Factors Associated with Multidisciplinary Consultations in Patients with Early Stage Breast Cancer

Disparities in Access to Multidisciplinary Cancer Consultations and Treatment for Patients With Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A SEER-Medicare Analysis

PURPOSE

Disparities in access to a multidisciplinary cancer consultation (MDCc) persist, and the role of physician relationships remains understudied. This study examined the extent to which multilevel factors, including patient characteristics and patient-sharing network measures reflecting the structure of physician relationships, are associated with an MDCc and receipt of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus surgery among patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data for patients diagnosed with stage I-IIA NSCLC from 2016 to 2017. We assembled patient-sharing networks and identified cancer specialists who were locally unique for their specialty, herein referred to as linchpins. The proportion of linchpin cancer specialists for each hospital referral region (HRR) was calculated as a network-based measure of specialist scarcity. We used multilevel multinomial logistic regression to estimate associations between study variables and receipt of an MDCc and multilevel logistic regression to examine the relationship between patient receipt of an MDCc and initial treatment.

RESULTS

Our study included 6120 patients with stage I-IIA NSCLC, of whom 751 (12.3%) received an MDCc, 1729 (28.3%) consulted only a radiation oncologist, 2010 (32.8%) consulted only a surgeon, and 1630 (26.6%) consulted neither specialist within 2 months of diagnosis. Compared with patients residing in an HRR with a low proportion of linchpin surgeons, those residing in an HRR with a high proportion of linchpin surgeons had a 2.99 (95% CI, 1.87-4.78) greater relative risk of consulting only a radiation oncologist versus receiving an MDCc and a 2.70 (95% CI, 1.68-4.35) greater relative risk of consulting neither specialist versus receiving an MDCc. Patients who received an MDCc were 5.32 times (95% CI, 4.27-6.63) more likely to receive stereotactic body radiation therapy versus surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician networks are associated with receipt of an MDCc and treatment, underscoring the potential for leveraging patient-sharing network analysis to improve access to lung cancer care.

Multilevel factors associated with inequities in multidisciplinary cancer consultation

OBJECTIVE

To assess changes in the prevalence of multidisciplinary cancer consultations (MDCc) over the last decade and examine patient, surgeon, hospital, and neighborhood factors associated with receipt of MDCc among individuals diagnosed with cancer.

DATA SOURCE

Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data from 2006 to 2016.

STUDY DESIGN

We used time-series analysis to assess change in MDCc prevalence from 2007 to 2015. We also conducted multilevel logistic regression with random surgeon- and hospital-level effects to assess associations between patient, surgeon, neighborhood, and health care organization-level factors and receipt of MDCc during the cancer treatment planning phase, defined as the 2 months following cancer diagnosis.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We identified Medicare beneficiaries >65 years of age with surgically resected breast, colorectal (CRC), or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) stages I-III (n = 103,250).

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

From 2007 to 2015, the prevalence of MDCc increased from 35.0% to 61.2%. Overall, MDCc was most common among patients with breast cancer compared to CRC and NSCLC. Cancer patients who were Black, had comorbidities, had dual Medicare-Medicaid coverage, were residing in rural areas or in areas with higher Black and Hispanic neighborhood composition were significantly less likely to have received MDCc. Patients receiving surgery at disproportionate payment-sharing or rural-designated hospitals had 2% (95% CI: -3.55, 0.58) and 17.6% (95% CI: -21.45, 13.70), respectively, less probability of receiving MDCc. Surgeon- and hospital-level effects accounted for 15% of the variance in receipt of MDCc.

CONCLUSIONS

The practice of MDCc has increased over the last decade, but significant geographical and health care organizational barriers continue to impede equitable access to and delivery of quality care across cancer patient populations. Multilevel and multicomponent interventions that target care coordination, health system, and policy changes may enhance equitable access to and receipt of MDCc.

The Impact of Tumor Boards on Breast Cancer Care: Evidence from a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women, with a complex clinical path that involves several professionals and that requires a multidisciplinary approach. However, the effectiveness of breast cancer multidisciplinary care and the processes that contribute to its effectiveness have not yet been firmly determined. This study aims to evaluate the impact of multidisciplinary tumor boards on breast cancer care outcomes. A systematic literature review was carried out through Scopus, Web of Science and Pubmed databases. The search was restricted to articles assessing the impact of MTB implementation on breast cancer care. Fourteen studies were included in the review. The most analyzed outcomes were diagnosis, therapy and survival. Four out of four studies showed that, with implementation of an MTB, there was a change in diagnosis, and all reported changes in the treatment plan after MTB implementation. A pooled analysis of three studies reporting results on the outcome "mortality" showed a statistically significant 14% reduction in mortality relative risk for patients enrolled versus not enrolled in an MTB. This study shows that MTB implementation is a valuable approach to deliver appropriate and effective care to patients affected by breast cancer and to improve their outcomes.

Geographic differences in community oncology provider and practice location characteristics in the central United States

PURPOSE

How care delivery influences urban-rural disparities in cancer outcomes is unclear. We sought to understand community oncologists' practice settings to inform cancer care delivery interventions.

METHODS

We conducted secondary analysis of a national dataset of providers billing Medicare from June 1, 2019 to May 31, 2020 in 13 states in the central United States. We used Kruskal-Wallis rank and Fisher's exact tests to compare physician characteristics and practice settings among rural and urban community oncologists.

