Treatment decisions and employment of breast cancer patients: Results of a population-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with breast cancer work for pay at the time of their diagnosis, and the treatment plan may threaten their livelihood. Understanding work experiences in a contemporary population-based sample is necessary to inform initiatives to reduce the burden of cancer care. METHODS: Women who were 20 to 79 years old and had been diagnosed with stage 0 to II breast cancer, as reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries in 2014-2015, were surveyed. Of the 3672 eligible women, 2502 responded (68%); 1006 who reported working before their diagnosis were analyzed. Multivariate models evaluated correlates of missing work for >1 month and stopping work altogether versus missing work for ≤1 month. RESULTS: In this diverse sample, most patients (62%) underwent lumpectomy; 16% underwent unilateral mastectomy (8% with reconstruction); and 23% underwent bilateral mastectomy (19% with reconstruction). One-third (33%) received chemotherapy. Most (84%) worked full-time before their diagnosis; however, only 50% had paid sick leave, 39% had disability benefits, and 38% had flexible work schedules. Surgical treatment was strongly correlated with missing >1 month of work (odds ratio [OR] for bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction vs lumpectomy, 7.8) and with stopping work altogether (OR for bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction vs lumpectomy, 3.1). Chemotherapy receipt (OR for missing >1 month, 1.3; OR for stopping work altogether, 3.9) and race (OR for missing >1 month for blacks vs whites, 2.0; OR for stopping work altogether for blacks vs whites, 1.7) also correlated. Those with paid sick leave were less likely to stop working (OR, 0.5), as were those with flexible schedules (OR, 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Working patients who received more aggressive treatments were more likely to experience substantial employment disruptions. Cancer 2017;123:4791-9. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

The impact of doctor-patient communication on patients' perceptions of their risk of breast cancer recurrence.

PURPOSE: Doctor-patient communication is the primary way for women diagnosed with breast cancer to learn about their risk of distant recurrence. Yet little is known about how doctors approach these discussions. METHODS: A weighted random sample of newly diagnosed early-stage breast cancer patients identified through SEER registries of Los Angeles and Georgia (2013-2015) was sent surveys about ~2 months after surgery (Phase 2, N = 3930, RR 68%). We assessed patient perceptions of doctor communication of risk of recurrence (i.e., amount, approach, inquiry about worry). Clinically determined 10-year risk of distant recurrence was established for low and intermediate invasive cancer patients. Women's perceived risk of distant recurrence (0-100%) was categorized into subgroups: overestimation, reasonably accurate, and zero risk. Understanding of risk and patient factors (e.g. health literacy, numeracy, and anxiety/worry) on physician communication outcomes was evaluated in multivariable regression models (analytic sample for substudy = 1295). RESULTS: About 33% of women reported that doctors discussed risk of recurrence as "quite a bit" or "a lot," while 14% said "not at all." Over half of women reported that doctors used words and numbers to describe risk, while 24% used only words. Overestimators (OR .50, CI 0.31-0.81) or those who perceived zero risk (OR .46, CI 0.29-0.72) more often said that their doctor did not discuss risk. Patients with low numeracy reported less discussion. Over 60% reported that their doctor almost never inquired about worry. CONCLUSIONS: Effective doctor-patient communication is critical to patient understanding of risk of recurrence. Efforts to enhance physicians' ability to engage in individualized communication around risk are needed.

Patient-reported quality of life in adolescents and young adults with cancer who received radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy (RT) is a common treatment for adolescents and young adults (AYAs, 15-39 years old) with cancer; however, it may cause toxicities that affect health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL). Thus, we assessed HRQOL in AYAs before, during, and after RT. METHODS: We identified 265 AYAs who completed HRQOL PROMIS® surveys before (n = 87), during (n = 84), or after (n = 94) RT. Higher PROMIS® score represents more of the concept. Mean scores were compared to the general US population and minimally important differences (MIDs) were used to evaluate the impact of cancer on HRQOL. Linear regression modeling was used to evaluate the effect of clinical and demographic factors on PROMIS scores. RESULTS: Median [IQR] age was 26 [20-31] years. Cancer types varied; most had sarcoma (26%) or CNS malignancy (23%). Compared to the general US population, the before RT cohort had worse anxiety (mean score 55.2 vs. 50, MID 3, p < 0.001) and the during RT cohort had worse global physical health (mean score 44.9 vs. 50, MID 5, p < 0.001). In the during RT cohort, patients with regional/distant disease had significantly worse pain (B = 15.94, p < 0.01) and fatigue (B = 14.20, p = 0.01) than patients with localized disease. In the after RT cohort, adolescents (15-18 years) and young adults (26-39 years) had worse global physical health (B = -6.87, p < 0.01, and B = -7.87, p < 0.01, respectively) and global mental health (B = -6.74, p < 0.01, and B = -5.67, p = 0.01, respectively) than emerging adults (19-25 years). CONCLUSIONS: AYAs with cancer receiving RT experience impairments in various domains of HRQOL. Advanced cancer stage may contribute to poorer short-term HRQOL and developmental stage may contribute to differing long-term HRQOL.

