The landscape of use of NCCN-guideline chemotherapy regimens in stage I-IIIA breast cancer in an integrated healthcare delivery system.

PURPOSE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend a variety of drug combinations with specific administration schedules for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer, allowing physicians to deliver treatments recognizing individual patient complexities, including comorbidities, and patient-physician preference. While use of guideline regimens has shifted over time, there is little data to describe changes in how treatment for early-stage breast cancer has evolved over time. METHODS: In a cohort of 34,109 women treated for stage I-IIIA breast cancer between 2006-2019 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Kaiser Permanente Washington, we present the changes in chemotherapy regimens over time, and explore use of NCCN-guideline regimens (GR), guideline regimens used when said regimens were not included in guidelines, referred to as time-discordant regimens (TDR), and non-guideline regimens (NGR). Results are presented by drug combination and over time. RESULTS: Among 12,506 women receiving chemotherapy, 77.4% (n = 9681) received GRs, 9.1% (n = 1140) received TDRs, and 13.5% (n = 1685) received NGRs. In 2006, AC-T (cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin, paclitaxel) was the most common regimen, with TC (cyclophosphamide-docetaxel) becoming the most prevalent by 2019. NGRs were more common in cyclophosphamide-methotrexate-5-fluorouracil (CMF); cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-paclitaxel-trastuzumab (ACTH); and paclitaxel-trastuzumab (TH). The use of GR has increased over time (p-trend < 0.001), while use of NGR (both in terms of administration schedule and drug combination) and TDR have decreased, although patterns vary by drug combination. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy delivery has changed markedly over time, with a move toward more use of GR. These data are important for understanding the landscape of chemotherapy delivery in community healthcare settings.

Protocol to measure validity and reliability of colorectal, breast, cervical and lung cancer screening questions from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey: Methodology and design.

Previous studies demonstrate that self-reports of mammography screening for breast cancer and colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer demonstrate concordance, based on adherence to screening guidelines, with electronic medical records (EMRs) in over 90% of those interviewed, as well as high sensitivity and specificity, and can be used for monitoring our Healthy People goals. However, for screening tests for cervical and lung cancers, and for various sub-populations, concordance between self-report and EMRs has been noticeably lower with poor sensitivity or specificity. This study aims to test the validity and reliability of lung, colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening questions from the 2021 and 2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We present the protocol for a study designed to measure the validity and reliability of the NHIS cancer screening questions compared to EMRs from four US-based healthcare systems. We planned a randomized trial of a phone- vs web-based survey with NHIS questions that were previously revised based on extensive cognitive interviewing. Our planned sample size will be 1576 validity interviews, and 1260 interviews randomly assigned at 1 or 3 months after the initial interview. We are enrolling people eligible for cancer screening based on age, sex, and smoking history per US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. We will evaluate question validity using concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and report-to-records ratio. We further are randomizing participants to complete a second survey 1 vs 3 months later to assess question reliability. We suggest that typical measures of concordance may need to be reconsidered in evaluating cancer screening questions.

Patient characteristics associated with intended non-guideline chemotherapy in women with stage I-IIIA breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines informing chemotherapy regimen selection are based on clinical trials with participants who do not necessarily represent general populations with breast cancer. Understanding who receives non-guideline regimens is important to understanding real-world chemotherapy administration and how it relates to patient outcomes. METHODS: Using data from the Optimal Breast Cancer Chemotherapy Dosing (OBCD) cohort study, based at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (2006-2019) and Kaiser Permanente Washington (2004-2015), we use logistic regression to examine the associations between patient characteristics and receipt of non-NCCN-guideline chemotherapy among 11,293 women with primary stage I-IIIA breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. RESULTS: Use of non-guideline regimens was strongly associated with several factors, including older age (OR≥80 vs 18-39: 5.25, 95%CI: 3.06-9.00)(p-trend=0.002) and human epidermal growth factor-2 status (ORHER2+ vs HER2-: 3.44; 95%CI: 3.06-3.87) and was less likely in women with larger tumor size (OR>5cm vs 0.1-≤0.5cm: 0.56; 95%CI: 0.36-0.87)(p-trend=0.01) and diagnosed in later years (OR2012-2019 vs 2005-2011: 0.80; 95%CI: 0.71-0.90). Factors associated varied by type of non-guideline regimen. For example, women with comorbidity and older age were more likely to receive non-guideline drug combinations in particular, while women with larger tumor size were less likely to receive non-guideline administration schedules. CONCLUSIONS: Non-guideline chemotherapy regimens are more likely in certain patient populations. IMPACT: These associations highlight that vulnerable patient populations may be less likely to receive guideline care and thus real-world studies are essential to understanding how the use of non-guideline regimens impacts patient outcomes in these groups.