Search

Background: Treatment delays affect breast cancer survival and constitute poor‐quality care. Black patients experience more treatment delay, but the relationship of geography to these disparities is poorly understood. Methods: We studied a population‐based, retrospective, observational cohort of patients with breast cancer in North Carolina between 2004 and 2017 from the Cancer Information and Population Health Resource, which links cancer registry and sociodemographic data to multipayer insurance claims. We included patients >18 years with Stage I–III breast cancer who received surgery or chemotherapy as their first treatment. Delay was defined as >60 days from diagnosis to first treatment. Counties were aggregated into nine Area Health Education Center regions. Race was dichotomized as Black versus non‐Black. Results: Among 32,626 patients, 6190 (19.0%) were Black. Black patients were more likely to experience treatment delay >60 days (15.0% of Black vs. 8.0% of non‐Black). Using race‐stratified modified Poisson regression, age‐adjusted relative risk of delay in the highest risk region was approximately twice that in the lowest risk region among Black (relative risk, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.6–2.6) and non‐Black patients (relative risk, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.5–2.3). Adjustment for clinical and sociodemographic features only slightly attenuated interregion differences. The magnitude of the racial gap in treatment delay varied by region, from 0.0% to 9.4%. Conclusions: Geographic region was significantly associated with risk of treatment delays for both Black and non‐Black patients. The magnitude of racial disparities in treatment delay varied markedly between regions. Future studies should consider both high‐risk geographic regions and high‐risk patient groups for intervention to prevent delays. This study found that geographic region was significantly associated with risk of cancer treatment delays for both Black and non‐Black patients, but the magnitude of racial disparities in treatment delay varied markedly between regions. Future studies should consider both high‐risk geographic regions and high‐risk patient groups for targeted intervention to prevent delays in cancer treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fertility preservation (FP) may be underused after cancer diagnosis because of uncertainty around delays to cancer treatment and subsequent reproductive success. Methods: Women aged 15 to 39 years diagnosed with cancer between 2004 and 2015 were identified from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) after cancer diagnosis between 2004 and 2018 (including FP) was assessed through linkage to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Linear regression was used to examine time to cancer treatment among women who did (n = 95) or did not (n = 469) use FP. Modified Poisson regression was used to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for pregnancy and birth based on timing of ART initiation relative to cancer treatment (n = 18 initiated before treatment for FP vs n = 26 initiated after treatment without FP). Results: The median time to cancer treatment was 9 to 33 days longer among women who used FP compared with women who did not, matched on clinical factors. Women who initiated ART before cancer treatment may be more likely to have a live birth given pregnancy compared with women who initiated ART after cancer treatment (age‐adjusted RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.98‐2.23), though this may be affected by the more frequent use of gestational carriers in the former group (47% vs 20% of transfer cycles, respectively). Conclusions: FP delayed gonadotoxic cancer treatment by up to 4.5 weeks, a delay that would not be expected to alter prognosis for many women. Further study of the use of gestational carriers in cancer populations is warranted to better understand its effect on reproductive outcomes. In this statewide retrospective cohort, adolescent and young adult women with cancer who used fertility preservation experienced up to a 4.5‐week delay in receipt of first gonadotoxic cancer treatment, but may have an increased likelihood of live birth after achieving pregnancy compared to women with cancer who used assisted reproduction without prior fertility preservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The importance of addressing adverse financial effects of cancer among adolescents and young adults (AYAs) is paramount as survival improves. In the current study, the authors examined whether cancer‐related employment disruption was associated with financial hardship among female AYA cancer survivors in North Carolina and California. Methods: AYA cancer survivors identified through the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and the Kaiser Permanente Northern/Southern California tumor registries responded to an online survey. Disrupted employment was defined as reducing hours, taking temporary leave, or stopping work completely because of cancer. Financial hardship was defined as material conditions or psychological distress related to cancer. Descriptive statistics and chi‐square tests were used to characterize the invited sample and survey respondents. Marginal structural binomial regression models were used to estimate prevalence differences (PDs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Results: Among 1328 women employed at the time of their diagnosis, women were a median age of 34 years at the time of diagnosis and 7 years from diagnosis at the time of the survey and approximately 32% experienced employment