Search

Background The Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) of the National Cancer Institute is widely used for estimating absolute risk of invasive breast cancer. However, the absolute risk estimates for Asian and Pacific Islander American (APA) women are based on data from white women. We developed a model for projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk in APA women and compared its projections to those from BCRAT. Methods Data from 589 women with breast cancer (case patients) and 952 women without breast cancer (control subjects) in the Asian American Breast Cancer Study were used to compute relative and attributable risks based on the age at menarche, number of affected mothers, sisters, and daughters, and number of previous benign biopsies. Absolute risks were obtained by combining this information with ethnicity-specific data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program and with US ethnicity-specific mortality data to create the Asian American Breast Cancer Study model (AABCS model). Independent data from APA women in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) were used to check the calibration and discriminatory accuracy of the AABCS model. Results The AABCS model estimated absolute risk separately for Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, and Other Asian women. Relative and attributable risks for APA women were comparable to those in BCRAT, but the AABCS model usually estimated lower-risk projections than BCRAT in Chinese and Filipino, but not in Hawaiian women, and not in every age and ethnic subgroup. The AABCS model underestimated absolute risk by 17% (95% confidence interval = 1% to 38%) in independent data from WHI, but APA women in the WHI had incidence rates approximately 18% higher than those estimated from the SEER program. Conclusions The AABCS model was calibrated to ethnicity-specific incidence rates from the SEER program for projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk and is preferable to BCRAT for counseling APA women. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Purpose Palliative care's role in oncology has expanded, but its effect on aggressiveness of care at the end of life has not been characterized at the population level. Methods This matched retrospective cohort study examined the effect of an encounter with palliative care on health-care use at the end of life among 6,580 Medicare beneficiaries with advanced prostate, breast, lung, or colorectal cancer. We compared health-care use before and after palliative care consultation to a matched nonpalliative care cohort. Results The palliative care cohort had higher rates of health-care use in the 30 days before palliative care consultation compared with the nonpalliative cohort, with higher rates of hospitalization (risk ratio [RR], 3.33; 95% CI, 2.87 to 3.85), invasive procedures (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.62 to 1.88) and chemotherapy administration (RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.45 to 1.78). The opposite pattern emerged in the interval from palliative care consultation through death, where the palliative care cohort had lower rates of hospitalization (RR, 0.53;95%CI, 0.44-0.65), invasive procedures (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.59) and chemotherapy administration (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.53). Patients with earlier palliative care consultation in their disease course had larger absolute reductions in health-care use compared with those with palliative care consultation closer to the end of life. Conclusion This population-based study found that palliative care substantially decreased health-care use among Medicare beneficiaries with advanced cancer. Given the increasing number of elderly patients with advanced cancer, this study emphasizes the importance of early integration of palliative care alongside standard oncologic care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Radiation therapy represents a major source of health care expenditure for patients with cancer. Understanding the sources of variability in the cost of radiation therapy is critical to evaluating the efficiency of the current reimbursement system and could shape future policy reform. This study defines the magnitude and sources of variation in the cost of radiation therapy for a large cohort of Medicare beneficiaries. Patients and Methods: We identified 55,288 patients within the SEER database diagnosed with breast, lung, or prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009. The cost of radiation therapy was estimated from Medicare reimbursements. Multivariable linear regression models were used to assess the influence of patient, tumor, and radiation therapy provider characteristics on variation in cost of radiation therapy. Results: For breast, lung, and prostate cancers, the median cost (interquartile range) of a course of radiation therapy was $8,600 ($7,300 to $10,300), $9,000 ($7,500 to $11,100), and $18,000 ($11,300 to $25,500), respectively. For all three cancer subtypes, patient- or tumor-related factors accounted for < 3% of the variation in cost. Factors unrelated to the patient, including practice type, geography, and individual radiation therapy provider, accounted for a substantial proportion of the variation in cost, ranging from 44% with breast, 43% with lung, and 61% with prostate cancer. Conclusion: In this study, factors unrelated to the individual patient accounted for the majority of variation in the cost of radiation therapy, suggesting potential inefficiency in health care expenditure. Future research should determine whether this variability translates into improved patient outcomes for further evaluation of current reimbursement practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]