"Peace of Mind" After Mastectomy: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Many women eligible for breast conservation therapy (BCT) elect unilateral mastectomy (UM) with or without contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) and cite a desire for "peace of mind." This study aimed to characterize how peace of mind is defined and measured and how it relates to surgical choice. METHODS: Nine databases were searched for relevant articles through 8 October 2023, and data were extracted from articles meeting the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met by 20 studies. Most were prospective cohort studies (65%, 13/20). In the majority of the studies (72%, 13/18), Non-Hispanic white/Caucasian women comprised 80 % or more of the study's sample. Almost half of the studies used the phrase "peace of mind" in their publication (45%, 9/20), and few directly defined the construct (15%, 3/20). Instead, words representing an absence of peace of mind were common, specifically, "anxiety" (85%, 17/20), "fear" (75%, 15/20), and "concern" (75%, 15/20). Most of the studies (90%, 18/20) measured peace of mind indirectly using questionnaires validated for anxiety, fear, worry, distress, or concern, which were administered at multiple postoperative time points (55%, 11/20). Most of the studies (95%, 18/19) reported at least one statistically significant result showing no difference in peace of mind between BCT, UM, and/or CPM at their latest time of assessment. CONCLUSION: Peace of mind is largely framed around concepts that suggest its absence, namely, anxiety, fear, and concern. Existing literature suggests that peace of mind does not differ among average-risk women undergoing BCT, UM, or CPM. Shared surgical decisions should emphasize at least comparable emotional and/or psychosocial well-being between CPM and breast conservation.

Adoption as an Alternative Family-Building Strategy: Perceptions of Female, Young Adult Cancer Survivors Receiving Gonadotoxic Treatments.

Female survivors of young adult (YA) cancers are at risk of fertility impacts following cancer treatment. For these women, fertility-related distress is both prevalent and persistent. Yet there is little research regarding survivors' perspectives on alternative family-building options, particularly adoption. This exploratory secondary data analysis analyzed semistructured interviews and explored survivors' views of adoption. Overall, female YA survivors reported openness to adoption as a possible substitute for biological conception and an alternative to fertility preservation. It is imperative that this population receives support in decision-making around and consideration of the unique barriers to adoption for cancer survivors.

Impact of Financial Costs on Patients' Fertility Preservation Decisions: An Examination of Qualitative Data from Female Young Adults with Cancer and Oncology Providers.

Purpose: To examine the impact of financial costs on fertility preservation decisions among female young adults (YAs) with cancer. Methods: Female YAs (N = 18; aged 21-36) with a history of cancer and oncology providers (N = 12) were recruited from an National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center in a state without insurance coverage for fertility preservation. YAs and providers completed individual interviews and a brief online assessment. Qualitative description using thematic analysis was used to identify, analyze, and report common themes. Descriptive statistics was used to characterize the sample. Results: Female YAs and oncology providers highlighted the critical role that high out-of-pocket costs play in YAs' fertility preservation decisions along with the value that enhanced insurance coverage for fertility preservation would have for increasing female YAs' access to and utilization of fertility preservation. Although providers were concerned about preservation costs for their patients, they reported that their concerns did not impact whether they referred interested female YAs to reproductive specialists. Oncology providers expressed concern about inequities in utilization of fertility preservation for female and racially/ethnically minoritized YAs that were exacerbated by the high out-of-pocket fertility preservation costs. Conclusion: Cost is a significant barrier to fertility preservation for female YA cancer patients. Female YAs of reproductive age may benefit from decision support tools to assist with balancing the cost of fertility preservation with their values and family building goals. Policy-relevant interventions may mitigate cost barriers and improve access to care.

Patient Preferences for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction.