disruption. A substantial percentage reported financial hardship related to material conditions (27%) or psychological distress (50%). In adjusted analyses, women with disrupted employment had a 17% higher burden of material conditions (95% CI, 10%‐23%) and an 8% higher burden of psychological distress (95% CI, 1%‐16%) compared with those without disruption. Conclusions: Financial hardship related to employment disruption among female AYA cancer survivors can be substantial. Interventions to promote job maintenance and transition back to the workforce after treatment, as well as improved workplace accommodations and benefits, present an opportunity to improve cancer survivorship. Female adolescent and young adult cancer survivors can be particularly vulnerable to adverse employment and financial outcomes. Those with cancer‐related employment disruption report increased financial hardship related to material conditions and psychological distress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approximately 40% of patients with cancer also have another chronic medical condition. Patient‐centered medical homes (PCMHs) have improved outcomes among patients with multiple chronic comorbidities. The authors first evaluated the impact of a cancer diagnosis on chronic medication adherence among patients with Medicaid coverage and, second, whether PCMHs influenced outcomes among patients with cancer. Methods: Using linked 2004 to 2010 North Carolina cancer registry and claims data, the authors included Medicaid enrollees who were diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer who had hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and/or diabetes mellitus. Using difference‐in‐difference methods, the authors examined adherence to chronic disease medications as measured by the change in the percentage of days covered over time among patients with and without cancer. The authors then further evaluated whether PCMH enrollment modified the observed differences between those patients with and without cancer using a differences‐in‐differences‐in‐differences approach. The authors examined changes in health care expenditures and use as secondary outcomes. Results: Patients newly diagnosed with cancer who had hyperlipidemia experienced a 7‐percentage point to 11‐percentage point decrease in the percentage of days covered compared with patients without cancer. Patients with cancer also experienced significant increases in medical expenditures and hospitalizations compared with noncancer controls. Changes in medication adherence over time between patients with and without cancer were not determined to be statistically significantly different by PCMH status. Some PCMH patients with cancer experienced smaller increases in expenditures (diabetes) and emergency department use (hyperlipidemia) but larger increases in their inpatient hospitalization rates (hypertension) compared with non‐PCMH patients with cancer relative to patients without cancer. Conclusions: PCMHs were not found to be associated with improvements in chronic disease medication adherence, but were associated with lower costs and emergency department visits among some low‐income patients with cancer. The authors report that low‐income patients with cancer who have chronic conditions have worse adherence to chronic medications, higher costs, and higher health care use around the time of their cancer diagnosis. Changes in chronic medication adherence for patients with cancer compared with patients without cancer appear to be no different for those in patient‐centered medical homes. Future studies should examine a variety of approaches that can help to mitigate the multidimensional burden of cancer in low‐income populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gene expression profiling (GEP) has been rapidly adopted for early breast cancer and can aid in chemotherapy decision making. Study results regarding racial disparities in testing are conflicting, and may reflect different care settings. To the authors' knowledge, data regarding the influence of provider factors on testing are scarce.Methods: The authors used a statewide, multipayer, insurance claims database linked to cancer registry records to examine the impact of race and provider characteristics on GEP uptake in a cohort of patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2012. Incidence proportion models were used to examine the adjusted likelihood of testing. Models were stratified by lymph node status (N0 vs N1).Results: Among 11,958 eligible patients, 23% of black and 26% of non-Hispanic white patients received GEP. Among patients with N0 disease, black individuals were 16% less likely to receive testing after adjustment for clinical factors and the provider's specialty and volume of patients with breast cancer (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.93). Adjustment for provider characteristics did not attenuate the effect of race on testing. Patients of middle-volume providers were more likely to be tested compared with those with either high-volume or low-volume providers, whereas patients seeing a medical oncologist were more likely to be tested compared with those whose only providers were from surgical specialties.Conclusions: Provider volume and specialty were found to be significant predictors of GEP use, but did not explain racial disparities in testing. Further research concerning the key contributors to lagging test use among black women is needed to optimize the equitable use of GEPs and support personalized treatment decision making for all patients. Cancer 2018;124:1743-51. © 2018 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]