Patient and Family Caregiver Considerations When Selecting Early Breast Cancer Treatment: Implications for Clinical Pathway Development.

BACKGROUND: While clinical pathways have been widely adopted to decrease variation in cancer treatment patterns, they do not always incorporate patient and family caregiver perspectives. We identified shared patient and family caregiver considerations influencing treatment preferences/decision making to inform development of a shared decision pathway. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with women who completed initial definitive treatment for stage I-III breast cancer and their family caregivers. As part of a broader interview, we asked participants what they considered when choosing a treatment option for themselves/their loved one. We coded transcribed interviews, analyzed patient and family caregiver datasets separately, and compared findings. Findings Patients' (n = 22) mean age was 55.7 years, whereas family caregivers' (n = 20) mean age was 59.5 years, with most (65%) being patients' spouses/partners. Considerations reported by both groups included cancer status, treatment issues, physical/psychosocial/family consequences, and provider/health care system issues. Data revealed three key tensions that arise during treatment decision making: (1) having enough information to set expectations but not so much as to be overwhelming; (2) balancing the highest likelihood of cure with potential physical/emotional/social/financial consequences of the chosen treatment; and (3) wanting to make data-driven decisions while having a personalized treatment plan. DISCUSSION: Patients and family caregivers identified several considerations of shared relevance reflecting different perspectives. Efforts to balance considerations can produce tensions that may contribute to decision regret if unaddressed. CONCLUSION: Clinical pathways can increase exposure to decision regret if treatment options are selected without consideration of patients' priorities. A shared decision pathway that incorporates patient-centeredness could facilitate satisfactory decision making.

A clinical pathway is a tool used by doctors and nurses to help them plan how they will take care of patients. Clinical pathways do not always include what is important to patients and their families. We spoke with patients with breast cancer and their family members. We wanted to learn what is important to them when they are making decisions about how the patient will be treated for cancer. They reported thinking about the kind of cancer the patient had and about pros and cons of different treatment choices. They also thought about how much is known about different treatment choices. Other patients' stories were important. Patients and family members wanted to know how a treatment would affect their bodies, feelings, normal roles in life, and families. They also thought about their relationship with their doctors and nurses and about how they would pay for their care. It was seen as hard to balance these things when making decisions. Patients and family members wanted to make decisions they would be happy with later. We will use this information to create a new clinical pathway. This tool will help patients with breast cancer, family members, doctors, and nurses work together to make the best decisions about the patient's cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line vs third-line ibrutinib in patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The ALLIANCE A041202 trial found that continuously administered ibrutinib in the first-line setting significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with a fixed-duration treatment of rituximab and bendamustine in older adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In this study, we created a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib in the first-line setting, compared with a strategy of using ibrutinib in the third-line after failure of time-limited bendamustine and venetoclax-based regimens. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from a US payer perspective. First-line ibrutinib was associated with an improvement of 0.26 QALYs and 0.40 life-years compared with using ibrutinib in the third-line setting. However, using ibrutinib in the first-line led to significantly higher health care costs (incremental cost of $612 700), resulting in an ICER of $2 350 041 per QALY. The monthly cost of ibrutinib would need to be decreased by 72% for first-line ibrutinib therapy to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. In a scenario analysis where ibrutinib was used in the second-line in the delayed ibrutinib arm, first-line ibrutinib had an incremental cost of $478 823, an incremental effectiveness of 0.05 QALYs, and an ICER of $9 810 360 per QALY when compared with second-line use. These data suggest that first-line ibrutinib for unselected older adults with CLL is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Delaying ibrutinib for most patients with CLL until later lines of therapy may be a reasonable strategy to limit health care costs without compromising clinical outcomes.

Associations between nutritional factors and chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Nutritional status can directly affect morbidity and mortality in older adults with cancer. This study evaluated the association between pretreatment body mass index (BMI), albumin level, and unintentional weight loss (UWL) in the prior 6 months and chemotherapy toxicity among older adults with solid tumors. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective, multicenter study involving chemotherapy-treated patients 65 years old or older. Geriatric assessment, BMI, albumin level, and UWL data were collected before treatment. Multivariable logistic regression models evaluated the associations between nutritional factors and the risk of grade 3 or higher (grade 3+) chemotherapy toxicity. RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty patients with a median age of 72 years (range, 65-94 years) and mostly stage IV disease were enrolled. The median pretreatment BMI and albumin values were 26 kg/m2 (range, 15.1-52.1 kg/m2 ) and 3.9 mg/dL (range, 1.0-5.0 mg/dL), respectively. Nearly 50% of the patients reported UWL, with 17.6% reporting >10% UWL. Multivariable analysis revealed no association between >10% UWL and a risk for grade 3+ chemotherapy toxicity (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.87; P = .58). Multivariable analysis showed a trend toward an association between a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 and a decreased risk of grade 3+ chemotherapy toxicity (AOR, 0.65; P = .06), whereas a low albumin level (≤3.6 mg/dL) was associated with a higher risk of grade 3+ chemotherapy toxicity (AOR, 1.50; P = .03). An analysis of the joint effect of BMI and albumin demonstrated the lowest risk of grade 3+ chemotherapy toxicity among patients with high BMIs (≥30 kg/m2 ) and normal albumin levels (AOR, 0.41; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults with solid tumors, higher BMIs and normal albumin levels are associated with a lower risk of grade 3+ chemotherapy toxicity. Additional research is warranted to define the clinical significance of nutritional markers and to inform future interventions.