Importance: Up to 40% of women experience dissatisfaction after breast reconstruction due to unexpected outcomes that are poorly aligned with personal preferences. Identifying what attributes patients value when considering surgery could improve shared decision-making. Adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) analysis can elicit individual-level treatment preferences. Objectives: To identify which attributes of breast reconstruction are most important to women considering surgery and to describe how these attributes differ by those who prefer flap vs implant reconstruction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This web-based, cross-sectional study was conducted from March 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023, at Duke University and between June 1 and December 31, 2022, through the Love Research Army with ACBC analysis. Participants were 105 women at Duke University with a new diagnosis of or genetic predisposition to breast cancer who were considering mastectomy with reconstruction and 301 women with a history of breast cancer or a genetic predisposition as identified through the Love Research Army registry. Main Outcomes and Measures: Relative importance scores, part-worth utility values, and maximum acceptable risks were estimated. Results: Overall, 406 women (105 from Duke University [mean (SD) age, 46.3 (10.5) years] and 301 from the Love Research Army registry [mean (SD) age, 59.2 (11.9) years]) participated. The attribute considered most important was the risk of abdominal morbidity (mean [SD] relative importance [RI], 28% [11%]), followed by chance of major complications (RI, 25% [10%]), number of additional operations (RI, 23% [12%]), appearance of the breasts (RI, 13% [12%]), and recovery time (RI, 11% [7%]). Most participants (344 [85%]) preferred implant-based reconstruction; these participants cared most about abdominal morbidity (mean [SD] RI, 30% [11%]), followed by the risk of complications (mean [SD], RI, 26% [11%]) and additional operations (mean [SD] RI, 21% [12%]). In contrast, participants who preferred flap reconstruction cared most about additional operations (mean [SD] RI, 31% [15%]), appearance of the breasts (mean [SD] RI, 27% [16%]), and risk of complications (mean [SD] RI, 18% [6%]). Factors independently associated with choosing flap reconstruction included being married (odds ratio [OR], 2.30 [95% CI, 1.04-5.08]; P = .04) and higher educational level (college education; OR, 2.43 [95% CI, 1.01-5.86]; P = .048), while having an income level of greater than $75 000 was associated with a decreased likelihood of choosing the flap profile (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.21-0.97]; P = .01). Respondents who preferred flap appearance were willing to accept a mean (SD) increase of 14.9% (2.2%) chance of abdominal morbidity (n = 113) or 6.4% (4.8%) chance of complications (n = 115). Conclusions and Relevance: This study provides information on how women value different aspects of their care when making decisions for breast reconstruction. Future studies should assess how decision aids that elicit individual-level preferences can help tailor patient-physician discussions to focus preoperative counseling on factors that matter most to each patient and ultimately improve patient-centered care.

Defining Priorities in Value-Based Cancer Care: Insights From the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology National Cooperative Group Survey.

PURPOSE: We determine how stakeholders prioritize the importance of oncologic outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and cancer-related health care costs. METHODS: A survey was distributed to the National Clinical Trials Network Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology cooperative group membership from May 14 to June 30, 2022. Respondents were asked to rate (5-point Likert scale) and rank (1-9) evidence-based value domains: overall survival, treatment toxicities/complications, quality of life (QOL), financial toxicity, access to care, compliance with evidence-based care, health system performance, scientific discovery and innovation, and cost to the health care system. RESULTS: A total of 514 members responded, including researchers (24.7%), nurses (19.5%), medical oncologists (17.9%), administrators (9.3%), surgical and radiation oncologists (9.1%), patient advocates (3.1%), and nonphysician providers (16.4%). Participants represented various practice settings including National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (29.8%), university-affiliated academic cancer centers (21%), hospital-owned oncology practices (21.8%), and others (27.4%). There was agreement in how respondents prioritized value domains (W = 0.39, P < .001). Respondents ranked patient QOL (mean rank: 2.6 ± 1.9) as most important above all other metrics including survival (mean rank: 3.5 ± 0.3) and access to care (mean rank: 3.5 ± 2.1; P < .001). Members engaged in direct patient care also ranked access to care of higher importance than nonclinicians (P = .026). Cost to the health care system (mean rank: 7.5 ± 2.1) and health system performance (mean rank: 7 ± 2) were ranked as least important (P < .001). Inclusion of PROs into therapeutic assessment (59.3%) was the most frequently selected priority of future cooperative group initiatives. CONCLUSION: Oncology community stakeholders deemed patient-centered value domains as most important and considered patient QOL the highest priority. Inclusion of PROs into clinical trials was endorsed as an important component of therapeutic assessment. These findings can be taken into consideration when creating a value framework for inclusion in cancer clinical trials.

