Financial and employment toxicity related to breast reconstruction following mastectomy in a diverse population-based cohort

78

Background: Despite mandated private insurance coverage for breast reconstruction following mastectomy, health care costs are increasingly passed onto women who seek these procedures through cost-sharing arrangements and high-deductible health plans. In this population-based study, we sought to characterize financial and employment toxicities related to pursuing breast reconstruction following mastectomy. Methods: Women (white, African American, and Latina-English and Spanish speaking) with early stage breast cancer (stages 0-II) diagnosed between July 2013 to September 2014 and who underwent mastectomy were identified through the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries and surveyed. Primary outcome measures included patient-reported appraisal of financial toxicity and employment status following breast cancer treatment using previously developed measures. Multivariable models evaluated the association between breast reconstruction and self-reported financial and employment status. Results: Among 868 breast cancer patients who underwent mastectomy, 43.5% (n = 378) did not undergo breast reconstruction and 56.5% (n = 490) underwent reconstruction. 43.4% of the cohort reported being worse off financially since their diagnosis (49.4% with reconstruction vs. 35.0% without reconstruction, P< .001). Among women who were employed at time of breast cancer diagnosis (n = 535), 70.2% who underwent reconstruction reported being worse off regarding employment status compared to 51.1% who did not undergo reconstruction ( P< .001). Receipt of reconstruction was independently associated with a self-reported decline in financial status (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.1, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.4-3.4, P= .001). Similarly, reports of being worse off regarding employment status were also higher in those who underwent reconstruction vs. not (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-3.8, P= .006). Spanish-speaking Latina women more often reported being worse off regarding employment status (OR 4.3, 95% CI 2.1-9.0, P< .001) than white women. Conclusions: In this diverse cohort of women who underwent mastectomy for early stage breast cancer, women who elected to undergo reconstruction experienced more self-reported financial and employment toxicities. Patients should be counseled regarding the potential costs related to these procedures. Policy-makers should be aware of the financial barriers for women who undergo reconstruction despite mandatory insurance coverage in the United States.

Improving the delivery of team-based survivorship care after primary breast cancer treatment through a multi-level intervention

7056

Background: The delivery of team-based survivorship care after primary cancer treatment remains challenging, in part due to a lack of effective interventions. We developed a multi-level intervention for breast cancer patients and their primary care and medical oncology providers to improve the delivery of team-based survivorship care called ConnectedCancerCare (CCC). CCC includes a patient-facing, personalized mobile website, and tailored feedback letters to providers. Methods: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial in a breast oncology clinic to establish the feasibility and acceptability of CCC. Women within one year of completing primary treatment for stages 0-II breast cancer were randomized to CCC (intervention) or a static online survivorship care plan (control). Participants completed online surveys at baseline and 3 months, ascertaining their knowledge about PCP roles in their survivorship care, their communication with their PCP about team-based care, and whether they scheduled a follow-up visit with their PCP. Multiple measures of acceptability were collected among women in the intervention arm (n = 28). Qualitative interviews were conducted at the completion of the study with 5 PCPs, 6 oncology providers, and 10 intervention patients to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing CCC. Results: Among 160 eligible women invited to participate, 66 women completed the baseline survey and were randomized (41% participation rate), and 54 completed the 3-month follow-up survey (83% response rate). Women in the intervention arm found the content of the CCC website to be highly acceptable, with 82% reporting it was easy to use, and 86% reporting they would recommend it to other patients. A greater proportion of women randomized to CCC (vs. control) reported scheduling a PCP follow-up visit (64% vs. 42%) and communicating with their PCP about provider roles (67% vs. 18%). Women in the CCC arm also reported higher mean knowledge scores regarding team-based cancer care (3.7 vs. 3.4). Providers noted challenges to implementing CCC, including integration into electronic medical records, and supporting sustained engagement with CCC over time. Conclusions: Our findings suggest deploying CCC in medical oncology practices is feasible, and the intervention content is acceptable among breast cancer patients. CCC shows promise for improving understanding and communication about provider roles in survivorship care, and facilitating patients to follow up with their PCP early in the survivorship period. Clinical trial information: NCT03618017 .

Association of Germline Genetic Testing Results With Locoregional and Systemic Therapy in Patients With Breast Cancer

Importance

The increasing use of germline genetic testing may have unintended consequences on treatment. Little is known about how women with pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes are treated for breast cancer.

Objective

To determine the association of germline genetic testing results with locoregional and systemic therapy use in women diagnosed with breast cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this population-based cohort study, data from women aged 20 years or older who were diagnosed with stages 0 to III breast cancer between 2014 and 2016 were accrued from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and California. The women underwent genetic testing within 3 months after diagnosis and were reported to the Georgia and California SEER registries by December 1, 2017.

