Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences in Relation to Low-Value Services for Older Women with Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study

Medical Maximizing Preferences and Beliefs About Cancer Among US Adults

Importance

Medical overutilization contributes to significant health care expenditures and exposes patients to questionably beneficial surgery and unnecessary risk.

Objectives

To understand public attitudes toward medical utilization and the association of these attitudes with beliefs about cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional survey study conducted from August 26 to October 28, 2020, US-based, English-speaking adults were recruited from the general public using Prolific Academic, a research participant platform. Quota-filling was used to obtain a sample demographically representative of the US population. Adults with a personal history of cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer were excluded. Statistical analysis was completed in July 2022.

Main Outcome and Measures

Medical utilization preferences were characterized with the validated, single-item Maximizer-Minimizer Elicitation Question. Participants preferring to take action in medically ambiguous situations (hereafter referred to as "maximizers") were compared with those who leaned toward waiting and seeing (hereafter referred to as "nonmaximizers"). Beliefs and emotions about cancer incidence, survivability, and preventability were assessed using validated measures. Logistic regression modeled factors associated with preferring to maximize medical utilization.

Results

Of 1131 participants (mean [SD] age, 45 [16] years; 568 women [50.2%]), 287 (25.4%) were classified as maximizers, and 844 (74.6%) were classified as nonmaximizers. Logistic regression revealed that self-reporting very good or excellent health status (compared with good, fair, or poor; odds ratio [OR], 2.01 [95% CI, 1.52-2.65]), Black race (compared with White race; OR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.22-2.89]), high levels of cancer worry (compared with low levels; OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.09-2.42]), and overestimating cancer incidence (compared with accurate estimation or underestimating; OR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.09-2.28]) were significantly associated with maximizing preferences. Those who believed that they personally had a higher-than-average risk of developing cancer were more likely to be maximizers (23.6% [59 of 250] vs 17.4% [131 of 751]; P = .03); this factor was not significant in regression analyses.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this survey study of US adults, those with medical maximizing tendencies more often overestimated the incidence of cancer and had higher levels of cancer-related worry. Targeted and personalized education about cancer and its risk factors may help reduce overutilization of oncologic care.

Physician-level variation in axillary surgery in older adults with T1N0 hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: A retrospective population-based cohort study

INTRODUCTION

We sought to determine how considerations specific to older adults impact between- and within-surgeon variation in axillary surgery use in women ≥70 years with T1N0 HR+ breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Females ≥70 years with T1N0 HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer diagnosed from 2013 to 2015 in SEER-Medicare were identified and linked to the American Medical Association Masterfile. The outcome of interest was axillary surgery. Key patient-level variables included the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score, frailty (based on a claims-based frailty index score), and age (≥75 vs <75). Multilevel mixed models with surgeon clusters were used to estimate the intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) (between-surgeon variance), with 1-ICC representing within-surgeon variance.

RESULTS

Of the 4410 participants included, 6.1% had a CCI score of ≥3, 20.7% were frail, and 58.3% were ≥ 75 years; 86.1% underwent axillary surgery. No surgeon omitted axillary surgery in all patients, but 42.3% of surgeons performed axillary surgery in all patients. In the null model, 10.5% of the variance in the axillary evaluation was attributable to between-surgeon differences. After adjusting for CCI score, frailty, and age in mixed models, between-surgeon variance increased to 13.0%.

DISCUSSION

In this population, axillary surgery varies more within surgeons than between surgeons, suggesting that surgeons are not taking an "all-or-nothing" approach. Comorbidities, frailty, and age accounted for a small proportion of the variation, suggesting nuanced decision-making may include additional, unmeasured factors such as differences in surgeon-patient communication.

International Center-Level Variation in Utilization of Completion Lymph Node Dissection and Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Sentinel Lymph Node-Positive Melanoma at Major Referral Centers

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine overall trends and center-level variation in utilization of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) and adjuvant systemic therapy for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Based on recent clinical trials, management options for SLN-positive melanoma now include effective adjuvant systemic therapy and nodal observation instead of CLND. It is unknown how these findings have shaped practice or how these contemporaneous developments have influenced their respective utilization.

