Genetic Testing Among Patients with High-Risk Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate Cancers.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends genetic testing in patients with potentially hereditary breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancers (HBOPP). Knowledge of genetic mutations impacts decisions about screening and treatment. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 28,586 HBOPP patients diagnosed from 2013 to 2019 was conducted using a linked administrative-cancer database in the Seattle-Puget Sound SEER area. Guideline-concordant testing (GCT) was assessed annually according to guideline updates. Frequency of testing according to patient/cancer characteristics was evaluated using chi-squared tests, and factors associated with receipt of genetic testing were identified using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Testing occurred in 17% of HBOPP patients, increasing from 9% in 2013 to 21% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Ovarian cancer had the highest testing (40%) and prostate cancer the lowest (4%). Age < 50, female sex, non-Hispanic White race, commercial insurance, urban location, family history of HBOPP, and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) were associated with increased testing (all p < 0.05). GCT increased from 38% in 2013 to 44% in 2019, and was highest for early age at breast cancer diagnosis, TNBC, male breast cancer, and breast cancer with family history of HBOPP (all > 70% in 2019), and lowest for metastatic prostate cancer (6%). CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of genetic testing for HBOPP cancer has increased over time. Though GCT is high for breast cancer, there are gaps in concordance among patients with other cancers. Increasing provider and patient education, genetic counseling, and insurance coverage for testing among HBOPP patients may improve guideline adherence.

Referral and treatment patterns among patients with stages III and IV non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Little is known about how referrals to different cancer specialists influence cancer care for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Among Medicare enrollees, we identified factors of patients and their primary care physician that were associated with referrals to cancer specialists, and how the types of cancer specialists seen correlated with delivery of guideline-based therapies (GBTs). METHODS: Data from patients with stages III and IV NSCLC included in the SEER-Medicare database were linked to their physicians in the American Medical Association Masterfile database. Using logistic regression, we (1) identified patient and physician factors that were associated with referrals to cancer specialists (medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons); (2) identified the types of referral to cancer specialists that predicted greater likelihood of receiving GBT (per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines). RESULTS: A total of 28,977 patients with NSCLC diagnosed from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2005 met eligibility criteria. Younger age, white race, higher income, and primary physician specialty other than family practice predicted higher likelihood of referrals to medical oncologists (P < .01 for all predictors). Seeing the three types of cancer specialists predicted higher likelihood of GBT (stage IIIA: odds ratio [OR] = 20.6; P < .001; IIIB: OR = 77.2; P < .001; and IV: OR = 1.2; P = .011), compared with seeing a medical oncologist only. Use of GBTs increased over the study period (42% to 48% from 2000 to 2005; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Referrals to all types of cancer specialists increased the likelihood of treatment with standard therapies, particularly in stage III patients. However, racial and income disparities still prevent optimal referrals to cancer specialists.

Complementary and alternative medicine use, patient-reported outcomes, and treatment satisfaction among men with localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use, satisfaction with treatment, and patient-reported outcomes after treatment. METHODS: The Prostate CAncer Therapy Selection Study prospectively surveyed patients newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer about their treatment decision-making process and outcomes. The Prostate CAncer Therapy Selection Study recruited patients from 3 geographic areas through hospital-based urology clinics and community urology practices. RESULTS: More than 700 patients completed the baseline and follow-up surveys. More than 50% of respondents reported using CAM; this decreased to 39% if prayer was excluded as a type of CAM. On multivariate analysis, factors related to communication with the treating physician, but not CAM use, were associated with treatment satisfaction. The likelihood of stability or improvement in urinary, bowel, and sexual function at 6 months was related to the choice of primary therapy but was unrelated to CAM use. CONCLUSION: In the present prospective observational study, CAM use was highly prevalent but unrelated to treatment satisfaction or changes in functional status. The effect of CAM on these endpoints remains to be established in comparative effectiveness studies.

Complementary and alternative medicine use among newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: We surveyed prostate cancer patients about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use and evaluated patient factors that correlated with CAM use 6 months following diagnosis. METHODS: The Prostate CAncer Therapy Selection study was a prospective, observational multi-site study of men's treatment decision-making process after a diagnosis of local stage prostate cancer. Recruitment occurred in community urology practices in Washington State, hospital-based urology clinics affiliated with the University of Southern California, and Kaiser Permanente in Northern California. Eligible study participants included men over age 21 diagnosed with local stage prostate cancer between May 1, 2005 and December 31, 2006. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of survey respondents (379) reported using one or more types of CAM. Of the patients, 51% used one CAM method, 26% used two methods, and 23% used three or more methods. The most commonly reported category was mind-body therapies (65%). Only 43% of patients discussed their CAM use with a health professional; of those, 20% informed their primary care physician and 30% told the doctor managing their prostate cancer care. Less than half thought the CAM they used was "very helpful", but a majority thought it was somewhat helpful for their condition. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to characterize the goals prostate cancer patients have for CAM, whether the treatments met those goals, and how this translates into the perceived helpfulness of these therapies. The implications of patients not discussing CAM use with health professionals at the time of prostate cancer treatment need further studies.