Exposures

Pathogenic variant status based on linked results of clinical germline genetic testing by 4 laboratories that did most such testing in the studied regions.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Potential deviation of treatment from practice guidelines was assessed in the following clinical scenarios: (1) surgery: receipt of bilateral mastectomy by women eligible for less extensive unilateral surgery (unilateral breast tumor); (2) radiotherapy: omission in women indicated for postlumpectomy radiotherapy (all lumpectomy recipients except age ≥70 with stage I, estrogen and/or progesterone receptor [ER/PR] positive, ERBB2 [formerly HER2]-negative disease); and (3) chemotherapy: receipt by women eligible to consider chemotherapy omission (stages I-II, ER/PR-positive, ERBB2-negative, and 21-gene recurrence score of 0-30, which was the upper limit of the intermediate risk range during the study years). The adjusted percentage treated and adjusted odds ratio (OR) are reported based on multivariable modeling for each treatment-eligible group.

Results

A total of 20 568 women (17.3%) of 119 198 were eligible (mean [SD] age, 51.4 [12.2]). Compared with women whose test results were negative, those with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants were more likely to receive bilateral mastectomy for a unilateral tumor (61.7% vs 24.3%; OR, 5.52, 95% CI, 4.73-6.44), less likely to receive postlumpectomy radiotherapy (50.2% vs 81.5%; OR, 0.22, 95% CI, 0.15-0.32), and more likely to receive chemotherapy for early-stage, ER/PR-positive disease (38.0% vs 30.3%; OR, 1.76, 95% CI, 1.31-2.34). Similar patterns were seen with pathogenic variants in other breast cancer-associated genes (ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53) but not with variants of uncertain significance.

Conclusions and Relevance

Women with pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 and other breast cancer-associated genes were found to have distinct patterns of breast cancer treatment; these may be less concordant with practice guidelines, particularly for radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Exploring Plastic Surgeon Practice Patterns and Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Within the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer, variations exist in the reconstructive options offered and care provided. The authors evaluated plastic surgeon perspectives on important issues related to breast cancer management and reconstruction and provide some insight into factors that influence these perspectives.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer (stages 0 to II) between July of 2013 and September of 2014 were identified through the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. These women were surveyed and identified their treating plastic surgeons. Surveys were sent to the identified plastic surgeons to collect data on specific reconstruction practices.

RESULTS

Responses from 134 plastic surgeons (74.4 percent response rate) were received. Immediate reconstruction (79.7 percent) was the most common approach to timing, and expander/implant reconstruction (72.6 percent) was the most common technique reported. Nearly one-third of respondents (32.1 percent) reported that reimbursement influenced the proportion of autologous reconstructions performed. Most (82.8 percent) reported that discussions about contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were initiated by patients. Most surgeons (81.3 to 84.3 percent) felt that good symmetry is achieved with unilateral autologous reconstruction with contralateral symmetry procedures in patients with small or large breasts; a less pronounced majority (62.7 percent) favored unilateral implant reconstructions in patients with large breasts. In patients requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy, one-fourth of the surgeons (27.6 percent) reported that they seldom recommend delayed reconstruction, and 64.9 percent reported recommending immediate expander/implant reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstructive practices in a modern cohort of plastic surgeons suggest that immediate and implant reconstructions are performed preferentially. Respondents perceived a number of factors, including surgeon training, time spent in the operating room, and insurance reimbursement, to negatively influence the performance of autologous reconstruction.

Abstract P6-08-02: 21-gene recurrence score results according to germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, CHEK2 and Lynch Syndrome genes

BACKGROUND: Women diagnosed with breast cancer increasingly undergo multiplex sequencing of germline cancer susceptibility genes. Little is known about cancer prognosis and predicted chemotherapy benefit, which are measured from the tumor by the 21-gene recurrence score (21G), according to germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1/2 and other commonly sequenced genes.

METHODS: Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data for all women aged 20 years and older, diagnosed with breast cancer in 2013-2016 and reported to Georgia and California statewide SEER registries (N=158,480) by December 1, 2017 were linked to germline genetic testing results from four laboratories that performed nearly all clinical testing. 21G results were obtained from SEER and the testing laboratory. We examined 21G among all patients who were eligible for 21G testing (estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PR)-positive, HER2-negative, T stage 1-2, N stage 0-1), N=84,128. We report the median 21G score according to germline testing results, with multivariable modeling adjusting for age, tumor size, grade and lymph node involvement.

RESULTS: 23,508 patients eligible for 21G testing linked to a recurrence score result (27.9%) of whom 6,951 (29.7%) had germline testing. Mean 21G score was slightly higher in women diagnosed at age less than 50 years (18.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 17.8-18.3) versus at age 50 years and older (17.0, CI 16.9-17.1). 402 women had a PV in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, ATM, PALB2 or the Lynch Syndrome genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2). The table shows mean 21G scores by PV, which were highest for BRCA1 (33.6) followed by PALB2 (24.1) and BRCA2 (23.2), compared to women who had a negative germline test (17.3) or no germline test (17.0). The proportion of patients with a high 21G score (26-100, a range for which chemotherapy is indicated) was increased with PVs in BRCA1 (63.2% versus 14.6% with a negative germline test, p&lt;0.001), PALB2 (36.7%, p=0.01), and BRCA2 (35.4%, p&lt;0.001). In a multivariable model controlling for clinical factors, BRCA1 PV (beta coefficient=11.9, CI 7.6-15.5) and PALB2 PV (beta coefficient=4.7, CI 0.6 - 8.9) were independently associated with 21G score.

