Search

Using explanatory mixed methods, we characterize the education that patients with breast cancer received about potential sexual health effects of treatment and explore preferences in format, content, and timing of education.Adult patients with stage 0-IV breast cancer seen at an academic breast center during December 2020 were emailed questionnaires assessing sexual health symptoms experienced during treatment. Patients interested in further study involvement were invited to participate in semistructured interviews. These interviews explored sexual health education provided by the oncology team and patient preferences in content, format, and timing of education delivery.Eighty-seven (32%) patients completed the questionnaire. Most patients reported decreased sexual desire (69%), vaginal dryness (63%), and less energy for sexual activity (62%) during/after treatment. Sixteen patients participated in interviews. Few women reported receiving information about potential sexual effects of breast cancer treatment; patients who did reported a focus on menopausal symptoms or fertility rather than sexual function. Regarding preferences in format, patients were in favor of multiple options being offered rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, with particular emphasis on in-person options and support groups. Patients desired education early and often throughout breast cancer treatment, not only about sexual side effects but also on mitigation strategies, sexual function, dating and partner intimacy, and body image changes.Few patients received information about the sexual health effects of breast cancer treatment, though many experienced symptoms. Potential adverse effects should be discussed early and addressed often throughout treatment, with attention to strategies to prevent and alleviate symptoms and improve overall sexual health.

The 21st Century Cures Act requires that institutions release all electronic health information (EHI) to patients immediately. We aimed to understand patient and clinician attitudes toward the immediate release of EHI to patients.Patients and clinicians representing distinct specialties at a single academic medical center completed a survey to assess attitudes toward the immediate release of results. Differences between patient and clinician responses were compared using chi-square and student's t-test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all statistical tests.69 clinicians and 57 patients completed the survey. Both patients (89.7%) and clinicians (80.6%) agreed or strongly agreed-here after referred to as agreed, that providing patients with access to their health information is necessary in delivering high-quality care. However, 62.7% of clinicians agreed that results released immediately would be more confusing than helpful, whereas the minority of patients agreed with this statement (15.8%) (p 0.05). Providers were also more likely to disagree that patients are comfortable independently interpreting blood work results (p 0.05), radiology results (p 0.05) and pathology reports (p 0.05). With regard to timing, the majority of patients (75.1%) felt their provider should contact them within 24 h of the release of an abnormal result, whereas only 9.0% of clinicians agreed with this timeframe (p 0.05).Patients and clinicians value information transparency. However, the immediate release of results is controversial, especially among clinicians. The discrepancy between patient and clinician perceptions underlines the importance of setting expectations about the communication of results. Additionally, our results emphasize the need to implement strategies to help improve patient comprehension, decrease patient distress and improve clinician workflows.

Introduction: As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, beginning April 2021, electronic health information (EHI) must be immediately released to patients. This change poses challenges for both oncology clinicians and patients whose priorities and experiences may differ. In this study, we sought to evaluate clinician and patient perspectives regarding the immediate release of EHI. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a group of 8 clinicians and 12 patients using purposeful sampling to capture a diverse array of participants. Open-ended questions explored clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions of the immediate release of patient health information and how they adjusted to this change. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and de-identified. Transcripts were thematically analyzed, reviewed to develop a coding rubric, and independently coded until thematic saturation was achieved. Results: Forty unique codes were identified, which were then mapped to 10 themes. These themes included Interpreting Results, Strategies for Patient Interaction, Patient Experiences, Communication Strategies, and Provider Limitations, among others. Clinicians and patients demonstrated varying levels of confidence in patient understanding of results and differences in perceived patient distress emphasizing the impersonal nature of electronic release and necessity for therapeutic clinician-patient communication. Unique recommendations to support patients receiving complex results reports were found. Conclusions: Clinicians and patients have varying insights on the role of immediate release of medical information in cancer care. Understanding these perspectives may be helpful for devising ways to improve communication between clinicians and patients and in developing patient-centered tools (glossaries, summary pages, additional resources, and more) to aid in understanding complex medical information.

Background Widespread healthcare restructuring due to the COVID-19 pandemic led to modifications in the timing and delivery of care for breast cancer patients. Our study explores patient concerns relating to COVID-19, breast cancer, and changes to breast cancer care. Patients and Methods Breast cancer patients who presented for surgical consultation at an academic, multidisciplinary clinic completed the electronically distributed validated COVID-19 Impact and Healthcare Related Quality of Life questionnaire between August 2020 and February 2021. This questionnaire uses Likert score responses to assess COVID-specific concerns within domains, including distress and financial hardship. Scale scores were determined by averaging items within each domain, and scores > 2 indicated greater disruption. Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients who indicated interest in participating in the questionnaire. Results Of 381 patients recruited, 133 patients completed the questionnaire and 20 patients completed interviews. Sixty-three percent of survey participants reported attending a telemedicine appointment for their cancer care, and the majority (67%) were satisfied with their experience. Half of the participants (50%) reported fear about how the COVID-19 pandemic will impact their cancer care or recovery, and 66% reported anxiety about contracting COVID-19. Twenty-two percent of participants reported decreased income due to COVID-19. Patient interviews revealed tangible changes to care and provided in-depth information on the advantages and disadvantages of telehealth. Conclusions Breast cancer patients report anxiety about COVID-19 infection and potential care modifications. Our study identifies impacts on patients’ care and quality of life. Further investigation will inform interventions to improve psychosocial outcomes for patients and the telehealth experience. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-11209-1.