FINDINGS

We identified 1,963 oncologists practicing in 1,492 community locations; 67.5% practiced in exclusively urban locations, 11.3% in exclusively rural locations, and 21.1% in both rural and urban locations. Rural-only, urban-only, and urban-rural spanning oncologists practice in an average of 1.6, 2.4, and 5.1 different locations, respectively. A higher proportion of rural community sites were solo practices (11.7% vs 4.0%, P<.001) or single specialty practices (16.4% vs 9.4%, P<.001); and had less diversity in training environments (86.5% vs 67.8% with <2 medical schools represented, P<.001) than urban community sites. Rural multispecialty group sites were less likely to include other cancer specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 2 potentially distinct styles of care delivery in rural communities, which may require distinct interventions: (1) innovation-isolated rural oncologists, who are more likely to be solo providers, provide care at few locations, and practice with doctors with similar training experiences; and (2) urban-rural spanning oncologists who provide care at a high number of locations and have potential to spread innovation, but may face high complexity and limited opportunity for care standardization.

Cancer prevention, risk reduction, and control: opportunities for the next decade of health care delivery research

In this commentary, we discuss opportunities to optimize cancer care delivery in the next decade building from evidence and advancements in the conceptualization and implementation of multi-level translational behavioral interventions. We summarize critical issues and discoveries describing new directions for translational behavioral research in the coming decade based on the promise of the accelerated application of this evidence within learning health systems. To illustrate these advances, we discuss cancer prevention, risk reduction (particularly precision prevention and early detection), and cancer treatment and survivorship (particularly risk- and need-stratified comprehensive care) and propose opportunities to equitably improve outcomes while addressing clinician shortages and cross-system coordination. We also discuss the impacts of COVID-19 and potential advances of scientific knowledge in the context of existing evidence, the need for adaptation, and potential areas of innovation to meet the needs of converging crises (e.g., fragmented care, workforce shortages, ongoing pandemic) in cancer health care delivery. Finally, we discuss new areas for exploration by applying key lessons gleaned from implementation efforts guided by advances in behavioral health.

Cardiac assessment in Australian patients receiving (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer: a population-based study

PURPOSE

Cardiac function assessment is important for detecting and managing trastuzumab-associated cardiotoxicity. Our study estimates rates and predictors of cardiac assessment among patients receiving trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer (HER2+EBC) in Australia.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Australians initiating (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab for HER2+EBC between 1 January 2015 and 15 April 2019. We used administrative claims to determine the number of patients receiving guideline-recommended assessment, i.e. evidence of baseline cardiac assessment (between 120 days before and 30 days after trastuzumab initiation) and regular on-treatment cardiac assessments (at least every 120 days). We examined factors associated with baseline and regular on-treatment cardiac assessment.

RESULTS

Our study includes 5621 patients (median age 56 years), of whom 4984 (88.7%) had a baseline cardiac function test. Among 4280 patients with at least 12 months of follow-up, 2702 (63.1%) had guideline-recommended cardiac assessment. Rates of guideline-recommended assessment increased with later year of diagnosis (60.9% in 2015 vs 68.3% in 2018, OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06-1.69). Patients with higher baseline comorbidities and greater socioeconomic disadvantage were less likely to have guideline-recommended cardiac assessment. Cardiac assessment practices varied by State/Territory. There was no association between baseline cardiac risk or anthracycline use and the likelihood of receiving guideline-recommended cardiac assessment.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients receiving (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab had guideline-recommended baseline and on-treatment cardiac assessment. Variations in cardiac assessment predominantly related to system-level factors, such as year of diagnosis and geography, rather than individual patient factors.

Survival Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of a Multidisciplinary Tumor Board for Breast Cancer in Mozambique, Sub-Saharan Africa

BACKGROUND

Despite the international endorsement of multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) for breast cancer care, implementation is suboptimal worldwide, and evidence regarding their effectiveness in developing countries is lacking. We assessed the impact on survival and the cost-effectiveness of implementing an MTB in Mozambique, sub-Saharan Africa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 205 patients with breast cancer diagnosed between January 2015 and August 2017 (98 before and 107 after MTB implementation), followed to November 2019. Pre- and post-MTB implementation subcohorts were compared for clinical characteristics, treatments, and overall survival. We used hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI), computed by Cox proportional hazards regression. The impact of MTB implementation on the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was estimated from the provider perspective.

RESULTS

We found no significant differences between pre- and post-MTB subcohorts regarding clinical characteristics or treatments received. Among patients with early breast cancer (stage 0-III; n = 163), the 3-year overall survival was 48.0% (95% CI, 35.9-59.1) in the pre-MTB and 73.0% (95% CI, 61.3-81.6) in the post-MTB subcohort; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27-0.81). The absolute 3-year mean cost increase was $119.83 per patient, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $802.96 per QALY, corresponding to 1.6 times the gross domestic product of Mozambique.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of a MTB in Mozambique led to a 53% mortality decrease among patients with early breast cancer, and it was cost-effective. These findings highlight the feasibility of implementing this strategy and the need for scaling-up MTBs in developing countries, as a way to improve patient outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Currently, more than half of the deaths from breast cancer in the world occur in developing countries. Strategies that optimize care and that are adjusted for available resources are needed to improve the outcomes of patients with breast cancer in these regions. The discussion of cases at multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) may improve survival outcomes, but implementation is suboptimal worldwide, and evidence regarding their effectiveness in developing countries is lacking. This study evaluated the impact of implementing an MTB on the care and survival of patients with breast cancer in Mozambique, sub-Saharan Africa and its cost-effectiveness in this low-income setting.