METHODS

We performed an international cohort study at 21 melanoma referral centers in Australia, Europe, and the United States that treated adults with SLN-positive melanoma and negative distant staging from July 2017 to June 2019. We used generalized linear and multinomial logistic regression models with random intercepts for each center to assess center-level variation in CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, adjusting for patient and disease-specific characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 1109 patients, performance of CLND decreased from 28% to 8% and adjuvant systemic therapy use increased from 29 to 60%. For both CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, the most influential factors were nodal tumor size, stage, and location of treating center. There was notable variation among treating centers in management of stage IIIA patients and use of CLND with adjuvant systemic therapy versus nodal observation alone for similar risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been an overall decline in CLND and simultaneous adoption of adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with SLN-positive melanoma though wide variation in practice remains. Accounting for differences in patient mix, location of care contributed significantly to the observed variation.

Adjuvant treatment decisions among adults aged 65 years and older with early-stage hormone receptor positive breast cancer seen in a simple multidisciplinary clinic versus standard consultation

INTRODUCTION

Randomized studies support de-escalation of adjuvant therapy for a target population of older adults ≥65 years with stage I, estrogen-receptor (ER) positive breast cancer after breast conserving surgery. We sought to evaluate the impact of a simplified multidisciplinary clinic (s-MDC) in this population by comparing treatment patterns and patient perceptions of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) and hormone therapy (HT) between patients seen in s-MDC vs. standard consultations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for patients in the above target population who underwent surgery between August 2020 and May 2022 at our institution. Two cohorts were included: (1) patients seen in s-MDC, and (2) patients seen in standard clinic separately by medical and radiation oncology (non-s-MDC cohort). The non-s-MDC patients declined, could not attend, and/or were not referred to the s-MDC. Patients in the s-MDC cohort were prospectively administered validated questionnaires to evaluate patient reported data including the Decision Autonomy Preference Scale (DAPS), e-Prognosis, and Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Scale (MMS). Chi square, t-tests, and non-parametric equivalents compared demographics, and logistic regression evaluated RT and HT use and survey score outcomes between cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 127 patients met inclusion criteria, with 33 s-MDC and 94 non-s-MDC patients. There was no difference between the cohorts in age, margin status, histology, grade, or focality. In the s-MDC cohort there were significantly more patients without sentinel lymph node biopsy (71.3% vs 42.4%, p = 0.003) and mean tumor size was smaller (0.69 vs. 0.96 cm, p < 0.003), and Charlson comborbidity index (CCI) was higher (5.21 vs 4.96, p = 0.038). There was no significant difference in receipt of RT (65% s-MDC vs 77% standard; odds ratio [OR] = 0.55, p = 0.189), HT (78% ss-MDC vs 72% standard; OR = 1.36, p = 0.513), or both (50% s-MDC vs 59% standard; OR = 0.7, p = 0.429). The s-MDC cohort was significantly more likely to undergo accelerated (vs. standard hypofractionated) RT (70% vs 39%; OR = 3.59, p = 0.020). In s-MDC patients with completed questionnaires (n = 33), all whose selected "mostly patient (n=6)" based decision making by DAPS chose RT while all "mostly doctor (n=1)" chose no RT. Based on e-Prognosis, there were lower odds of RT for increasing Schonberg score/ higher 10 yr mortality risk (OR 0.600, p = 0.048). MMS score ≥ 40 ("maximizer") was strongly linked with the use of RT (OR 18.57, p = 0.011).

DISCUSSION

For adults ≥65 years with early stage, ER positive breast cancer, s-MDC participation was not significantly associated with lower use of adjuvant RT or HT versus standard consultation but was significantly associated with shorter RT courses. DAPS and MMS results indicate that patient treatment preference may be predictable, highlighting an opportunity to tailor consultation discussions and recommendations based on intrinsic patient preferences and individual goals.