CONCLUSIONS: BRCA1/2 and PALB2 PVs are associated with higher 21G scores (mean 23-34), while ATM, CHEK2 and Lynch Syndrome gene PVs are not associated with substantially higher 21G scores than in women testing negative or untested (mean 17-18). These results can inform decision-making about 21G testing and chemotherapy use among breast cancer patients who carry PVs in commonly tested cancer susceptibility genes.

Table. 21 gene recurrence (21G) score according to germline genetic testing resultsGermline genetic testing resultsNMean 21G score95% confidence interval21G score 26-100, %P-value, % 21G score 26-100BRCA1 pathogenic variant (PV)5733.629.1-38.163.2%&lt;0.001PALB2 PV3024.120.6-27.736.7%0.001BRCA2 PV16423.221.7-24.835.4%&lt;0.001ATM PV4519.917.5-22.420.0%0.398Lynch Syndrome PV (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2)2319.413.9-24.821.7%0.404CHEK2 PV9119.017.5-20.514.3%0.757Variant of uncertain significance in any gene97817.917.2-18.616.6%0.093Negative5,49517.317.1-17.614.6%ReferenceNo germline genetic test16,55717.016.8-17.115.3%0.209

Citation Format: Allison W Kurian, Paul Abrahamse, Kevin Ward, Ann S. Hamilton, Dennis Deapen, Steven Shak, Steven J. Katz. 21-gene recurrence score results according to germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, CHEK2 and Lynch Syndrome genes [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-08-02.

Surgeon Attitudes Toward the Omission of Axillary Dissection in Early Breast Cancer

Importance

The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 study demonstrated the safety of sentinel node biopsy alone in clinically node-negative women with metastases in 1 or 2 sentinel nodes treated with breast conservation. Little is known about surgeon perspectives regarding when axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) can be omitted.

Objectives

To determine surgeon acceptance of ACOSOG Z0011 findings, identify characteristics associated with acceptance of ACOSOG Z0011 results, and examine the association between acceptance of the Society of Surgical Oncology and American Society for Radiation Oncology negative margin of no ink on tumor and surgeon preference for ALND.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A survey was sent to 488 surgeons treating a population-based sample of women with early-stage breast cancer (N = 5080). The study was conducted from July 1, 2013, to August 31, 2015.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Surgeons were categorized as having low, intermediate, or high propensity for ALND according to the outer quartiles of ALND scale distribution. A multivariable linear regression model was used to confirm independent associations.

Results

Of the 488 surgeons invited to participate, 376 (77.0%) responded and 359 provided complete information regarding propensity for ALND derived from 5 clinical scenarios. Mean surgeon age was 53.7 (range, 31-80) years; 277 (73.7%) were male; 142 (37.8%) treated 20 or fewer breast cancers annually and 108 (28.7%) treated more than 50. One hundred seventy-five (49.0%) recommended ALND for 1 macrometastasis. Of low-propensity surgeons who recommended ALND, only 1 (1.1%) approved ALND for any nodal metastases compared with 69 (38.6%) and 85 (95.5%) of selective and high-propensity surgeons (P < .001), respectively. In multivariable analysis, lower ALND propensity was significantly associated with higher breast cancer volume (21-50: -0.19; 95% CI, -0.39 to 0.02; >51: -0.48; 95% CI, -0.71 to -0.24; P < .001), recommendation of a minimal margin width (1-5 mm: -0.10; 95% CI, -0.43 to 0.22; no ink on tumor: -0.53; 95% CI, -0.82 to -0.24; P < .001), participation in a multidisciplinary tumor board (1%-9%: -0.25; 95% CI, -0.55 to 0.05; >9%: -0.37; 95% CI, -0.63 to -0.11; P = .02), and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results site (-0.18; 95% CI, -0.35 to -0.01; P = .04).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study shows substantial variation in surgeon acceptance of more limited surgery for breast cancer, which is associated with higher breast cancer volume and multidisciplinary interactions, suggesting the potential for overtreatment of many patients and the need for education targeting lower-volume breast surgeons.

Association of Attending Surgeon With Variation in the Receipt of Genetic Testing After Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

Importance

Genetic testing after diagnosis of breast cancer is common, but little is known about the influence of the surgeon on the variation in testing.

