Patient-Physician Concordance for Quantitative Formats and Treatment Options and the Relationship with State Anxiety.

Patient-physician concordance about topics discussed in a clinic visit is essential for effective communication but may be difficult to achieve in cancer care. We conducted a multicenter, observational study at two Midwestern oncology clinics. A sample of 48 English-speaking or Spanish-speaking women with newly diagnosed stage 0-3 breast cancer completed surveys before and after a visit with an oncologist. Patient-physician dyads were coded as concordant if both patient and physician follow-up self-reports agreed whether (or not) specific treatments were discussed (i.e., treatment option concordance; mastectomy, lumpectomy, hormone therapy, neoadjuvant, and adjuvant chemotherapy) and whether risk was described using certain quantitative formats (i.e., quantitative format concordance; percentages, proportions out of 100 and 1000, graphs, pictures, evidence from clinical studies, cancer stage). Agreement was determined using percent agreement and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). Pearson's correlations were used to determine relationships between anxiety and each measure concordance. Percent concordance was higher for treatment concordance (73.3%) compared to quantitative format concordance (64.5%), and PABAK scores tended to be higher for treatment options (PABAK = .21-.78). Both treatment and quantitative format concordance were negatively associated with pre-visit state anxiety, but only treatment concordance was statistically significant (treatment: r = - .504, p = .001; quantitative format: r = - .096, p = .523). Our study indicates moderate patient-physician concordance in early breast cancer care communication and that patient anxiety may impact the ability for patients and physicians to agree on the content communicated in a clinic visit.

Communication and Shared Decision Making in the Breast Cancer Treatment Consultation: A Comparative Analysis of English- and Spanish-Speaking Patients.

Background. Communication in the breast cancer treatment consultation is complex. Language barriers may increase the challenge of achieving patient-centered communication and effective shared decision making. Design. We conducted a prospective cohort study among Spanish- and English-speaking women with stage 0 to 3 breast cancer in two urban medical centers in the Midwestern United States. Patient centeredness of care and decisional conflict were compared between Spanish- and English-speaking participants using the Interpersonal Processes of Care (IPC) and Decision Conflict Scale (DCS), respectively. Clinician behaviors of shared decision making were assessed from consultation audio-recordings using the 12-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (OPTION) scale. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to control for differences in baseline characteristics and clinician specialty. Results. Fifteen Spanish-speaking and 35 English-speaking patients were enrolled in the study. IPC scores (median, interquartile range [IQR]) were higher (less patient centered) in Spanish- versus English-speaking participants in the domains of lack of clarity (2.5, 1-3 v. 1.5, 1-2), P = 0.028; perceived discrimination (1.1, 1-1 v. 1.0, 1-1), P = 0.047; and disrespectful office staff (1.25, 1-2 v. 1.0, 1-1), P < 0.0005 (Wilcoxon rank-sum test). OPTION scores (median, IQR) were lower in Spanish- versus English-speaking participants (21.9, 17.7-27.1 v. 31.3, 26.6-39.6), P = 0.001 (Wilcoxon rank-sum test). In multivariate analysis, statistically significant differences persisted in the IPC lack of clarity and disrespectful office staff between Spanish- and English-speaking groups. Conclusions. Our findings highlight challenges in cancer communication for Spanish-speaking patients, particularly with respect to perceived patient centeredness of communication. Further cross-cultural studies are needed to ensure effective communication and shared decision making in the cancer consultation.

Improving Communication in Breast Cancer Treatment Consultation: Use of a Computer Test of Health Numeracy.

Background: Communication of statistics and probability is challenging in the cancer care setting. The objectives of this study are to evaluate a novel approach to cancer communication through the use of a computer assessment of patient health numeracy. Methods: We conducted a pilot study of the Computer Adapted Test of Numeracy Understanding in Medicine Instrument (CAT-NUMi) before the cancer treatment consultation for women with stage 0-3 breast cancer. Patient outcomes included the interpersonal processes of care (IPC) and the decisional conflict scale. We evaluated clinician use of numeric information in the cancer consultation and assessed feasibility outcomes from the clinician and patient perspective. Results: Patient participants (n = 50) had a median (interquartile range) age of 51 years (46-61), 70% were English speaking, and 30% Spanish speaking. Decisional conflict was low with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) decisional conflict score of 17.4 (12.3). The lack of clarity score (range 1-5) on the IPC was low (mean, SD),1.70 (0.71), indicating clear communication. Clinicians more often used percentages in communicating prognosis among those with higher numeracy scores (median, range): high (2, 0-8), medium (1, 0-7), and low (0, 0-8); p = 0.04. The patient experience of taking the CAT-NUMi was rated as very good or excellent by 65%, fair by 33%, and poor by 2% of patients. Conclusion: Screening for health numeracy with a short computer-based test may be a feasible strategy to optimize clear communication in the cancer treatment consultation. Further studies are needed to evaluate this strategy across cancer treatment clinical settings and populations.

Fractures in a nationwide population-based cohort of users of breast cancer hormonal therapy.

