Coordinating Care for Reproductive Health Malignancies in the Veterans' Health Administration: Promising Practices, Ongoing Challenges, and Future Research.

In cancer care, communication and coordination across the cancer continuum is paramount for delivering effective, high-quality, patient-centered care. However, achieving optimally coordinated cancer care is inherently challenging, especially in the case of Veterans Administration (VA) care for women's reproductive health cancers. Given the relatively small number of women Veterans requiring care for reproductive malignancies, VA often must rely on community providers to deliver this care, necessitating coordination across two or more health care systems. Recently, VA has invested heavily in improving care for women Veterans through several initiatives and efforts. This article reviews VA's successes, challenges, and future opportunities in research and innovation in the context of care coordination across the cancer continuum (i.e., prevention and screening, diagnosis and treatment, survivorship care, palliative and supportive care) for women Veterans with reproductive health malignancies. We describe how coordination of VA care for reproductive health malignancies currently reflects a mix of successes that demonstrate use of strong evidenced-based practices and challenges, with solutions yet to be fully developed and implemented. We conclude that there are a multitude of opportunities for future research, interventions, and potential avenues for implementing innovative approaches to coordinate VA reproductive cancer care across the cancer continuum.

Opportunities to Improve Detection and Treatment of Depression Among Patients With Breast Cancer Treated in an Integrated Delivery System.

CONTEXT: Patients with cancer commonly experience depression. If not addressed, depression can lead to reduced quality of life and survival. OBJECTIVE: Given the introduction of national initiatives to improve management of psychiatric symptoms among patients with cancer, we examined patterns of depression detection and treatment over time, and with respect to patient characteristics. METHODS: This cross-sectional study linked data from the Pathways Study, a prospective cohort study of women diagnosed with breast cancer at Kaiser Permanente Northern California between 2005 and 2013, with data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California's electronic medical record. Pathways participants eligible for this analysis had no known prior depression but reported depressive symptoms at baseline. We used modified Poisson regression to assess the association of cancer diagnosis year and other patient characteristics with receipt of a documented clinician response to depressive symptoms (depression diagnosis, mental health referral, or antidepressant prescription). RESULTS: Of the 725 women in our sample, 34% received a clinician response to depression. We observed no statistically significant association of breast cancer diagnosis year with clinician response. Characteristics associated with clinician response included Asian race (adjusted risk ratio, Asian vs. white: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.68) and depression severity (adjusted risk ratio, mild-moderate vs. severe depression: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.11-1.88). CONCLUSION: Most patients in our sample did not receive a clinician response to their study-reported depression, and rates of response do not appear to have improved over time. Asian women, and those with less severe depression, appeared to be at increased risk of having unmet mental health care needs.

Patterns of medication adherence in a multi-ethnic cohort of prevalent statin users diagnosed with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the implications of a cancer diagnosis on medication adherence for pre-existing comorbid conditions, we explored statin adherence patterns prior to and following a new diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer among a multi-ethnic cohort. METHODS: We identified adults enrolled at Kaiser Permanente Northern California who were prevalent statin medication users, newly diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer between 2000 and 2012. Statin adherence was measured using the proportion of days covered (PDC) during the 2-year pre-cancer diagnosis and the 2-year post-cancer diagnosis. Adherence patterns were assessed using generalized estimating equations, for all cancers combined and stratified by cancer type and race/ethnicity, adjusted for demographic, clinical, and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Among 10,177 cancer patients, statin adherence decreased from pre- to post-cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio (ORadj):0.91, 95% confidence interval (95% CI):0.88-0.94). Statin adherence decreased from pre- to post-cancer diagnosis among breast (ORadj:0.94, 95% CI:0.90-0.99) and colorectal (ORadj:0.79, 95% CI:0.74-0.85) cancer patients. No difference in adherence was observed among prostate cancer patients (ORadj:1.01, 95% CI:0.97-1.05). Prior to cancer diagnosis, adherence to statins was generally higher among non-Hispanic whites and multi-race patients than other groups. However, statin adherence after diagnosis decreased only among these two populations (ORadj:0.85, 95% CI:0.85-0.92 and ORadj:0.86, 95% CI:0.76-0.97), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial variation in statin medication adherence following diagnosis by cancer type and race/ethnicity among a large cohort of prevalent statin users in an integrated health care setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Improving our understanding of comorbidity management and polypharmacy across diverse cancer patient populations is warranted to develop tailored interventions that improve medication adherence and reduce disparities in health outcomes.

Oncologist and organizational factors associated with variation in breast cancer multigene testing.

PURPOSE: Multigene testing for breast cancer recurrence risk became available in 2007, yet many eligible patients remain untested. This study evaluated variation in testing rates, and oncologist and organizational factors associated with variation, in a setting without financial influences on testing. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic data and oncologist surveys within Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a large integrated health care system. Analyses included all 2974 test eligible patients from 2013 to 2015, 113 oncologists, and 15 practice groups. Receipt of multigene testing was evaluated with generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: Overall, 39% of eligible patients had multigene testing, but rates varied widely among practice groups, ranging from 24 to 48% after case mix adjustment. This 24% difference among practices was greater than the variation associated with most patient characteristics, including comorbidities and race/ethnicity, and similar to that associated with tumor size. Practice group and oncologist factors were statistically significant contributors to the variation in testing after adjusting for patient factors. Patients were more likely to be tested if they had a female oncologist (aOR 1.60, 95% CI 1.21-2.12) or were in a practice whose chief had a high testing rate (aOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.12-1.29 per 10% increase in the percent tested). CONCLUSIONS: Oncologist and leadership practices play a key role in the variation in genomic test use for cancer recurrence risk even in a healthcare system without financial barriers to testing and could be a leverage point for implementing desired practice changes for new genomic advances.