Complementary Medicine, Refusal of Conventional Cancer Therapy, and Survival Among Patients With Curable Cancers.

Importance: There is limited information on the association among complementary medicine (CM), adherence to conventional cancer treatment (CCT), and overall survival of patients with cancer who receive CM compared with those who do not receive CM. Objectives: To compare overall survival between patients with cancer receiving CCT with or without CM and to compare adherence to treatment and characteristics of patients receiving CCT with or without CM. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective observational study used data from the National Cancer Database on 1 901 815 patients from 1500 Commission on Cancer-accredited centers across the United States who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast, prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2013. Patients were matched on age, clinical group stage, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score, insurance type, race/ethnicity, year of diagnosis, and cancer type. Statistical analysis was conducted from November 8, 2017, to April 9, 2018. Exposures: Use of CM was defined as "Other-Unproven: Cancer treatments administered by nonmedical personnel" in addition to at least 1 CCT modality, defined as surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and/or hormone therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival, adherence to treatment, and patient characteristics. Results: The entire cohort comprised 1 901 815 patients with cancer (258 patients in the CM group and 1 901 557 patients in the control group). In the main analyses following matching, 258 patients (199 women and 59 men; mean age, 56 years [interquartile range, 48-64 years]) were in the CM group, and 1032 patients (798 women and 234 men; mean age, 56 years [interquartile range, 48-64 years]) were in the control group. Patients who chose CM did not have a longer delay to initiation of CCT but had higher refusal rates of surgery (7.0% [18 of 258] vs 0.1% [1 of 1031]; P < .001), chemotherapy (34.1% [88 of 258] vs 3.2% [33 of 1032]; P < .001), radiotherapy (53.0% [106 of 200] vs 2.3% [16 of 711]; P < .001), and hormone therapy (33.7% [87 of 258] vs 2.8% [29 of 1032]; P < .001). Use of CM was associated with poorer 5-year overall survival compared with no CM (82.2% [95% CI, 76.0%-87.0%] vs 86.6% [95% CI, 84.0%-88.9%]; P = .001) and was independently associated with greater risk of death (hazard ratio, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.50-2.90) in a multivariate model that did not include treatment delay or refusal. However, there was no significant association between CM and survival once treatment delay or refusal was included in the model (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.83-2.33). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patients who received CM were more likely to refuse additional CCT, and had a higher risk of death. The results suggest that mortality risk associated with CM was mediated by the refusal of CCT.

Use of Alternative Medicine for Cancer and Its Impact on Survival.

There is limited available information on patterns of utilization and efficacy of alternative medicine (AM) for patients with cancer. We identified 281 patients with nonmetastatic breast, prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer who chose AM, administered as sole anticancer treatment among patients who did not receive conventional cancer treatment (CCT), defined as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, and/or hormone therapy. Independent covariates on multivariable logistic regression associated with increased likelihood of AM use included breast or lung cancer, higher socioeconomic status, Intermountain West or Pacific location, stage II or III disease, and low comorbidity score. Following 2:1 matching (CCT = 560 patients and AM = 280 patients) on Cox proportional hazards regression, AM use was independently associated with greater risk of death compared with CCT overall (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.88 to 3.27) and in subgroups with breast (HR = 5.68, 95% CI = 3.22 to 10.04), lung (HR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.42 to 3.32), and colorectal cancer (HR = 4.57, 95% CI = 1.66 to 12.61). Although rare, AM utilization for curable cancer without any CCT is associated with greater risk of death.