Relative Burden of Cancer and Noncancer Mortality Among Long-Term Survivors of Breast, Prostate, and Colorectal Cancer in the US.

Importance: Improvements in cancer outcomes have led to a need to better understand long-term oncologic and nononcologic outcomes and quantify cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific mortality risks among long-term survivors. Objective: To assess absolute and relative cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific mortality rates among long-term survivors of cancer, as well as associated risk factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 627 702 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer who received a diagnosis between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2014, who received definitive treatment for localized disease and who were alive 5 years after their initial diagnosis (ie, long-term survivors of cancer). Statistical analysis was conducted from November 2022 to January 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival time ratios (TRs) were calculated using accelerated failure time models, and the primary outcome of interest examined was death from index cancer vs alternative (nonindex cancer) mortality across breast, prostate, colon, and rectal cancer cohorts. Secondary outcomes included subgroup mortality in cancer-specific risk groups, categorized based on prognostic factors, and proportion of deaths due to cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific causes. Independent variables included age, sex, race and ethnicity, income, residence, stage, grade, estrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status, prostate-specific antigen level, and Gleason score. Follow-up ended in 2019. Results: The study included 627 702 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.1 [12.3] years; 434 848 women [69.3%]): 364 230 with breast cancer, 118 839 with prostate cancer, and 144 633 with colorectal cancer who survived 5 years or more from an initial diagnosis of early-stage cancer. Factors associated with shorter median cancer-specific survival included stage III disease for breast cancer (TR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.53-0.55) and colorectal cancer (colon: TR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.58-0.62; rectal: TR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.69-0.74), as well as a Gleason score of 8 or higher for prostate cancer (TR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.58-0.63). For all cancer cohorts, patients at low risk had at least a 3-fold higher noncancer-specific mortality compared with cancer-specific mortality at 10 years of diagnosis. Patients at high risk had a higher cumulative incidence of cancer-specific mortality than noncancer-specific mortality in all cancer cohorts except prostate. Conclusions and Relevance: This study is the first to date to examine competing oncologic and nononcologic risks focusing on long-term adult survivors of cancer. Knowledge of the relative risks facing long-term survivors may help provide pragmatic guidance to patients and clinicians regarding the importance of ongoing primary and oncologic-focused care.

Ancillary Treatment Referrals and Visits After Breast Cancer Surgery in a Sociodemographically Diverse Population.

BACKGROUND: Ancillary therapies with rehabilitative, palliative, and survivorship specialists mitigate adverse effects of breast cancer surgery. Existing data suggest that patients from disadvantaged backgrounds may be less likely to receive these services. This study aimed to assess variations in ancillary provider referrals and patient visits at a high-volume urban cancer center. METHODS: Electronic health records of breast cancer surgical patients at the Yale-New Haven Health System between 2010 and 2017 were reviewed. The primary end points were postoperative referral to ancillary service providers and patient use of ancillary services (defined as attending ≥ 1 consultation). Associations between end points and demographic/disease variables were identified in uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The study identified 5496 patients: 2288 patients (41.6%) referred to ancillary services and 1572 patients (28.6%) who attended one or more consultations. Referrals were highest among the patients with Hispanic (57.5%) or black (54.9%) ancestry, no health insurance (57.6%), lowest percentage of high school degrees for the zip code area (50.5%), and poorest median income bracket (50.7%). Associations remained significant in the multivariable analysis (p < 0.05). Minority race remained associated with referrals in analyses of each ancillary service individually. Visits to ancillary specialists were greatest among the patients with private insurance (70.7%), highest percentage of high school degrees (72.8%), highest median household income (72.2%), and Hispanic ethnicity (73.5%). Highest median household income (odds ratio [OR] 1.45; p = 0.02) and Hispanic ethnicity (OR, 1.50; p = 0.05) remained associated in the multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In a well-resourced health system serving a demographically diverse population, traditional markers of poor health care access were associated with referral for ancillary treatment after breast cancer surgery but not with utilization of ancillary treatment. Health care access remains a critical barrier to adjunctive therapies that target postoperative morbidity and elevate quality of life.