Although the economic burden of cancer care is an emerging concern in the United States, the potential financial toxicity of breast cancer care at the patient level remains poorly understood. This study aims to characterize the scope of the contributors to financial distress on breast cancer patients and the resources utilized to address them.Adult female patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ between 2014 and 2019 at a single institution were retrospectively evaluated. Those who enrolled in copay assistance or indicated financial concerns on an intake distress screen were provided a web-based survey assessing financial changes, resources used, and financial engagement with providers. Semi-structured interviews further explored sources of financial distress and were analyzed by two researchers using grounded theory methodology.Sixty-eight patients completed the online survey, 15 of the 68 also participated in semi-structured phone interviews. On the online survey 74% of participants endorsed a financial distress score ≥5 on a scale of 0-10. Seventy-four percent changed their budget, 72% used their savings, and 60% cut down on spending. However, only 40% used resources such as financial counseling or financial assistance. Interviews revealed three major contributors to financial distress: (1) unexpected medical and nonmedical expenses, (2) lost revenue from missed work, and (3) altered budgeting.Many breast cancer patients experience significant financial distress without access to the resources they need. This study highlights the need for financial transparency, supportive financial services counseling at the time of diagnosis, throughout treatment and beyond.

As health care continues to evolve toward information transparency, an increasing number of patients have access to their medical records, including result reports that were not originally designed to be patient-facing. Previous studies have demonstrated that patients have poor understanding of medical terminology. However, patient comprehension of terminology specific to breast pathology reports has not been well studied. We assessed patient understanding of common medical terms found in breast pathology reports.A survey was administered electronically to patients scheduled for a screening mammogram within a multisite health care system. Participants were asked to objectively define and interpret 8 medical terms common to breast biopsy pathology reports. Patient perception of the utility of various educational tools was also assessed. Demographic information including health literacy, education level, previous cancer diagnosis, and primary language was collected.In total, 527 patients completed the survey. Terms including "malignant" and "benign" were the most correctly defined at 80% and 73%, respectively, whereas only 1% correctly defined "high grade." Factors including race/ethnicity and education level were correlated with more correct scores. Patients preferred educational tools that were specific to their diagnosis and available at the time they were reviewing their results.Patient comprehension of common medical terminology is poor. Potential assumptions of understanding based on patient factors including education, past medical history, and occupation are misinformed. With the newly mandated immediate release of information to patients, there is a pressing need to develop and integrate educational tools to support patients through all aspects of their care.

ImportancePathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer strongly correlates with overall survival and has become the standard end point in neoadjuvant trials. However, there is controversy regarding whether the definition of pCR should exclude or permit the presence of residual ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).ObjectiveTo examine the association of residual DCIS in surgical specimens after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer with survival end points to inform standards for the assessment of pathologic complete response.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThe study team analyzed the association of residual DCIS after NAC with 3-year event-free survival (EFS), distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), and local-regional recurrence (LRR) in the I-SPY2 trial, an adaptive neoadjuvant platform trial for patients with breast cancer at high risk of recurrence. This is a retrospective analysis of clinical specimens and data from the ongoing I-SPY2 adaptive platform trial of novel therapeutics on a background of standard of care for early breast cancer. I-SPY2 participants are adult women diagnosed with stage II/III breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to receive taxane and anthracycline-based neoadjuvant therapy with or without 1 of 10 investigational agents, followed by definitive surgery.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe presence of DCIS and EFS, DRFS, and LRR.ResultsThe study team identified 933 I-SPY2 participants (aged 24 to 77 years) with complete pathology and follow-up data. Median follow-up time was 3.9 years; 337 participants (36%) had no residual invasive disease (residual cancer burden 0, or pCR). Of the 337 participants with pCR, 70 (21%) had residual DCIS, which varied significantly by tumor-receptor subtype; residual DCIS was present in 8.5% of triple negative tumors, 15.6% of hormone-receptor positive tumors, and 36.6% of ERBB2-positive tumors. Among those participants with pCR, there was no significant difference in EFS, DRFS, or LRR based on presence or absence of residual DCIS.Conclusions and RelevanceThe analysis supports the definition of pCR as the absence of invasive disease after NAC regardless of the presence or absence of DCIS.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01042379.

