Risk of cancer death by comorbidity severity and use of adjuvant chemotherapy among women with locoregional breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the associations of comorbidity and chemotherapy with breast cancer- and non-breast cancer-related death. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Included were women with invasive locoregional breast cancer diagnosed in 2004 from seven population-based cancer registries. Data were abstracted from medical records and verified with treating physicians when there were inconsistencies and missing information on cancer treatment. Comorbidity severity was quantified using the Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27. Treatment guideline concordance was determined by comparing treatment received with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regressions were employed for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Of 5852 patients, 76% were under 70years old and 69% received guideline concordant adjuvant chemotherapy. Comorbidity was more prevalent in women age 70 and older (79% vs. 51%; p<0.001). After adjusting for tumor characteristics and treatment, severe comorbidity burden was associated with significantly higher cancer-related mortality in older patients (Hazard Ratio [HR]=2.38, 95% CI 1.08-5.24), but not in younger patients (HR=1.78, 95% CI 0.87-3.64). Among patients receiving guideline adjuvant chemotherapy, cancer-related mortality was significantly higher in older patients (HR=2.35, 95% CI 1.52-3.62), and those with severe comorbidity (HR=3.79, 95% CI 1.72-8.33). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that, compared to women with no comorbidity, patients with breast cancer age 70 and older with severe comorbidity are at increased risk of dying from breast cancer, even after adjustment for adjuvant chemotherapy and other tumor and treatment differences. This information adds to risk-benefit discussions and emphasizes the need for further study of the role for adjuvant chemotherapy in these patient groups.

Influence of patient, physician, and hospital characteristics on the receipt of guideline-concordant care for inflammatory breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer for which treatments vary, so we sought to identify factors that affect the receipt of guideline-concordant care. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with IBC in 2004 were identified from the Breast and Prostate Cancer Data Quality and Patterns of Care Study, containing information from cancer registries in seven states. Variation in guideline-concordant care for IBC, based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, was assessed according to patient, physician, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 107 IBC patients in the study without distant metastasis at the time of diagnosis, only 25.8% received treatment concordant with guidelines. Predictors of non-concordance included patient age (≥70 years), non-white race, normal body mass index (BMI 18.5-25 kg/m(2)), patients with physicians graduating from medical school >15 years prior, and smaller hospital size (<200 beds). IBC patients survived longer if they received guideline-concordant treatment based on either 2003 (p=0.06) or 2013 (p=0.06) NCCN guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting factors associated with receipt of care that is not guideline-concordant may reduce survival disparities in IBC patients. Prompt referral for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and post-operative radiation therapy is also crucial.

Using QRRO survey data to assess compliance with quality indicators for breast and prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Quality Research in Radiation Oncology (QRRO) has embarked on a new national process survey to provide benchmark data that will allow radiation oncologists to assess the quality of care in their own practices by measuring quality indicators (QIs) and comparing individual with national practice. METHODS: Investigators at QRRO developed QIs on the basis of nationally recognized, evidence-based guidelines such as those of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, as well as additional emerging QIs for processes involving rapidly emerging technology. They specifically defined the QIs as clinical performance measures. Published results of the national survey database for patients treated in 1998 and 1999 were reviewed and additional analyses conducted to assess data adequacy to measure compliance with these clinical performance measures. RESULTS: Examples of workup QIs for breast cancer patients showed that 97% underwent diagnostic bilateral mammography, 96% underwent pathology reviews, 83% underwent the determination of estrogen receptor status, 81% underwent the determination of progesterone receptor status, and 31% underwent the determination of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. Compliance with treatment QIs for field recommendations on the basis of nodal findings can be measured. Of patients with prostate cancer, 90% underwent digital rectal examinations, 99% underwent prostate-specific antigen tests, and 99% had their Gleason scores determined. Compliance with QIs on the basis of prognostic group can also be measured. CONCLUSIONS: Benchmarking utilization patterns provides a foundation for assessing the appropriateness of cancer care in the future. The QRRO database is a rich data source, and the new survey will provide contemporary benchmark data for these measures.