Search

Background: Inequities in guideline-concordant treatment receipt contribute to worse survival in Black patients with breast cancer. Inequity-reduction interventions (eg, navigation, bias training, tracking dashboards) can close such treatment gaps. We simulated the population-level impact of statewide implementation of inequity-reduction interventions on racial breast cancer inequities in North Carolina., Methods: Using registry-linked multipayer claims data, we calculated inequities between Black and White patients receiving endocrine therapy (n = 12 033) and chemotherapy (n = 1819). We then built cohort-stratified (endocrine therapy and chemotherapy) and race-stratified Markov models to simulate the potential increase in the proportion of patients receiving endocrine therapy or chemotherapy and subsequent improvements in breast cancer outcomes if inequity-reducing intervention were implemented statewide. We report uncertainty bounds representing 95% of simulation results., Results: In total, 75.6% and 72.1% of Black patients received endocrine therapy and chemotherapy, respectively, over the 2006-2015 and 2004-2015 periods (vs 79.3% and 78.9% of White patients, respectively). Inequity-reduction interventions could increase endocrine therapy and chemotherapy receipt among Black patients to 89.9% (85.3%, 94.6%) and 85.7% (80.7%, 90.9%). Such interventions could also decrease 5-year and 10-year breast cancer mortality gaps from 3.4 to 3.2 (3.0, 3.3) and from 6.7 to 6.1 (5.9, 6.4) percentage points in the endocrine therapy cohorts and from 8.6 to 8.1 (7.7, 8.4) and from 8.2 to 7.8 (7.3, 8.1) percentage points in the chemotherapy cohorts., Conclusions: Inequity-focused interventions could improve cancer outcomes for Black patients, but they would not fully close the racial breast cancer mortality gap. Addressing other inequities along the cancer continuum (eg, screening, pre- and postdiagnosis risk factors) is required to achieve full equity in breast cancer outcomes., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Many women diagnosed with cancer as adolescents and young adults (AYAs, age 15-39 years) want biological children after cancer but lack information on the potential impact of their cancer history on future reproductive outcomes. We investigated the risk of adverse birth outcomes among AYA cancer survivors., Methods: We identified insured women diagnosed with AYA breast cancer, thyroid cancer, gynecologic cancers, lymphoma, or melanoma from 2003 to 2016 in the state of North Carolina or the Kaiser Permanente health care systems in northern and southern California. Post-diagnosis births to cancer survivors were each matched with up to 5 births to women without cancer. Risk ratios for preterm birth (<37 completed weeks), very preterm birth (<34 completed weeks), low birth weight (<2500 g), and small for gestational age (SGA, <10th percentile of weight for gestational age) were estimated using modified Poisson regression., Results: Analyses included 1648 births to 1268 AYA cancer survivors and 7879 births to 6066 women without cancer. Overall, risk of preterm birth, very preterm birth, low birth weight, and SGA did not significantly differ between births to women with and without cancer. However, births to women with gynecologic cancers had a significantly increased risk of low birth weight (risk ratio = 1.82; 95% confidence interval: 1.03 to 3.21) and suggested increased risk of preterm birth (risk ratio = 1.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.99 to 2.54). Chemotherapy exposure was not associated with increased risk of adverse birth outcomes., Conclusions: Women with gynecologic cancers, but not other cancers, had an increased risk of adverse birth outcomes compared to women without cancer., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