Association of Patient-Reported Health-Related Quality of Life With Physician-Reported Toxicities in Adolescents and Young Adults Receiving Radiation Therapy for Cancer.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy (RT) may cause toxicities in adolescents and young adults (AYAs, age 15-39 years) with cancer. However, the range of RT-related toxicities in AYAs and the affect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has not been well studied. We performed a cross-sectional study in AYAs with cancer who received RT to identify RT-related toxicities and examine their impact on HRQOL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 178 AYAs received RT and completed PROMIS HRQOL instruments from 2018 to 2022. Acute and late physician-graded Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events RT-related toxicities were extracted and described. Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate the association of RT-related toxicity with HRQOL scores during and post-RT. Minimally important differences were used to evaluate the clinical relevance of relationships. RESULTS: Eighty-four AYAs completed HRQOL surveys during RT and 94 post-RT. In the during-RT cohort, 75 AYAs (89%) had acute RT-related toxicities, a majority of which were grade 1 (n = 49, 65%). AYAs who experienced acute grade 2 or greater toxicities reported worse global mental health (B = -7.35, P < .01) and worse pain (B = 5.25, P = .01) than those with acute grade 1 or no toxicities. In the post-RT cohort, the median (IQR) time from RT to survey completion was 24 (14-27) months. Forty-eight AYAs (51%) had late RT-related toxicities, a majority of which were grade 1 (n = 37, 77%). AYAs who experienced late grade 2 or greater toxicities reported worse global mental health (B = -8.07, P = .01), worse social roles (B = -9.96, P < .01), and greater sleep disturbance (B = 10.75, P < .01) than those with late grade 1 or no RT toxicities. CONCLUSION: The presence of acute and late grade 2 or greater RT-related toxicities may contribute to worse HRQOL, especially global mental health, in AYAs. Screening and early interventions to mitigate RT-related toxicities are needed to improve AYA HRQOL.

What Factors Influence Women's Perceptions of their Systemic Recurrence Risk after Breast Cancer Treatment?

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer patients' misunderstanding of their systemic cancer recurrence risk has consequences on decision-making and quality of life. Little is known about how women derive their risk estimates. METHODS: Using Los Angeles and Georgia's SEER registries (2014-2015), a random sample of early-stage breast cancer patients was sent surveys about 2 to 3 months after surgery ( N = 3930; RR, 68%). We conducted an inductive thematic analysis of open-ended responses about why women chose their risk estimates in a uniquely large sub-sample ( N = 1,754). Clinician estimates of systemic recurrence risk were provided for patient sub-groups with DCIS and with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk invasive disease. Women's perceived risk of systemic recurrence (0% to 100%) was categorized as overestimation, reasonably accurate estimation, or underestimation (0% for invasive disease) and was compared across identified factors and by clinical presentation. RESULTS: Women identified 9 main factors related to their clinical experience (e.g., diagnosis and testing; treatment) and non-clinical beliefs (e.g., uncertainty; spirituality). Women who mentioned at least one clinical experience factor were significantly less likely to overestimate their risk (12% v. 43%, P < 0.001). Most women who were influenced by "communication with a clinician" had reasonably accurate recurrence estimates (68%). "Uncertainty" and "family and personal history" were associated with overestimation, particularly for women with DCIS (75%; 84%). "Spirituality, religion, and faith" was associated with an underestimation of risk (63% v. 20%, P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: The quantification of our qualitative results is subject to any biases that may have occurred during the coding process despite rigorous methodology. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-clinician communication is important for breast cancer patients' understanding of their numeric risk of systemic recurrence. Clinician discussions about recurrence risk should address uncertainty and relevance of family and personal history.