast cancer diagnosis. Targeted messaging may facilitate avoidance of low-value breast cancer care, particularly for SLNB.

Improving the delivery of team-based survivorship care after primary breast cancer treatment through a multi-level intervention: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: We developed and tested a multi-level intervention, ConnectedCancerCare (CCC), which includes a tailored website and appointment reminder system for women with early-stage breast cancer and a provider summary letter sent to their medical oncologist and primary care provider to improve the delivery of team-based survivorship care. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to establish the feasibility and acceptability of CCC. Women diagnosed with stages 0-II breast cancer within one year of completing primary treatment were randomized to CCC (intervention) or a static online survivorship care plan (control). Participants completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys online. Post-trial interviews with 5 PCPs, 6 oncology providers, and 8 intervention patients were conducted. RESULTS: Of the 160 eligible women invited to participate, 66 completed the baseline survey and were randomized (41%) and 54 completed a follow-up survey (83%). Participants in the intervention arm found the CCC content to be acceptable, with 82% reporting it was easy to use and 86% reporting they would recommend it to other patients. Women randomized to CCC (vs. control) more often reported scheduling a PCP follow-up visit (64% vs. 42%), communicating with their PCP about provider roles (67% vs. 18%), and higher mean team-based cancer care knowledge scores (3.7 vs. 3.4). CONCLUSION: Deploying CCC in medical oncology practices was feasible, and the intervention content was acceptable. CCC shows promise for improving patient knowledge and patient-provider communication about provider roles in team-based cancer care and encouraging patients to engage with their PCP early in the survivorship period.

Gaps in Online Breast Cancer Treatment Information for Older Women.

BACKGROUND: For women older than 70 years with early-stage breast cancer, the routine use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and adjuvant radiotherapy offers no overall survival benefit and may be perceived as undesirable by many women. National guidelines allow possible omission of these practices for older women. This study aimed to assess the availability of web-based educational materials targeting older women and their age-specific treatment recommendations. METHODS: The study systematically assessed the websites of the top 25 "Best Hospitals for Cancer" ranked by the U.S. News & World Report, as well as the websites of four prominent national cancer organizations. RESULTS: Websites for the leading cancer hospitals and national cancer organizations contain extremely limited information directed toward older patients with breast cancer. Both SLNB and adjuvant radiotherapy are described as treatments "typically," "most often," or "usually" used in combination with breast-conserving surgery without circumstances noted for possible omission. Specifically, no hospital website and only one national organization in this study included information on the recommendation to avoid routine SLNB. Only two hospitals and two national organizations included information suggesting possible omission of adjuvant radiotherapy for patients older than 70 years. CONCLUSION: The absence of online material for older patients with breast cancer represents a gap potentially contributing to overtreatment by framing SLNB and adjuvant radiotherapy as necessary. Informational resources available to women aged 70 years or older may aid in informed physician-patient communication and decision-making, which may reduce SLNB and adjuvant radiotherapy for patients who might opt out of these procedures if fully informed about them.

Primary Care Providers' Perceptions About Participating in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions.

BACKGROUND: Primary care provider's (PCP) role in cancer care is expanding and may include supporting patients in their treatment decisions. However, the degree to which PCPs engage in this role for low-risk prostate cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Characterize PCP perceptions regarding their role in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, national survey. MAIN MEASURES: For men with low-risk prostate cancer, PCP reports of (1) confidence in treatment decision-making (high vs. low); (2) intended participation in key aspects of active surveillance treatment decision-making (more vs. less). KEY RESULTS: A total of 347 from 741 eligible PCPs responded (adjusted response rate 56%). Half of respondent PCPs (50.3%) reported high confidence about engaging in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making. The odds of PCPs reporting high confidence were greater among those in solo practice (vs working with > 1 PCP) (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.14-4.17) and with higher volume of prostate cancer patients (> 15 vs. 6-10 in past year) (OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.02-4.61). PCP report of their intended participation in key aspects of active surveillance treatment decision-making varied: discussing worry (62.4%), reviewing benefits (48.5%) and risks (41.8%), and reviewing all treatment options (34.2%). PCPs who reported high confidence had increased odds of more participation in all aspects of active surveillance decision-making: reviewing all treatment options (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.82-5.32), discussing worry (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.28-3.51), and reviewing benefits (OR 3.13; 95% CI 1.89-5.16) and risks (OR 3.20; 95% CI 1.91-5.36). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of PCPs were confident about engaging with patients in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making, though their intended participation varied widely across four key aspects of active surveillance care. With active surveillance being considered for other low-risk cancers (such as breast and thyroid), understanding factors influencing PCP involvement will be instrumental to supporting team-based cancer care.