Objectives

To quantify and explain the association of attending surgeon with rates of genetic testing after diagnosis of breast cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based study identified 7810 women with stages 0 to II breast cancer treated between July 1, 2013, and August 31, 2015, through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries for the state of Georgia, as well as Los Angeles County, California. Surveys were sent approximately 2 months after surgery. Also surveyed were 488 attending surgeons identified by the patients.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The study examined the association of surgeon with variation in the receipt of genetic testing using information from patient and surgeon surveys merged to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and genetic testing data obtained from 4 laboratories.

Results

In total, 5080 women (69.6%) of 7303 who were eligible (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [0.8] years) and 377 surgeons (77.3%) of 488 (mean [SD] age, 53.8 [10.7] years) responded to the survey. Approximately one-third (34.5% [1350 of 3910] of patients had an elevated risk of mutation carriage, and 27.0% (1056 of 3910) overall had genetic testing. Surgeons had practiced a mean (SE) of 20.9 (0.6) years, and 28.9% (107 of 370) treated more than 50 cases of new breast cancer per year. The odds of a patient receiving genetic testing increased more than 2-fold (odds ratio, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.85-3.31) if she saw a surgeon with an approach 1 SD above that of a surgeon with the mean test rate. Approximately one-third (34.1%) of the surgeon variation was explained by patient volume and surgeon attitudes about genetic testing and counseling. If a patient with higher pretest risk saw a surgeon at the 5th percentile of the surgeon distribution, she would have a 26.3% (95% CI, 21.9%-31.2%) probability of testing compared with 72.3% (95% CI, 66.7%-77.2%) if she saw a surgeon at the 95th percentile.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, the attending surgeon was associated with the receipt of genetic testing after a breast cancer diagnosis. Variation in surgeon attitudes about genetic testing and counseling may explain a substantial amount of this association.

Uptake, Results, and Outcomes of Germline Multiple-Gene Sequencing After Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

Importance

Low-cost sequencing of multiple genes is increasingly available for cancer risk assessment. Little is known about uptake or outcomes of multiple-gene sequencing after breast cancer diagnosis in community practice.

Objective

To examine the effect of multiple-gene sequencing on the experience and treatment outcomes for patients with breast cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this population-based retrospective cohort study, patients with breast cancer diagnosed from January 2013 to December 2015 and accrued from SEER registries across Georgia and in Los Angeles, California, were surveyed (n = 5080, response rate = 70%). Responses were merged with SEER data and results of clinical genetic tests, either BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) sequencing only or including additional other genes (multiple-gene sequencing), provided by 4 laboratories.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Type of testing (multiple-gene sequencing vs BRCA1/2-only sequencing), test results (negative, variant of unknown significance, or pathogenic variant), patient experiences with testing (timing of testing, who discussed results), and treatment (strength of patient consideration of, and surgeon recommendation for, prophylactic mastectomy), and prophylactic mastectomy receipt. We defined a patient subgroup with higher pretest risk of carrying a pathogenic variant according to practice guidelines.

Results

Among 5026 patients (mean [SD] age, 59.9 [10.7] years), 1316 (26.2%) were linked to genetic results from any laboratory. Multiple-gene sequencing increasingly replaced BRCA1/2-only testing over time: in 2013, the rate of multiple-gene sequencing was 25.6% and BRCA1/2-only testing, 74.4%; in 2015 the rate of multiple-gene sequencing was 66.5% and BRCA1/2-only testing, 33.5%. Multiple-gene sequencing was more often ordered by genetic counselors (multiple-gene sequencing, 25.5% and BRCA1/2-only testing, 15.3%) and delayed until after surgery (multiple-gene sequencing, 32.5% and BRCA1/2-only testing, 19.9%). Multiple-gene sequencing substantially increased rate of detection of any pathogenic variant (multiple-gene sequencing: higher-risk patients, 12%; average-risk patients, 4.2% and BRCA1/2-only testing: higher-risk patients, 7.8%; average-risk patients, 2.2%) and variants of uncertain significance, especially in minorities (multiple-gene sequencing: white patients, 23.7%; black patients, 44.5%; and Asian patients, 50.9% and BRCA1/2-only testing: white patients, 2.2%; black patients, 5.6%; and Asian patients, 0%). Multiple-gene sequencing was not associated with an increase in the rate of prophylactic mastectomy use, which was highest with pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 (BRCA1/2, 79.0%; other pathogenic variant, 37.6%; variant of uncertain significance, 30.2%; negative, 35.3%).

Conclusions and Relevance

Multiple-gene sequencing rapidly replaced BRCA1/2-only testing for patients with breast cancer in the community and enabled 2-fold higher detection of clinically relevant pathogenic variants without an associated increase in prophylactic mastectomy. However, important targets for improvement in the clinical utility of multiple-gene sequencing include postsurgical delay and racial/ethnic disparity in variants of uncertain significance.