This study was designed to: (1) characterize longitudinal patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between breast cancer patients undergoing lumpectomy and mastectomy and (2) compare return to baseline scores at 3 months and 6 months postoperatively.Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients seen at an academic breast center between June 2019 and February 2021 were invited to participate in longitudinal PRO surveys at their initial clinic visit. If willing to participate, patients were emailed the validated BREAST-Q™ questionnaire at the initial clinic visit (baseline), 2 weeks after surgery, and then every 3 months for the first year. We used linear mixed models to estimate the differences in slopes over time between lumpectomy and mastectomy for each PRO measure. Pearson's Chi-square tests with Yates' continuity correction were used to compare proportions of patients who return to baseline PRO scores. P0.05 was considered significant.Of 164 patients invited to participate, 100 (61%) completed a baseline survey and were included in analyses. Mastectomy patients had significantly greater decreases in breast satisfaction (P = 0.002), psychosocial well-being (P0.0001), and sexual well-being (P0.0001) over time compared with lumpectomy patients. Both surgical groups reported a decrease in physical well-being, although the decline was more significant in lumpectomy patients (P = 0.005). At 3 months and 6 months after surgery, significantly larger proportions of lumpectomy patients returned to their baseline breast satisfaction, psychosocial well-being, and physical well-being compared with mastectomy patients.Understanding how outcomes important to patients change over the care continuum can provide opportunities for early intervention and may prevent debilitating long-term morbidities of treatment.

Receiving a new breast cancer (BC) diagnosis can cause significant patient anxiety, which is amplified by delays in diagnosis. There is a lack of defined time periods for delays in the workup of BC. This study aims to evaluate national variations in timing from first abnormal mammogram to first biopsy and to determine independent predictors of delay in diagnosis.Data were derived from SEER-Medicare linked claims database from 2007 to 2013. Time intervals from abnormal mammogram, either screening or diagnostic, to biopsy were assessed. The fourth quartile for timing from first mammogram to first biopsy was utilized to define delay in diagnosis. Multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the association between clinicopathologic variables and delays in diagnosis.We analyzed 53,758 patients with stage 0-II BC who underwent upfront surgery. Significant variations in timing of care were identified, with mean times from mammogram to biopsy, surgeon visit, and breast surgery of 23.3, 31.6, and 52.6 days, respectively. Over the study period, there was a decrease in delays from mammogram to biopsy. Non-White race, Northeast location, and earlier stage disease were found to be independent predictors of delays in the diagnosis of BC (p 0.0001).The study demonstrates significant variations in time to diagnostic biopsy. More efficient processes of care to address these delays should be implemented, and further studies are needed to determine whether improved efficiency decreases patient anxiety. The large variations in time to diagnosis speak to the need for consensus guidelines to establish a standard of care.

Defined as the growth of new blood vessels, angiogenesis remains an enigmatic result of cytokine action in many settings. Therapeutic stimulation of angiogenesis could relieve ischemic conditions in diseased states (e.g., peripheral vascular disease and myocardial ischemia). Currently, the following growth factors show promise for clinical applications: vascular endothelial growth factor, fibroblast growth factors, platelet-derived growth factors, transforming growth factor-β, and osteonectin. In the field of tissue engineering, induced vascularization could rescue necrotic tissue, encourage infiltration of a scaffold, and perfuse de novo tissues. Effective packaging and delivery of angiogenic growth factors, whether alone or in conjunction with biologically compatible devices, will be an important element for the successful engineering of tissue replacement technologies.

Sclerosing adenosis is a benign breast disease with non-specific images on ultrasound or mammogram. It can mimic infiltrating carcinoma when the above mentioned imaging techniques are used. Herein we present a patient with breast cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and subsequently underwent mastectomy. Ductoscopy was performed to the mastectomised breast specimen as per the ductoscopy research protocol. Ductoscopy revealed several nodular lesions in the duct with no additional demonstrable intraductal pathology. The lesions were reported as sclerosing adenosis by pathologist. As to our knowledge, this is the first case in literature that demonstrates the use of ductoscopy in diagnosing the sclerosing adenosis in the breast tissue. Ductoscopy and development of ductoscopy guided biopsy techniques may be used as an early diagnostic method for the ductal breast lesions (Fig. 2, Ref. 10). Full Text (Free, PDF) www.bmj.sk.

There is dearth of studies that provide a practical working formulation of breast cancer gene expression analysis for the surgical pathologist. ER, PR, HER2 were used as surrogate markers to classify 205 breast carcinomas into molecular classes. Ki-67 labeling index was calculated using an image analysis system. The data was analyzed for molecular class prevalence, and inter-relationships amongst morphologic parameters, Ki-67 index, and molecular classes. Of the 205 tumors, 113 (55%) were classified as luminal A (strong ER+, HER2 negative), 34 (17%) as luminal B (weak to moderate ER+, HER2 negative), 32 (15%) as triple negative (negative for ER/PR and HER2), 8 (4%) as ERBB2 (negative for ER/PR but HER2+), 10 (5%) as luminal A-HER2 hybrid (strong ER+ and HER2+), and 8 (4%) as luminal B-HER2 hybrid (weak to moderate ER+ and HER2+). The average Ki-67 index was lowest in luminal A (15.8%), intermediate for ERBB2 (27.8%) and highest for triple negative tumors (>50%). Multivariate logistic regression analyses found the following associations: ERBB2 tumors with apocrine differentiation (p=0.0031); Triple negative tumors with high Ki-67 index (p