Multidimensional financial hardship among uninsured and insured young adult patients with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the heterogeneous nature of financial hardship in younger patients with metastatic disease and the extent to which insurance protects against it. We examine the association between insurance status and multidimensional indicators of financial hardship in a national sample of women with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a national, retrospective online survey in partnership with the Metastatic Breast Cancer Network. Eligible participants were ≥18 years, diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, and able to respond in English. We estimated multivariate generalized linear models predicting two distinct dimensions of financial hardship-financial insecurity (the ability to afford care and living costs) and financial distress (the extent of emotional/psychological distress experienced due to costs)-as a function of insurance status. RESULTS: Participants responded from 41 states (N = 1054; median age: 44 years). Overall, 30% were uninsured. Financial insecurity was more frequently reported by uninsured respondents. In adjusted analyses, uninsured participants were more likely than insured participants to report contact by debt collectors (adjusted risk ratio [aRR]: 2.38 [2.06, 2.76]) and being unable to meet monthly expenses (aRR: 2.11 [1.68, 2.66]). Financial distress was reported more frequently by insured participants. For example, insured participants were more likely to worry about future financial problems due to cancer and distress about lack of cost transparency. After adjustment, uninsured participants remained about half as likely as insured participants to report financial distress. CONCLUSIONS: Young adult women with metastatic cancer reported a high burden of financial toxicity. Importantly, insurance does not protect against financial distress; however, the uninsured are the most materially vulnerable.

Modifiable Barriers and Facilitators for Breast Cancer Care: A Thematic Analysis of Patient and Provider Perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to examine patient and provider perspectives regarding modifiable contributors to breast cancer treatment and to assess perceptual alignment between these two groups. MATERIALS: Participants were women≥18 y with stage 0-IV breast cancer who received all oncologic care in a single health system and physicians and advanced practice providers who provided medical, radiation, or surgical oncology care for breast cancer. All completed ∼45-min semistructured interviews that were recorded and transcribed verbatim. A 5-stage approach to thematic analysis was conducted, with emergent themes and exemplar quotes placed into clinical, psychological, social/logistical, financial, and lifestyle categories using a multilevel conceptual framework. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (9 Black, 9 White, and median age 60 y) and 10 providers (6 physicians and 4 advanced practice providers) were interviewed from May to November 2018. Both patients and providers perceived suboptimal communication, parking and transportation, and competing family-caregiving responsibilities as modifiable barriers to care. Treatment costs were cited by patients as barriers that were inadequately addressed even with referrals to financial counselors, but providers did not raise the issue of cost unless prompted by patients and did not feel prepared to discuss the topic when it arose. Providers cited obesity as a barrier to treatment, a view not shared by patients. CONCLUSIONS: Several modifiable factors were recognized by both patients and providers as either promoting or detracting from treatment receipt, but there was also significant incongruence and asymmetry. Alignment of provider and patient perceptions regarding contributors to guideline-concordant care receipt could mitigate disparities in breast cancer treatment and outcomes.

Implementation of an educational intervention to improve medical student cost awareness: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In the context of rising healthcare costs, formal education on treatment-related financial hardship is lacking in many medical schools, leaving future physicians undereducated and unprepared to engage in high-value care. METHOD: We performed a prospective cohort study to characterize medical student knowledge regarding treatment-related financial hardship from 2019 to 2020 and 2020-2021, with the latter cohort receiving a targeted educational intervention to increase cost awareness. Using Kirkpatrick's four-level training evaluation model, survey data was analyzed to characterize the acceptability of the intervention and the impact of the intervention on student knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported preparedness to engage in cost-conscious care. RESULTS: Overall, N = 142 medical students completed the study survey; 61 (47.3%) in the non-intervention arm and 81 (66.4%) in the intervention arm. Of the 81 who completed the baseline survey in the intervention arm, 65 (80.2%) completed the immediate post-intervention survey and 39 (48.1%) completed the two-month post-intervention survey. Following the educational intervention, students reported a significantly increased understanding of common financial terms, access to cost-related resources, and level of comfort and preparedness in engaging in discussions around cost compared to their pre-intervention responses. The majority of participants (97.4%) reported that they would recommend the intervention to future students. A greater proportion of financially stressed students reported considering patient costs when making treatment decisions compared to their non-financially stressed peers. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted educational interventions to increase cost awareness have the potential to improve both medical student knowledge and preparedness to engage in cost-conscious care. Student financial stress may impact high-value care practices. Robust curricula on high-value care, including treatment-related financial hardship, should be formalized and universal within medical school training.