Primary care providers propensity to order non-recommended surveillance testing after curative breast cancer treatment

52

Background: Team-based cancer care models promote primary care providers taking on a larger role in survivorship care. However, little is known about PCP attitudes toward and propensity to order non-recommended surveillance testing. Methods: A stratified random sample of PCPs identified by early-stage breast cancer patients diagnosed in 2013-15 who participated in iCanCare Study (Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries) were surveyed about their experiences caring for cancer patients (N = 519, 58% response rate). PCPs were asked in a clinical vignette whether they would order non-recommended bone scans, other imaging (i.e. PET) or tumor marker testing (i.e. CA-125) in an asymptomatic, early-stage breast cancer survivor. A composite score was created by averaging their responses to the individual items, and categorized by tertiles into low, selective and high propensity to order non-recommended testing. PCP confidence in their knowledge about appropriate testing was also measured (5 pt. Likert-type scale; not all all-very confident) and compared with propensity to order. Multivariable, weighted, multinomial logistic regression was used to then evaluate PCP-reported factors associated with high and selective propensity to order non-recommended testing (vs. low). Results: In this sample, 32% of PCPs had a low propensity, 40% selective, and 28% a high propensity to order non-recommended surveillance tests. Of the 80% of PCPs who reported they were confident in their knowledge about appropriate testing, 27% had a high propensity to order. PCPs practicing in staff-model HMOs were less likely to have a high or selective propensity to order (vs. low) when compared to PCPs in private practice. (high aOR: 0.4, 95%CI: 0.2-0.7; selective aOR: 0.3, 95%CI: 0.2-0.6). Conclusions: Over a quarter of PCPs had a high propensity to order non-recommended surveillance testing for early-stage breast cancer patients, yet the majority reported they were confident in their knowledge about appropriate surveillance testing. Efforts to increase PCP knowledge about the specifics of breast cancer surveillance may be warranted to reduce the overuse of non-recommended testing during survivorship.

Adherence to breast cancer treatment guidelines according to pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes in a population-based cohort

34

Background: Increasing use of germline genetic testing may have unintended consequences on breast cancer treatment. We do not know whether treatment deviates from guidelines for women with pathogenic variants (PV) in cancer susceptibility genes. Methods: SEER data for all women aged ≥20 years, diagnosed with breast cancer in 2014-15 and reported to Georgia and California registries (N=77,588) by December 1, 2016 were linked to germline genetic testing results from 4 laboratories that did nearly all clinical testing. We examined first course of therapy of stage <IV patients who linked to a genetic test: bilateral mastectomy (BLM) in candidates for surgery (unilateral, stages 0-III); post-lumpectomy radiation in those with an indication (all but age ≥70, stage I, hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative); and chemotherapy in those without definitive indication (stage I-II, HR-positive, HER2-negative and 21-gene recurrence score <30). We report the percent treated based on multivariable modeling, adjusted for age, race, stage, grade, insurance and socioeconomic status. Results: The table shows that 9% of patients who linked to a genetic test result had a PV (N=1,283). Compared to women with negative results, those with BRCA1/2 PVs were more likely to receive BLM, more likely to receive chemotherapy without definitive indication, and less likely to receive indicated radiation as initial treatment. Lower-magnitude effects were seen with other PVs but not variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Conclusions: In a population-based setting, women with PVs in BRCA1/2 or other cancer susceptibility genes may have higher risk of receiving locoregional and systemic treatment that does not follow guidelines.

[Table: see text]

Patterns and Correlates of Knowledge, Communication, and Receipt of Breast Reconstruction in a Modern Population-Based Cohort of Patients with Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Disparities persist in the receipt of breast reconstruction after mastectomy, and little is known about the nature of communication received by patients and potential variations that may exist.

METHODS

Women with early-stage breast cancer (stages 0 to II) diagnosed between July of 2013 and September of 2014 were identified through the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries and surveyed to collect additional data on demographics, treatment, and decision-making experiences. Treating general/oncologic surgeons were also surveyed. Primary outcomes measures included self-reported communication-related measures on receipt of information on breast reconstruction and on the receipt of breast reconstruction.

RESULTS

The authors analyzed 936 women who underwent mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer. Four hundred eighty-four (51.7 percent) underwent mastectomy with reconstruction. Women who were older and for whom English was not their primary spoken language had lower odds of being informed by a doctor about breast reconstruction. Ultimately, women who were older, were Asian, had invasive disease, had bronchitis/emphysema, and had lower income were less likely to undergo breast reconstruction. Breast reconstruction was performed more often in patients undergoing bilateral mastectomies (OR, 3.27; 95 percent CI, 2.26 to 4.75). Women cared for by surgeons with higher volumes of breast cancer patients (≥51 patients per year) were more likely to undergo breast reconstruction (OR, 2.43; 95 percent CI, 1.40 to 4.20).

CONCLUSION

To eliminate existing disparities, increased efforts should be made in consultations for surgical management of breast cancer to provide information to all patients regarding the option of breast reconstruction, the possibility of immediate reconstruction, and insurance coverage of all stages of reconstruction.

Primary care provider-reported involvement in breast cancer treatment decisions

BACKGROUND

Treatment decisions for patients with early-stage breast cancer often involve discussions with multiple oncology providers. However, the extent to which primary care providers (PCPs) are involved in initial treatment decisions remains unknown.