Avoiding Overtreatment of Women ≥70 With Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Provider-Level Deimplementation Strategy

INTRODUCTION

National guidelines recommend against routine axillary staging with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) in women ≥70 y with early-stage, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and clinically negative axilla; however, these practices remain common.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective pilot study from August 2021 to 2022 using an intervention targeting breast surgeons and radiation oncologists in Michigan that aimed to reduce SLNB and RT in eligible patients. The intervention consisted of (1) a geriatric assessment, (2) an assessment of the patient's medical maximizing-minimizing preferences, and (3) a tailored script with counterpoints to reasons patients commonly seek SLNB or RT. At the end of the study period, participants completed a survey providing feedback with the primary outcomes being: acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and intention and motivation to use the materials based on validated measures.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 23) included 15 breast surgeons and 8 radiation oncologists. Collectively, the materials were used with 115 patients. Considering all materials holistically, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the intervention were high; participants also intended and were motivated to use the intervention. Scores across all measures were highest for the geriatric assessment and lowest for the tailored script. The major barriers to using the intervention were limited time and instances of disagreement on treatment recommendations among surgeons and radiation oncologists.

CONCLUSIONS

The omission of SLNB and adjuvant RT should be discussed in appropriately selected patients. A multifaceted provider-level deimplementation strategy may be an effective means for achieving this goal.

Facility-Level Variation of Low-Value Breast Cancer Treatments in Older Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Analysis of a Statewide Claims Registry

BACKGROUND

Since 2004, national guidelines have supported the omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and radiotherapy for women ≥ 70 years of age with early-stage, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer, but many women continue to receive at least one of these services. Provider- and patient-level factors may contribute to persistent utilization, but the role of facility-level factors is unknown. We aimed to determine facility-level variation of SLNB and adjuvant radiotherapy utilization in older women with early-stage, HR+ breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Additionally, we aimed to explore factors associated with SLNB and radiotherapy utilization and the intra-facility correlation in their utilization.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a statewide registry of claims data. We included women ≥70 years of age diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent BCS from 2012 to 2019 at 80 hospitals in the Michigan Value Collaborative. The main outcome was inter-facility rates and variation of SLNB and radiotherapy, as well as intra-facility correlation in their utilization.

RESULTS

The cohort included 7253 women (median age 77 years). Only 20% (n = 1440) underwent BCS alone, whereas 71% (n = 5122) underwent SLNB and 52% (n = 3793) received radiotherapy. Inter-facility rates of SLNB ranged from 35 to 82% (median 70%), and radiotherapy ranged from 19 to 72% (median 49%). SLNB and radiotherapy were positively correlated (r = 0.27, p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

SLNB and radiotherapy rates remain high with significant variation in utilization at the facility level. High utilizers of SLNB are likely to be high utilizers of radiotherapy, suggesting the opportunity for strategic targeting of these facilities and their clinicians.

Evidence and implementation gaps in management of sentinel node-positive melanoma in the United States

BACKGROUND

Melanoma clinical trials demonstrated that completion lymph node dissection is low value for most sentinel lymph node-positive patients. Contemporaneous trials of adjuvant systemic immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK targeted therapy showed improved recurrence-free survival in high-risk sentinel lymph node-positive patients. To better understand how oncologic evidence is incorporated into practice (implementation), we evaluated factors associated with discontinuation of completion lymph node dissection and adoption of systemic treatment at United States Commission on Cancer-accredited centers.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study of adults with sentinel lymph node-positive melanoma treated from 2012 to 2017 using the National Cancer Database, we evaluated use of completion lymph node dissection and adjuvant systemic treatment using mixed-effects logistic regression, reporting results as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Among 10,240 sentinel lymph node-positive melanoma patients, performance of completion lymph node dissection declined from 60% to 27%. Adjuvant systemic treatment increased from 29% to 43% (37% in stage IIIA patients, 46% in IIIB-C). Completion lymph node dissection was less common with lower extremity tumors (odds ratio = 0.53, 95% confidence interval = 0.44-0.64) and more common with multiple positive sentinel lymph nodes (odds ratio = 2.36, 95% confidence interval = 2.08-2.67), treatment at a high- or moderate-volume center (odds ratio_high = 1.49, 95% confidence interval = 1.05-2.12; odds ratio_moderate = 1.32, 95% confidence interval = 1.05-1.64), and receipt of systemic therapy (odds ratio = 1.44, 95% confidence interval = 1.27-1.63). The increased likelihood of completion lymph node dissection in patients receiving adjuvant systemic treatment persisted in the most recent study years and in patients with a single positive sentinel lymph node.