Genetic testing in privately insured women with surgically treated breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Rates of BRCA1 and BRCA2 prevalence among women with breast cancer vary by age, hormone receptor status, and family history. Recommendations for genetic testing have varied between overlapping guidelines, payor coverage policies, and have evolved over time, resulting in unclear implications for adoption into routine breast cancer care. METHODS: Using a large, private insurer database, we examined rates of BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing in women with newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer undergoing surgery from 2015 through 2019. RESULTS: Testing increased among women 50 years or older from 26 to 38%, remained stable at 66% in both 2015 and 2019 in the under 50 population, and was slightly decreased in women under age 45 years. CONCLUSION: Among privately insured patients with breast cancer, rates are increasing in older women, but appear persistently underused in younger women.

Modifiable patient-reported factors associated with cancer-screening knowledge and participation in a community-based health assessment.

BACKGROUND: We sought to identify modifiable factors associated with cancer screening in a community-based health assessment. METHODS: 24 organizations at 47 community events in central North Carolina distributed a 91-item survey from April-December 2017. Responses about (1) interest in disease prevention, (2) lifestyle choices (e.g., diet, tobacco), and (3) perceptions of primary care access/quality were abstracted to examine their association with self-reported screening participation and knowledge about breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. RESULTS: 2135/2315 participants (92%; 38.5% White, 38% Black, 9.9% Asian) completed screening questions. >70% of screen-eligible respondents reported guideline-concordant screening. Healthy dietary habits were associated with greater knowledge about breast and colorectal cancer screening; reporting negative attitudes about and barriers to healthcare were associated with less breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer screening. Having a place to seek medical care (a proxy for primary care access) was independently associated with being ∼5 times as likely to undergo colorectal screening (OR 4.66, 95% CI 1.58-13.79, all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this diverse, community-based sample, modifiable factors were associated with screening engagement, highlighting opportunities for behavioral intervention.

Implications of missing data on reported breast cancer mortality.

BACKGROUND: National cancer registries are valuable tools to analyze patterns of care and clinical outcomes; yet, missing data may impact the accuracy and generalizability of these data. We sought to evaluate the association between missing data and overall survival (OS). METHODS: Using the NCDB (National Cancer Database) and SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results Program), we assessed data missingness among patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer from 2010 to 2014. Key variables included demographic (age, race, ethnicity, insurance, education, income), tumor (grade, ER, PR, HER2, TNM stages), and treatment (surgery in both databases; chemotherapy and radiation in NCDB). OS was compared between those with and without missing data using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Overall, 775,996 patients in the NCDB and 263,016 in SEER were identified; missing at least 1 key variable occurred for 29% and 13%, respectively. Of those, the overwhelming majority (NCDB 80%; SEER 88%) were missing tumor variables. When compared to patients with complete data, missingness was associated with a greater risk of death: NCDB HR 1.23 (99% CI 1.21-1.25) and SEER HR 2.11 (99% CI 2.05-2.18). Patients with complete tumor data had higher unadjusted OS estimates than that of the entire sample: NCDB 82.7% vs 81.8% and SEER 83.5% vs 81.7% for 5-year OS. CONCLUSIONS: Missingness of select variables is not uncommon within large national cancer registries and is associated with a worse OS. Exclusion of patients with missing variables may introduce unintended bias into analyses and result in findings that underestimate breast cancer mortality.