METHODS

A stratified random sample of PCPs identified by newly diagnosed patients with early-stage breast cancer from the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries were surveyed (n = 517; a 61% response rate). PCPs were asked how frequently they discussed surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy options with patients; how comfortable they were with these discussions; whether they had the necessary knowledge to participate in decision making; and what their confidence was in their ability to help (on 5-item Likert-type scales). Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify PCP-reported attitudes associated with more PCP participation in each treatment decision.

RESULTS

In this sample, 34% of PCPs reported that they discussed surgery, 23% discussed radiation, and 22% discussed chemotherapy options with their patients. Of those who reported more involvement in surgical decisions, 22% reported that they were not comfortable having a discussion, and 17% did not feel that they had the necessary knowledge to participate in treatment decision making. PCPs who positively appraised their ability to participate were more likely to participate in all 3 decisions (odds ratio [OR] for surgery, 6.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16-8.68; OR for radiation, 8.37; 95% CI, 5.16-13.58; OR for chemotherapy, 6.56; 95% CI, 4.23-10.17).

CONCLUSIONS

A third of PCPs reported participating in breast cancer treatment decisions, yet gaps in their knowledge about decision making and in their confidence in their ability to help exist. Efforts to increase PCPs' knowledge about breast cancer treatment options may be warranted.

Breast cancer treatment according to pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes in a population-based cohort

560

Background: Increasing use of germline genetic testing may have unintended consequences on breast cancer treatment. We do not know whether treatment deviates from guidelines for women with pathogenic variants (PV) in cancer susceptibility genes. Methods: SEER data for all women aged ≥20 years, diagnosed with breast cancer in 2014-15 and reported to Georgia and California registries (N = 77,588) by December 1, 2016 were linked to germline genetic testing results from 4 laboratories that did nearly all clinical testing. We examined first course of therapy (before recurrence or progression) of stage < IV patients who linked to a genetic test: bilateral mastectomy (BLM) in candidates for surgery (unilateral, stages 0-III); post-lumpectomy radiation in those with an indication (all but age ≥70, stage I, hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative); and chemotherapy in those without a definitive indication (stage I-II, HR-positive, HER2-negative and 21-gene recurrence score < 30). We report the percent treated based on multivariable modeling, adjusted for age, race, stage, grade, insurance and socioeconomic status. Results: The table shows that 9% of patients who linked to a genetic test result had a PV (N = 1,283). Compared to women with negative results,women with BRCA1/2 PVs were more likely to receive BLM, more likely to receive chemotherapy without definitive indication, and less likely to receive indicated radiation in their first course of therapy. Lower-magnitude effects were seen with other PVs but not variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Conclusions: In a population-based setting, women with PVs in BRCA1/2 or other cancer susceptibility genes may have a higher risk of receiving locoregional and systemic treatment that does not follow guidelines. [Table: see text]

Genetic Testing and Results in a Population-Based Cohort of Breast Cancer Patients and Ovarian Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

Genetic testing for cancer risk has expanded rapidly. We examined clinical genetic testing and results among population-based patients with breast and ovarian cancer.

METHODS

The study included all women 20 years of age or older diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer in California and Georgia between 2013 and 2014 and reported to the SEER registries covering the entire state populations. SEER data were linked to results from four laboratories that performed nearly all germline cancer genetic testing. Testing use and results were analyzed at the gene level.

RESULTS

There were 77,085 patients with breast cancer and 6,001 with ovarian cancer. Nearly one quarter of those with breast cancer (24.1%) and one third of those with ovarian cancer (30.9%) had genetic test results. Among patients with ovarian cancer, testing was lower in blacks (21.6%; 95% CI, 18.1% to 25.4%; v whites, 33.8%; 95% CI, 32.3% to 35.3%) and uninsured patients (20.8%; 95% CI, 15.5% to 26.9%; v insured patients, 35.3%; 95% CI, 33.8% to 36.9%). Prevalent pathogenic variants in patients with breast cancer were BRCA1 (3.2%), BRCA2 (3.1%), CHEK 2 (1.6%), PALB2 (1.0%), ATM (0.7%), and NBN (0.4%); in patients with ovarian cancer, prevalent pathogenic variants were BRCA1 (8.7%), BRCA2 (5.8%), CHEK2 (1.4%), BRIP1 (0.9%), MSH2 (0.8%), and ATM (0.6%). Racial/ethnic differences in pathogenic variants included BRCA1 (ovarian cancer: whites, 7.2%; 95% CI, 5.9% to 8.8%; v Hispanics, 16.1%; 95% CI, 11.8% to 21.2%) and CHEK2 (breast cancer: whites, 2.3%; 95% CI, 1.8% to 2.8%; v blacks, 0.1%; 95% CI, 0% to 0.8%). When tested for all genes that current guidelines designate as associated with their cancer type, 7.8% of patients with breast cancer and 14.5% of patients with ovarian cancer had pathogenic variants.