Influence of a 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay on Chemotherapy Delivery in Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: We performed an analysis to determine the relative contribution of the Oncotype DX (ODX) recurrence score (RS) results in adjuvant therapy delivery compared with traditional pathologic factors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a retrospective review of women with stage I-IIIA breast cancer treated at the Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center from 2006 to 2012 with available ODX results. We constructed separate logistic models with the clinicopathologic factors alone and also integrating RS and compared these models using the likelihood ratio test and c-statistic to determine whether integration of the RS will result in better prediction of chemotherapy (CTx) delivery. RESULTS: We identified 431 women with a median age of 58 years. The RS was low (< 18), intermediate (18-30), and high (> 30) in 56%, 37%, and 7%, respectively. CTx was delivered to 30% of the patients. Age, differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, and progesterone receptor (PR) positivity < 50% were associated with CTx delivery in multivariable logistic regression of clinicopathologic factors alone (P < .05). In the model integrating the RS, an intermediate or a high RS was the most influential factor for CTx delivery (odds ratio, 7.87 vs. 265.35, respectively; P < .0001). The PR results and grade were no longer significant (P = .74 and P = .06, respectively). The integration of the RS resulted in improved model fit and precision, indicated by the likelihood ratio test (ΔG2, 100.782; df = 2; P < .0001) and an improved c-statistic (0.720 vs. 0.856). CONCLUSION: Gene expression profiling appears to account for a substantial amount of variability in CTx delivery in current practice. Further work is needed to ensure appropriate test usage and cost-effectiveness.

Appropriateness of Prostate Cancer Imaging among Veterans in a Delivery System without Incentives for Overutilization.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of appropriate and inappropriate prostate cancer imaging in an integrated health care system. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Veterans Health Administration Central Cancer Registry linked to VA electronic medical records and Medicare claims (2004-2008). STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of VA patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (N = 45,084). Imaging (CT, MRI, bone scan, PET) use was assessed among patients with low-risk disease, for whom guidelines recommend against advanced imaging, and among high-risk patients for whom guidelines recommend it. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found high rates of inappropriate imaging among men with low-risk prostate cancer (41 percent) and suboptimal rates of appropriate imaging among men with high-risk disease (70 percent). Veterans utilizing Medicare-reimbursed care had higher rates of inappropriate imaging [OR: 1.09 (1.03-1.16)] but not higher rates of appropriate imaging. Veterans treated in middle [OR: 0.51 (0.47-0.56)] and higher [OR: 0.50 (0.46-0.55)] volume medical centers were less likely to undergo inappropriate imaging without compromising appropriate imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the overutilization of imaging, even in an integrated health care system without financial incentives encouraging provision of health care services. Paradoxically, imaging remains underutilized among high-risk patients who could potentially benefit from it most.

Multilevel interventions: study design and analysis issues.

Multilevel interventions, implemented at the individual, physician, clinic, health-care organization, and/or community level, increasingly are proposed and used in the belief that they will lead to more substantial and sustained changes in behaviors related to cancer prevention, detection, and treatment than would single-level interventions. It is important to understand how intervention components are related to patient outcomes and identify barriers to implementation. Designs that permit such assessments are uncommon, however. Thus, an important way of expanding our knowledge about multilevel interventions would be to assess the impact of interventions at different levels on patients as well as the independent and synergistic effects of influences from different levels. It also would be useful to assess the impact of interventions on outcomes at different levels. Multilevel interventions are much more expensive and complicated to implement and evaluate than are single-level interventions. Given how little evidence there is about the value of multilevel interventions, however, it is incumbent upon those arguing for this approach to do multilevel research that explicates the contributions that interventions at different levels make to the desired outcomes. Only then will we know whether multilevel interventions are better than more focused interventions and gain greater insights into the kinds of interventions that can be implemented effectively and efficiently to improve health and health care for individuals with cancer. This chapter reviews designs for assessing multilevel interventions and analytic ways of controlling for potentially confounding variables that can account for the complex structure of multilevel data.

Use of complementary medications among older adults with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about complementary medication use among older adults with cancer, particularly those who are receiving chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of complementary medication use and to identify the factors associated with its use among older adults with cancer. METHODS: The prevalence of complementary medication use (defined as herbal agents, minerals, or other dietary supplements, excluding vitamins) was evaluated in a cohort of adults aged ≥65 years who were about to start chemotherapy for their cancer. The associations between complementary medication use and patient characteristics (sociodemographics; comorbidities; and functional, nutritional, psychological, and cognitive status), medication use (number of medications and concurrent vitamin use), and cancer characteristics (type and stage) were analyzed. RESULTS: The cohort included 545 patients (mean age, 73 years; range, 65-91 years; 52% women) with cancer (61% stage IV). Seventeen percent of these patients (N = 93) reported using ≥1 complementary medication; the mean number of complementary medications among users was 2 (range, 1-10 medications). Complementary medication use was associated with 1) earlier cancer stage (29% had stage I-II disease vs 17% with stage III-IV disease; odds ratio [OR], 2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-3.49) and 2) less impairment with instrumental activities of daily living (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.73). CONCLUSIONS: Complementary medication use was reported by 17% of older adults with cancer and was more common among those who had less advanced disease (i.e., those receiving adjuvant, potentially curative treatment) and higher functional status. Further studies are needed to determine the association between complementary medication use and cancer outcomes among older adults.