CONCLUSION

At a population level, completion lymph node dissection declined and adjuvant systemic treatment increased, reflecting evidence-responsive care. Variation in persistent use of completion lymph node dissection and in provision of adjuvant treatment for lower risk patients highlights residual gaps in both evidence and implementation.

Using Tailored Messages to Target Overuse of Low-Value Breast Cancer Care in Older Women

BACKGROUND

National recommendations allow for the omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and post-lumpectomy radiotherapy in women ≥ 70 y/o with early-stage, hormone-receptor positive invasive breast cancer, but these therapies remain common. Previous work demonstrates an individual's maximizing-minimizing trait-an inherent preference for more or less medical care-may influence the preference for low-value care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We recruited an equal number of women ≥ 70 yrs who were maximizers, minimizers, or neutral based on a validated measure between September 2020 and November 2020. Participants were presented a hypothetical breast cancer diagnosis before randomization to one of three follow-up messages: maximizer-tailored, minimizer-tailored, or neutral. Tailored messaging aimed to redirect maximizers and minimizers toward declining SLNB and radiotherapy. The main outcome measure was predicted probability of choosing SLNB or radiotherapy.

RESULTS

The final analytical sample (n = 1600) was 515 maximizers (32%), 535 neutral (33%) and 550 (34%) minimizers. Higher maximizing tendency positively correlated with electing both SLNB and radiotherapy on logistic regression (P < 0.01). Any tailoring (maximizer- or minimizer-tailored) reduced preference for SLNB in maximizing and neutral women but had no effect in minimizing women. Tailoring had no impact on radiotherapy decision, except for an increased probability of minimizers electing radiotherapy when presented with maximizer-tailored messaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Maximizing-minimizing tendencies are associated with treatment preferences among women facing a hypothetical breast cancer diagnosis. Targeted messaging may facilitate avoidance of low-value breast cancer care, particularly for SLNB.

Self-management and adherence to recommended follow-up after gynaecological cancer: results from the international InCHARGE study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relationship between self-management skills and adherence to follow-up guidelines among gynecological cancer survivors in the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark, and to assess the relationship between adherence to follow-up programs and use of additional healthcare services.

METHODS

For this international, multicenter, cross-sectional study, we recruited gynecological cancer survivors 1-5 years after completion of treatment. Information on follow-up visits, use of healthcare resources, self-management (measured by the Health Education Impact Questionnaire), clinical characteristics, and demographics were obtained by validated questionnaires. Participants were categorized as adherent if they attended the number of follow-up visits recommended by national guidelines, non-adherent if they had fewer visits than recommended, or over-users if they had more visits than recommended.

RESULTS

Of 4455 invited survivors, 2428 (55%) returned the questionnaires, and 911 survivors were included in the analyses. Survivors with high self-management most frequently adhered to recommended follow-up. Non-adherent survivors showed lower self-management in the health-directed activity domain (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.32) than adherent survivors. No other associations between self-management and follow-up adherence were revealed. Non-adherent survivors tended to have endometrial cancer, surgical treatment only, be older, and be Danish residents. Over-users reported more follow-up visits and also used additional healthcare services more frequently than adherent survivors.

CONCLUSION

Low self-management appears to reduce the likelihood of adherence to national guidelines for gynecological cancer follow-up. Focusing on patient education for survivors at risk of low self-management to ensure adherence to recommended follow-up may improve personalization of follow-up.