CONCLUSION

Clinically-tested patients with breast and ovarian cancer in two large, diverse states had 8% to 15% prevalence of actionable pathogenic variants. Substantial testing gaps and disparities among patients with ovarian cancer are targets for improvement.

Understanding the engagement of key decision support persons in patient decision making around breast cancer treatment

BACKGROUND

Patients with breast cancer involve multiple decision support persons (DSPs) in treatment decision making, yet little is known about DSP engagement in decision making and its association with patient appraisal of the decision process.

METHODS

Patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer reported to Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries in 2014-2015 were surveyed 7 months after their diagnosis. The individual most involved in each respondent's decision making (the key DSP) was surveyed. DSP engagement was measured across 3 domains: 1) informed about decisions, 2) involved in decisions, and 3) aware of patient preferences. Patient decision appraisal included subjective decision quality (SDQ) and deliberation. This study evaluated bivariate associations with chi-square tests between domains of DSP engagement and independent DSP variables. Analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare domains of DSP engagement with patient decision appraisal.

RESULTS

In all, 2502 patients (68% response rate) and 1203 eligible DSPs (70% response rate) responded. Most DSPs were husbands/partners or daughters, were white, and were college graduates. Husbands/partners were more likely to be more informed, involved, and aware (all P values < .01). English- and Spanish-speaking Latinos had a higher extent of (P = .02) but lower satisfaction with involvement (P < .01). A highly informed DSP was associated with higher odds of patient-reported SDQ (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.08; P = .03). A highly aware DSP was associated with higher odds of patient-reported deliberation (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-2.47; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based study, informal DSPs were engaged with and positively contributed to patients' treatment decision making. To improve decision quality, future interventions should incorporate DSPs.

Provider Involvement in Care During Initial Cancer Treatment and Patient Preferences for Provider Roles After Initial Treatment

PURPOSE

Patients report strong preferences regarding which provider-oncologist or primary care provider (PCP)-handles their primary care after initial cancer treatment (eg, other cancer screenings, preventive care, comorbidity management). Little is known about associations between provider involvement during initial cancer treatment and patient preferences for provider roles after initial treatment.

METHODS

Women who received a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer in 2014 to 2015 were identified from the Georgia and Los Angeles County SEER registries and surveyed (N = 2,502; 68% response rate). Women reported the level of their providers' involvement in their care during initial cancer treatment. Associations between level of medical oncologist's participation and PCP's engagement during initial cancer treatment and patient preferences for oncologist led ( v PCP led) other cancer screenings after initial treatment were examined using multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

During their initial cancer treatment, 20% of women reported medical oncologists participated substantially in delivering primary care and 66% reported PCPs were highly engaged in their cancer care. Two-thirds (66%) of women preferred medical oncologists to handle other cancer screenings after initial treatment. Women who reported substantial medical oncologist participation in primary care were more likely (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.91) and those who reported high PCP engagement in cancer care were less likely (adjusted odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.53) to prefer oncologist-led other cancer screenings after initial treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers' involvement during initial cancer treatment may affect patient preferences regarding provision of follow-up primary care. Clarifying provider roles as early as during cancer treatment may help to better delineate their roles throughout survivorship.

Physician attitudes about cost consciousness for breast cancer treatment: differences by cancer sub-specialty

PURPOSE

High costs of cancer care place considerable burden on patients and society. Despite increasing recognition that providers should play a role in reducing care costs, how physicians across cancer specialties differ in their cost-consciousness has not been reported. We examined cost-consciousness regarding breast cancer care among medical oncologists, surgeons, and radiation oncologists.

METHODS

We identified 514 cancer surgeons, 504 medical oncologists, and 251 radiation oncologists by patient report through the iCanCare study. iCanCare identified newly diagnosed women with breast cancer through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and Los Angeles. We queried providers on three dimensions of cost-consciousness: (1) perceived importance of cost saving for society, patients, practice, and payers; (2) awareness of patient out-of-pocket expenses; and (3) discussion of financial burden.

RESULTS

We received responses from 376 surgeons (73%), 304 medical oncologists (60%), and 169 radiation oncologists (67%). Overall levels of cost-consciousness were moderate, with scores ranging from 2.5 to 3.0 out of 5. After adjusting for covariates, surgeons had the lowest scores on all three cost-consciousness measures; medical oncologists had the highest scores. Pairwise contrasts showed surgeons had significantly lower scores than medical oncologists for all three measures and significantly lower scores than radiation oncologists for two of the three cost-consciousness variables: importance of cost saving and discussion of financial burden.

CONCLUSIONS

How cost-consciousness impacts medical decision-making across specialty and how policy, structural, and behavioral interventions might sensitize providers regarding cost-related matters merit further examination.