The role of tumor phenotype in the surgical treatment of early-stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether tumor phenotype influences surgical decision-making, and how that may impact overall survival (OS) for early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: Women aged 18-69 with cT0-2/cN0/cM0 breast cancer in the National Cancer Database (2010-2017) were included. A generalized logistic model was used to identify factors associated with surgery type. A Kaplan-Meier curve was used to visualize unadjusted OS, and the log-rank test was used to test for differences in OS between surgery types. RESULTS: Of 597,149 patients, 58% underwent lumpectomy with radiation (BCT), 25% unilateral mastectomy (UM), and 17% bilateral mastectomy (BM). After adjustment, HER2+ and triple-negative (TN) tumors were less likely to undergo UM than BCT, versus hormone receptor-positive tumors (OR = 0.881, 95% CI = 0.860-0.903; OR = 0.485, 95% CI = 0.470-0.501). UM and BM had worse 5-year OS versus BCT (UM: 0.926, vs BM: 0.952, vs BCT: 0.960). CONCLUSIONS: BCT is increasingly used to treat HER2+ and TN tumors. More extensive surgery is not associated with better survival outcomes, regardless of tumor phenotype.

Treatment Sequencing Patterns and Associated Direct Medical Costs of Metastatic Breast Cancer Care in the United States, 2011 to 2021.

Importance: Advances in treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) led to changes in clinical practice and treatment costs in the US over the past decade. There is limited information on current MBC treatment sequences and associated costs by MBC subtype in the US. Objectives: To identify treatment patterns by MBC subtype and associated anticancer and supportive drug costs from health care sector and Medicare perspectives. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation analyzed data of patients with MBC obtained from the nationwide Flatiron Health database, an electronic health record-derived, deidentified database with data from community and academic practices across the US from 2011 to 2021. Participants included women aged at least 18 years diagnosed with MBC, who had at least 6 months of follow-up data, known hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2) receptor status, and at least 1 documented line of therapy. Patients with documented receipt of clinical study drugs were excluded. Data were analyzed from June 2021 to May 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were frequency of different drug regimens received as a line of therapy by subtype for the first 5 lines and mean medical costs of documented anticancer treatment and supportive care drugs per patient by MBC subtype and years since metastatic diagnosis, indexed to 2021 US dollars. Results: Among 15 215 patients (10 171 patients [66.85%] with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative MBC; 2785 patients [18.30%] with HR-positive and ERBB2-positive MBC; 802 patients [5.27%] with HR-negative and ERBB2-positive MBC; 1457 patients [9.58%] with triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC]) who met eligibility criteria, 1777 (11.68%) were African American, 363 (2.39%) were Asian, and 9800 (64.41%) were White; the median (range) age was 64 (21-84) years. The mean total per-patient treatment and supportive care drug cost using publicly available Medicare prices was $334 812 for patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-positive MBC, $284 609 for patients with HR-negative and ERBB2-positive MBC, $104 774 for patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative MBC, and $54 355 for patients with TNBC. From 2011 to 2019 (most recent complete year 1 data are for patients diagnosed in 2019), annual costs in year 1 increased from $12 986 to $80 563 for ERBB2-negative and HR-positive MBC, $99 997 to $156 712 for ERBB2-positive and HR-positive MBC, and $31 397 to $53 775 for TNBC. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation found that drug costs related to MBC treatment increased between 2011 and 2021 and differed by tumor subtype. These findings suggest the growing financial burden of MBC treatment in the US and highlights the importance of performing more accurate cost-effectiveness analysis of novel adjuvant therapies that aim to reduce metastatic recurrence rates for early-stage breast cancer.

Community collaboration to improve access and outcomes in breast cancer reconstruction: protocol for a mixed-methods qualitative research study.

INTRODUCTION: Breast reconstruction plays an important role for many in restoring form and function of the breast after mastectomy. However, rates of breast reconstruction in the USA vary significantly by race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. The lower rates of breast reconstruction in non-white women and in women of lower socioeconomic status may reflect a complex interplay between patient and physician factors and access to care. It remains unknown what community-specific barriers may be impacting receipt of breast reconstruction. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a mixed-methods study combining qualitative patient interview data with quantitative practice patterns to develop an actionable plan to address disparities in breast reconstruction in the local community. The primary aims are to (1) capture barriers to breast reconstruction for patients in the local community, (2) quantitatively evaluate practice patterns at the host institution and (3) identify issues and prioritise interventions for change using community-based engagement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained at the investigators' institution. Results from both the quantitative and qualitative portions of the study will be circulated via peer-review publication. These findings will also serve as pilot data for extramural funding to implement and evaluate these proposed solutions.