Disparities in risk perception of thyroid cancer recurrence and death.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, studies regarding risk perception among survivors of thyroid cancer are scarce. METHODS: The authors surveyed patients who were diagnosed with differentiated thyroid cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County (2632 patients; 63% response rate). The analytic cohort was defined by a ≤5% risk of disease recurrence and mortality (1597 patients). Patients estimated their recurrence and mortality risks separately (increments of 10% and endpoints of ≤5% and ≥95%). Both outcomes were dichotomized between reasonably accurate estimates (risk perception of ≤5% or 10%) versus overestimation (risk perception of ≥20%). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with risk overestimation, and the relationships between overestimation and both worry and quality of life were evaluated. RESULTS: In the current study sample, 24.7% of patients overestimated their recurrence risk and 12.5% overestimated their mortality risk. A lower educational level was associated with overestimating disease recurrence (≤high school diploma: odds ratio [OR], 1.64 [95% CI, 1.16-2.31]; and some college: OR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.02-1.81]) and mortality (≤high school diploma: OR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.18-2.93]) risk compared with those attaining at least a college degree. Hispanic ethnicity was found to be associated with overestimating recurrence risk (OR, 1.44, 95% CI 1.02-2.03) compared with their white counterparts. Worry about recurrence and death was found to be greater among patients who overestimated versus those who had a reasonably accurate estimate of their risk of disease recurrence and mortality, respectively (P < .001). Patients who overestimated mortality risk also reported a decreased physical quality of life (mean T score, 43.1; 95% CI, 41.6-44.7) compared with the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Less educated patients and Hispanic patients were more likely to report inaccurate risk perceptions, which were associated with worry and a decreased quality of life.

A population-based study of invitation to and participation in clinical trials among women with early-stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Although many studies clearly demonstrate disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment, there is a lack of consensus on potential causes. Furthermore, virtually nothing is known about associations between patients' decision-making style and their participation in clinical trials. METHODS: Women with newly diagnosed, stage 0-II breast cancer reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles County Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries in 2013-2014 were surveyed approximately seven months after diagnosis. We investigated two primary outcome variables: (1) invitation to participate in a clinical trial, (2) participation in a clinical trial. We evaluated bivariate associations using Chi-squared tests and used multivariable logistic regression models to investigate associations between patient variables, including decision-making style, and the primary outcomes. RESULTS: 2578 patients responded (71% response rate); 30% were > age 65, 18% were black, 18% were Latina, 29% had ≤ high school education. 10% of patients reported invitation to participate in a clinical trial; 5% reported participation in a clinical trial. After adjustment younger age, receipt of chemotherapy or radiation, disease stage, and a more rational (versus more intuitive) decision-making style were associated with a higher odds of invitation to participate. Being married was associated with a higher odds of participation; having an annual family income ≥ $40,000 was associated with a lower odds of participation. CONCLUSIONS: 10% of patients reported invitation to participate in a clinical trial, and half of these reported participation. Invitation to participate varied by age and decision-making style, and participation varied by marital status and income.

Development of a Plain Language Decision Support Tool for Cancer Clinical Trials: Blending Health Literacy, Academic Research, and Minority Patient Perspectives.