Association of Germline Genetic Test Type and Results With Patient Cancer Worry After Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

There are concerns that multigene panel testing compared with BRCA1/ 2-only testing after diagnosis of breast cancer may lead to unnecessary patient worry about cancer because of more ambiguous results.

METHODS

Patients with breast cancer diagnosed from 2013 to 2015 and accrued from SEER registries in Georgia and Los Angeles were surveyed (n = 5,080; response rate, 70%), and responses were merged with SEER data and germline genetic testing and results. We examined patient reports of cancer worry by test type and results in 1,063 women who linked to a genetic test and reported undergoing testing.

RESULTS

More than half of the sample (n = 640; 60.2%) received BRCA1/2-only testing versus 423 patients (39.8%) who had a multigene panel. A minority of tested patients reported substantial cancer worry after treatment: 11.1% (n = 130) reported higher impact of cancer worry, and 15.1% (n = 162) reported a high frequency of cancer worry (worrying often or almost always) in the past month. Impact of cancer worry did not substantively differ by test type, test result outcomes, or clinical or treatment factors. The odds ratio for higher impact of cancer worry was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.51 to 1.28) for multigene versus BRCA1/2-only testing. In a separate model, the odds ratios were 1.21 (95% CI, 0.54 to 2.68) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.50 to 1.62) for pathogenic variant and variant of uncertain significance, respectively, versus a negative test (the reference group).

CONCLUSION

Compared with BRCA1/2 testing alone, multigene panel testing was not associated with increased cancer worry after diagnosis of breast cancer.

Improving informed breast cancer systemic treatment decision-making

225

Background: Decision making for adjuvant chemotherapy is increasingly complicated for women with a new diagnosis of early stage breast cancer. Few decision tools are designed to help support informed systemic treatment decision-making, by improving knowledge and decision quality. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a tailored, comprehensive (locoregional and systemic treatment) and interactive decision tool (iCanDecide), compared with static online information. 537 newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer patients were enrolled from 22 surgical practices. Participants were surveyed 5 weeks (N = 496; RR 92%) and those eligible for systemic treatment (N = 358) again at 9 months (N = 307; RR 88%). The main outcome for this analysis was knowledge about systemic treatment using 4 true/false items, categorized into high (3- 4 correct) vs. low (0-2 correct). We also assessed subjective decision quality (SDQ) for chemotherapy on a 5-point scale and dichotomized into high (4-5) vs. low (1-3) We evaluated the distribution of participants in each arm, and assessed the association between the study arm and the outcomes using bivariate and multivariable approaches. Results: Of the 358 respondents, 201 did not receive or intend to have chemotherapy. Significantly more intervention than control patients had high knowledge about systemic treatment (52.9% vs. 39.9%, p = 0.012). Overall SDQ for chemotherapy was slightly higher in intervention than control subjects (mean 4.8 vs. 4.6, p = 0.08). However, among women who did not receive chemotherapy, significantly more intervention subjects reported high SDQ than controls (87.1% vs. 75.2%, p = 0.06). Values significantly related to chemotherapy use included avoiding side effects, continuing to work, and being most extensive possible. Conclusions: We found that the interactive decision tool contributed significantly to higher knowledge about systemic treatment among eligible patients. We further found the tool shows promise for improving subjective decision quality, particularly in patients who choose not to have chemotherapy. Further work to integrate tools into the oncology clinical setting is needed. Clinical trial information: NCT01840163.

Unmet need for clinician engagement regarding financial toxicity after diagnosis of breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding whether growing awareness of the financial toxicity of a cancer diagnosis and its treatment has increased clinician engagement or changed the needs of current patients.

METHODS

The authors surveyed patients with early-stage breast cancer who were identified through population-based sampling from 2 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) regions and their physicians. The authors described responses from approximately 73% of surgeons (370 surgeons), 61% of medical oncologists (306 medical oncologists), 67% of radiation oncologists (169 radiation oncologists), and 68% of patients (2502 patients).

RESULTS

Approximately one-half (50.9%) of responding medical oncologists reported that someone in their practice often or always discusses financial burden with patients, as did 15.6% of surgeons and 43.2% of radiation oncologists. Patients indicated that financial toxicity remains common: 21.5% of white patients and 22.5% of Asian patients had to cut down spending on food, as did 45.2% of black and 35.8% of Latina patients. Many patients desired to talk to providers about the financial impact of cancer (15.2% of whites, 31.1% of blacks, 30.3% of Latinas, and 25.4% of Asians). Unmet patient needs for engagement with physicians about financial concerns were common. Of 945 women who worried about finances, 679 (72.8%) indicated that physicians and their staff did not help. Of 523 women who desired to talk to providers regarding the impact of breast cancer on employment or finances, 283 (55.4%) reported no relevant discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients report inadequate clinician engagement in the management of financial toxicity, even though many providers believe that they make services available. Clinician assessment and communication regarding financial toxicity must improve; cure at the cost of financial ruin is unacceptable. Cancer 2018;000:000-000. © 2018 American Cancer Society.