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., (© 2023 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: Surgery is an important part of early stage breast cancer treatment that affects overall survival. Many studies of surgical treatment of breast cancer rely on data sources that condition on continuous insurance coverage or treatment at specified facilities and thus under-sample populations especially affected by cancer care inequities including the uninsured and rural populations. Statewide cancer registries contain data on first course of cancer treatment for all patients diagnosed with cancer but the accuracy of these data are uncertain., Methods: Patients diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2003 and 2016 were identified using the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and linked to Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance claims. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and Kappa statistics for receipt of surgery and type of surgery (breast conserving surgery or mastectomy) using the insurance claims as the presumed gold standard. Analyses were stratified by race, insurance type, and rurality., Results: Of 26,819 patients who met eligibility criteria, 23,125 were identified as having surgery in both the claims and registry for a sensitivity of 97.9% (95% CI 97.8%, 98.1%). There was also strong agreement for surgery type between the cancer registry and the insurance claims (Kappa: 0.91). Registry treatment data validity was lower for Medicaid insured patients than for Medicare and commercially insured patients., Conclusions: Cancer registry treatment data reliably identified receipt and type of breast cancer surgery. Cancer registries are an important source of data for understanding cancer care in underrepresented populations., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endocrine therapy (ET), radiation therapy (XRT), and combination ET + XRT as post-surgical treatment for older women with early-stage breast cancer from the societal perspective., Methods: We constructed a Markov state-transition model consisting of three mutually exclusive health-states: Disease-Free, Recurrence, or Death. Osteoporotic fracture, radiation-induced breast fibrosis, and radiation pneumonitis were modeled as treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Cancer registry-linked-Medicare data were used to assess probability of recurrence and total costs, after propensity adjustment to account for treatment selection, among women aged >65 years diagnosed with estrogen receptor positive or progesterone receptor positive (ER+/PR+) breast cancer receiving ET, XRT, or ET + XRT in 2007-2011. Following randomized controlled trials, overall survival was assumed equivalent, but locoregional recurrence varied. Indirect costs and health-state utilities were literature-driven and varied in sensitivity analyses. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually., Results: In a cohort of 10,000 women over ten years, we estimated 1620 total recurrences in the ET-only group, 1296 in the XRT-only group, and 1076 with ET + XRT. Compared to ET-only, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $10,826 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)-gained for XRT-only and $26,834/QALY-gained for ET + XRT. Similarities in cost and effectiveness between treatments led to highly sensitive results. We also present clinically-relevant patient preference scenarios for recurrence risk-averse patients and near-term AE risk-averse patients., Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of regimens including ET and/or XRT in older women with early-stage breast cancer is sensitive to small differences in costs, as well as risk of, and utilities associated with, locoregional recurrence, suggesting that patient preferences concerning treatment benefits and risks should be considered by physicians., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest SBW received unrelated grant funding to her institution from Pfizer. JR is currently employed by Mathematica, Inc.; his work on this manuscript was done as an employee of UNC Chapel Hill., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Recent clinical trials support de-escalation of adjuvant radiation therapy following lumpectomy in some older women with low-risk HR+ breast cancers planning to take endocrine therapy. The adoption of these findings into clinical practice, and the effectiveness of de-escalated therapy in real-world populations, remain under investigation., Materials and Methods: We evaluated use of adjuvant radiation therapy and/or endocrine therapy among older women with T1-2 node-negative, HR+ breast cancer in the United States between 2007 and 2011. The study included patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked database and the North Carolina Cancer Information and Population Health Resource database., Results: Radiation therapy was received by 65.5% of patients, with no decrease over time. Older women and those with T2 (compared to T1) tumors were less likely to receive radiation therapy. In propensity-adjusted analyses, both radiation therapy alone (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67-0.84) and radiation + endocrine therapy (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.69) were associated with significantly lower recurrence risk compared to endocrine therapy alone. Non-adherence to endocrine therapy was common (37%) and similar across groups. With a median follow-up of 48 months (range 13-84), we were not able to detect an association of non-adherence with recurrence risk in endocrine therapy-containing treatment arms., Conclusion: Most older women with stage I HR+ breast cancers continue to receive radiation, at higher rates than patients with node-negative stage II tumors. These findings suggest that while multiple evidence-based treatment options exist in these patients, improvements are needed to ensure that radiation therapy is applied equitably and rationally., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Meyer is currently employed by Roche, Inc. in a non-development role; Dr. Meng is founder and owner of the contract research company Element Stat Inc.; Jason Rotter is currently employed by Mathematica, Inc. Their work on this manuscript was done as employees of UNC Chapel Hill. The other authors have no current or past conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We estimated average medical costs due to metastatic breast cancer (mBC) among younger (aged 18-44), midlife (aged 45-64), and older women (aged 65 and older) by phase of care: initial, continuing, and terminal., Methods: We used 2003-2014 North Carolina cancer registry data linked with administrative claims from public and private payers. We developed a claims-based algorithm to identify breast cancer patients who progressed to metastatic disease. We matched breast cancer patients (mBC and earlier stage) to non-cancer patients on age group, county of residence, and insurance plan. Outcomes were average monthly medical expenditures and expected medical expenditures by phase. We used regression to estimate excess costs attributed to mBC as the difference in mean payments between patients with mBC (N = 4806) and patients with each earlier-stage breast cancer (stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, and unknown stage; N = 21,772) and non-cancer controls (N = 109,631) by treatment phase and age group., Results: Adjusted monthly costs for women with mBC were significantly higher than for women with earlier-stage breast cancer and non-cancer controls for all age groups and treatment phases except the initial treatment among women with stage 3 breast cancer at diagnosis. The largest expected total costs were for women aged 18-44 with mBC during the continuing phase ($209,961 95% Confidence Interval $165,736-254,186)., Conclusions: We found substantial excess costs for mBC among younger women and during the continuing and terminal phases of survivorship. It is important to assess whether this care is high value for these women.

Purpose: The goal of this systematic review is to provide an update to the review by Pouwels et al. by conducting a systematic review and an assessment of the reporting quality of the economic analyses conducted since 2014., Methods: This systematic review identified published articles focused on metastatic breast cancer treatment using the Medline/PubMed and Scopus databases and the following search criteria: (((cost effectiveness[MeSH Terms]) OR (cost effectiveness) OR (cost-effectiveness) OR (cost utility) OR (cost-utility) OR (economic evaluation)) AND (("metastatic breast cancer") OR ("advanced breast cancer"))). The reporting quality of the included articles was evaluated using the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist., Results: Of the 256 identified articles, 67 of the articles were published after October 2014 when the prior systematic review stopped its assessment (Pouwels et al. in Breast Cancer Res Treat 165:485-498, 2017). From the 67 articles, we narrowed down to include 17 original health economic analyses specific to metastatic or advanced breast cancer. These articles were diverse with respect to methods employed and interventions included., Conclusion: Although each of the articles contributed their own analytic strengths and limitations, the overall quality of the studies was moderate. The review demonstrated that the vast majority of the reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios exceeded the typically employed willingness to pay thresholds used in each country of analysis. Only three of the reviewed articles studied chemotherapies rather than treatments targeting either HER2 or hormone receptors, demonstrating a gap in the literature.

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., (© 2018 American Cancer Society.)