Despite the promise of clinical trials for improving cancer care, less than 5% of all cancer patients participate. Racial/ethnic minorities continue to be underrepresented in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). To address this gap, we developed a plain language, web-based decision support tool (CHOICES DST) in English and Spanish to support decision-making about CCTs among Blacks and Hispanics. In phase 1 (information collection), we conducted qualitative interviews with 45 cancer patients, completed a thorough literature review, and reviewed results from a telephone survey of 1100 cancer patients. In phase 2 (content generation), we created the first iteration of the CHOICES DST. In phase 3 (usability testing), we gathered user experience and acceptability data from a small sample of cancer survivors (n = 9). The Knowledge, Empowerment, and Values Clarification (KEV) model of decision-making was developed based on data from phase 1. The KEV model and other phase 1 data allowed us to create the CHOICES DST platform. Usability testing of the CHOICES DST showed highly favorable responses from users, satisfaction with content, ease of navigation, and a desire to use the tool. Qualitative results identified addressable points that would benefit from content and navigation-related alterations. The final version of the CHOICES DST was well received and understood by Black and Hispanic participants, and adheres to the mandates for plain language communication. This research provides preliminary data that CHOICES DST holds promise for improving knowledge of CCTs and potentially improving informed decision-making about participation in trials.

Partnered status and receipt of guideline-concordant adjuvant chemotherapy among patients with colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Partnered status is an independent predictor of clinical outcomes, including overall survival, among patients with cancer. However, the mechanisms by which partnered status impacts survival are not fully understood and to the authors' knowledge the associations between partnered status and the specific attributes of chemotherapy have not been studied to date. METHODS: The current study was an observational study of patients with resected American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage III colon cancer diagnosed from 2008 through 2015 and recruited from an academic cancer center and 2 large community oncology practices. Outcome measures were specific attributes of adjuvant chemotherapy. Partnered status (partnered vs unpartnered) was the primary independent variable. Bivariate comparisons between independent variables and the primary outcomes were performed. Associations between partnered status and the outcomes also were analyzed using multivariable generalized estimating equations using a logit link. RESULTS: Data were collected from 436 patients. Of these patients, approximately 65% were from community oncology practices. Approximately 62% were partnered (married or living with a partner), and approximately 86% received adjuvant chemotherapy. Among these individuals, 87% received multiagent chemotherapy and 65% completed 6 months of therapy. Partnered patients were found to have a higher odds of completing chemotherapy (odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.04-3.77). CONCLUSIONS: In this innovative investigation of the associations between partnered status and specific attributes of curative-intent chemotherapy, approximately 35% of patients terminated chemotherapy early. Having a partner increased the odds of completing therapy, which may be one mechanism through which having a partner improves disease-specific outcomes among patients with colon cancer. Identifying those aspects of partner support that can be reproduced with community or clinical personnel may help unpartnered patients to complete the recommended course of curative-intent chemotherapy.

Understanding the engagement of key decision support persons in patient decision making around breast cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Patients with breast cancer involve multiple decision support persons (DSPs) in treatment decision making, yet little is known about DSP engagement in decision making and its association with patient appraisal of the decision process. METHODS: Patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer reported to Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries in 2014-2015 were surveyed 7 months after their diagnosis. The individual most involved in each respondent's decision making (the key DSP) was surveyed. DSP engagement was measured across 3 domains: 1) informed about decisions, 2) involved in decisions, and 3) aware of patient preferences. Patient decision appraisal included subjective decision quality (SDQ) and deliberation. This study evaluated bivariate associations with chi-square tests between domains of DSP engagement and independent DSP variables. Analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare domains of DSP engagement with patient decision appraisal. RESULTS: In all, 2502 patients (68% response rate) and 1203 eligible DSPs (70% response rate) responded. Most DSPs were husbands/partners or daughters, were white, and were college graduates. Husbands/partners were more likely to be more informed, involved, and aware (all P values < .01). English- and Spanish-speaking Latinos had a higher extent of (P = .02) but lower satisfaction with involvement (P < .01). A highly informed DSP was associated with higher odds of patient-reported SDQ (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.08; P = .03). A highly aware DSP was associated with higher odds of patient-reported deliberation (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-2.47; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, informal DSPs were engaged with and positively contributed to patients' treatment decision making. To improve decision quality, future interventions should incorporate DSPs.