PURPOSE: Although users of aromatase inhibitors have higher total fracture risk in some randomized trials, little is known about their risk outside of clinical trials or in older higher-risk cohorts. METHODS: In a population-based retrospective cohort study, we identified all older US Medicare D prescription drug insurance plan-enrolled women who had initial breast cancer surgery in 2006-2008 and began hormonal therapy (an aromatase inhibitor (AI) or tamoxifen) within the subsequent year. Total nonvertebral and hip fractures through 2012 were identified using a validated algorithm. The association of fracture outcomes with hormonal therapy type was assessed using competing risk regression models that accounted for differences in measured baseline covariates. Treatment assignment bias was reduced using inverse probability of treatment weighting computed from propensity scores. RESULTS: Among 23,378 women taking hormonal therapy (23.2% aged 80 or over), there were 3000 total and 436 hip fractures. Although AI users were younger and had lower comorbidity, after propensity score weighting, these and other covariates were balanced. Total nonvertebral risk was higher for users of AIs compared with tamoxifen, HR 1.11 (1.02-1.21), but the small increase in risk for hip fracture was not statistically significant, HR 1.04 (0.84-1.30). CONCLUSIONS: Although total nonvertebral fracture risk was higher among AI users, differences in hip fractures were not significant in a large population-based cohort of older women. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Use of aromatase inhibitors by older women is associated with high risk for nonvertebral fracture that is increased compared with use of tamoxifen. Fracture risk should be assessed among patients taking these medications.

Medicare D Subsidies and Racial Disparities in Persistence and Adherence With Hormonal Therapy.

Purpose To investigate the role of out-of-pocket cost supports through the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy on disparities in breast cancer hormonal therapy persistence and adherence by race or ethnicity. Methods A nationwide cohort of women age ≥ 65 years with a breast cancer operation between 2006 and 2007 and at least one prescription filled for oral breast cancer hormonal therapy was identified from all Medicare D enrollees. The association of race or ethnicity with nonpersistence (90 consecutive days with no claims for a hormonal therapy prescription) and nonadherence (medication possession rate < 80%) was examined. Survival analyses were used to account for potential differences in age, comorbidity, or intensity of other treatments. Results Among the 25,111 women in the study sample, 77% of the Hispanic and 70% of the black women received a subsidy compared with 21% of the white women. By 2 years, 69% of black and 70% of Hispanic patients were persistent compared with 61% of white patients. In adjusted analyses, patients in all three unsubsidized race or ethnicity groups had greater discontinuation than subsidized groups (white patients: hazard ratio [HR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.70 to 1.95; black patients: HR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.73 to 2.51; Hispanic patients: HR, 3.00; 95% CI, 2.37 to 3.89). Racial or ethnic persistence disparities that were present for unsubsidized patients were not present or reversed among subsidized patients. All three subsidized race or ethnicity groups also had higher adherence than all three unsubsidized groups, although with the smallest difference occurring in black women. Conclusion Receipt of a prescription subsidy was associated with substantially improved persistence to breast cancer hormonal therapy among white, black, and Hispanic women and lack of racial or ethnic disparities in persistence. Given high subsidy enrollment among black and Hispanic women, policies targeted at low-income patients have the potential to also substantially reduce racial and ethnic disparities.

Bone Mineral Density Testing Disparities Among Patients With Breast Cancer Prescribed Aromatase Inhibitors.

OBJECTIVES: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are standard adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. We designed our study to determine whether women initiating adjuvant therapy with an AI underwent baseline bone mineral density testing, as well as what factors predicted adherence with testing guidelines. METHODS: Medicare Parts A, B, and D claims were used to identify a cohort of women aged 67 years and older with incident breast cancer in 2006 and 2007 who started AI therapy. Medicare claims provided information about bone density testing, as well as demographic and other treatment data through 2012. We also ascertained which patients were treated with bisphosphonates and studied the relationship of bisphosphonate therapy with bone density testing. RESULTS: Approximately two-thirds of patients had baseline bone density testing. Older age, comorbidity, low income, and black race were associated with lower rates of baseline bone density testing. Testing rates decreased substantially with increasing age from 73% for women aged 67 to 70 years to 51% for those 85 years of age and older (adjusted odds ratio for not being tested, 2.48 [Cl, 2.17-2.82]). The proportion of women who had neither bone density testing nor bisphosphonate therapy increased with age as well. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the importance of age as a risk factor for fractures, older women starting treatment with AIs for treatment of breast cancer are less likely to undergo recommended bone density assessment.

The introduction of generic aromatase inhibitors and treatment adherence among Medicare D enrollees.

BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) substantially reduce breast cancer mortality in clinical trials, but high rates of nonadherence to these long-term oral therapies have reduced their impact outside of trials. We examined the association of generic AI availability with AI adherence among a large national breast cancer cohort. METHODS: Using a quasi-experimental prepost design, we examined the effect of generic AI introductions (7/2010 and 4/2011) on adherence among a national cohort of women with incident breast cancer in 2006 and 2007 who were enrolled in the Medicare D pharmaceutical coverage program. Medicare D claims were used to calculate AI adherence, defined as a medication possession ratio of 80% or more of eligible days, over 36 months. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations were applied to longitudinal adherence data to control for possible confounders, including receipt of a Medicare D low-income subsidy, and to account for repeated measures. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Sixteen thousand four hundred sixty-two Medicare D enrollees were eligible. Adherence declined throughout the study. However, among women without a subsidy, the median quarterly out-of-pocket cost of anastrozole fell from $183 in the fourth quarter of 2009 to $15 in 2011, and declines in adherence were attenuated with generic AI introductions. Regression-adjusted adherence probabilities were estimated to be 5.4% higher after generic anastrozole was introduced in 2010 and 11% higher after generic letrozole/exemestane was introduced in 2011. Subsidy recipients had higher adherence rates throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of generic medications attenuated the decline in adherence to AIs over three years of treatment among breast cancer survivors not receiving low-income subsidies for Medicare D coverage.