Primary care provider-reported involvement in breast cancer treatment decisions.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decisions for patients with early-stage breast cancer often involve discussions with multiple oncology providers. However, the extent to which primary care providers (PCPs) are involved in initial treatment decisions remains unknown. METHODS: A stratified random sample of PCPs identified by newly diagnosed patients with early-stage breast cancer from the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries were surveyed (n = 517; a 61% response rate). PCPs were asked how frequently they discussed surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy options with patients; how comfortable they were with these discussions; whether they had the necessary knowledge to participate in decision making; and what their confidence was in their ability to help (on 5-item Likert-type scales). Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify PCP-reported attitudes associated with more PCP participation in each treatment decision. RESULTS: In this sample, 34% of PCPs reported that they discussed surgery, 23% discussed radiation, and 22% discussed chemotherapy options with their patients. Of those who reported more involvement in surgical decisions, 22% reported that they were not comfortable having a discussion, and 17% did not feel that they had the necessary knowledge to participate in treatment decision making. PCPs who positively appraised their ability to participate were more likely to participate in all 3 decisions (odds ratio [OR] for surgery, 6.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16-8.68; OR for radiation, 8.37; 95% CI, 5.16-13.58; OR for chemotherapy, 6.56; 95% CI, 4.23-10.17). CONCLUSIONS: A third of PCPs reported participating in breast cancer treatment decisions, yet gaps in their knowledge about decision making and in their confidence in their ability to help exist. Efforts to increase PCPs' knowledge about breast cancer treatment options may be warranted.

Risk of Osteoporosis and Fractures in Patients with Thyroid Cancer: A Case-Control Study in U.S. Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Data on osteoporosis and fractures in patients with thyroid cancer, especially men, are conflicting. Our objective was to determine osteoporosis and fracture risk in U.S. veterans with thyroid cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a case-control study using the Veterans Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse (2004-2013). Patients with thyroid cancer (n = 10,370) and controls (n = 10,370) were matched by age, sex, weight, and steroid use. Generalized linear mixed-effects regression model was used to compare the two groups in terms of osteoporosis and fracture risk. Next, subgroup analysis of the patients with thyroid cancer using longitudinal thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) was performed to determine its effect on risk of osteoporosis and fractures. Other covariates included patient age, sex, median household income, comorbidities, and steroid and androgen use. RESULTS: Compared with controls, osteoporosis, but not fractures, was more frequent in patients with thyroid cancer (7.3% vs. 5.3%; odds ratio [OR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.49) when controlling for median household income, Charlson/Deyo comorbidity score, and androgen use. Subgroup analysis of patients with thyroid cancer demonstrated that lower TSH (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97), female sex (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 3.53-5.10), older age (e.g., ≥85 years: OR, 17.18; 95% CI, 11.12-26.54 compared with <50 years), and androgen use (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.18-2.23) were associated with osteoporosis. Serum TSH was not associated with fractures (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96-1.07). CONCLUSION: Osteoporosis, but not fractures, was more common in U.S. veterans with thyroid cancer than controls. Multiple factors may be contributory, with low TSH playing a small role. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Data on osteoporosis and fragility fractures in patients with thyroid cancer, especially in men, are limited and conflicting. Because of excellent survival rates, the number of thyroid cancer survivors is growing and more individuals may experience long-term effects from the cancer itself and its treatments, such as osteoporosis and fractures. The present study offers unique insight on the risk for osteoporosis and fractures in a largely male thyroid cancer cohort. Physicians who participate in the long-term care of patients with thyroid cancer should take into consideration a variety of factors in addition to TSH level when considering risk for osteoporosis.