Search

Background Pancreatectomy is a necessary component of curative intent therapy for pancreatic cancer, and patients living in non-metropolitan areas may face barriers to accessing timely surgical care. We evaluated the intersecting associations of rurality, socioeconomic status (SES), and race on treatment and outcomes of Medicare beneficiaries with pancreatic cancer. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study, using fee-for-service Medicare claims of beneficiaries with incident pancreatic cancer (2016-2018). We categorized beneficiary place of residence as metropolitan, micropolitan, or small town/rural. Measures of SES were Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility and the Area Deprivation Index (ADI). Primary study outcomes were receipt of pancreatectomy and one-year mortality. Exposure-outcome associations were assessed with competing risks and logistic regression. Results We identified 45,915 beneficiaries with pancreatic cancer, including 78.4%, 10.9%, and 10.7% residing in metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural areas, respectively. In analyses adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, and metastasis, residents of micropolitan and rural areas were less likely to undergo pancreatectomy (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio=0.88 for rural, 95%CI 0.81-0.95) and had higher one-year mortality (aOR=1.25 for rural, 95%CI 1.17-1.33), compared with metropolitan residents. Adjustment for measures of SES attenuated the association of non-metropolitan residence with mortality, and there was no significant association of rurality with pancreatectomy after adjustment. Black beneficiaries had lower likelihood of pancreatectomy than White, non-Hispanic beneficiaries (aSHR=0.80, 95%CI 0.72-0.89, adjusted for SES). One-year mortality in metropolitan areas was higher for Black beneficiaries (aOR=1.15 95%CI 1.05-1.26). Conclusions Rurality, socioeconomic deprivation, and race have complex interrelationships and are associated with disparities in pancreatic cancer treatment and outcomes.

Background We evaluate the construct validity of a proposed procedure for eliciting lay preferences among health care policy options, suited for structured surveys. It is illustrated with breast cancer screening, a domain in which people may have heterogeneous preferences. Methods Our procedure applies behavioral decision research principles to eliciting preferences among policy options expressed in quantitative terms. Three-hundred women older than 18 y without a history of breast cancer were recruited through Amazon MTurk. Participants evaluated 4 screening options for each of 4 groups of women, with varying risk of breast cancer. Each option was characterized by estimates of 3 primary outcomes: breast cancer deaths, false alarms, and overdiagnosis resulting in unnecessary treatment of cancers that would not progress. These estimates were based on those currently being developed by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. For each risk group, participants stated how frequently they would wish to receive screening, if the predicted outcomes applied to them. Results A preregistered test found that preferences were robust enough to be unaffected by the order of introducing and displaying the outcomes. Other tests of construct validity also suggested that respondents generally understood the task and expressed consistent preferences. Those preferences were related to participants’ age and mammography history but not to measures of their numeracy, subjective numeracy, or demographics. There was considerable heterogeneity in their preferences. Conclusions Members of the public can be engaged more fully in informing future screening guidelines if they evaluate the screening options characterized by the expected health outcomes expressed in quantitative terms. We offer and evaluate such a procedure, in terms of its construct validity with a diverse sample of women. Highlights A novel survey method for eliciting lay preferences for breast cancer screening is proposed and evaluated in terms of its construct validity. Participants were generally insensitive to irrelevant task features (e.g., order of presentation) and sensitive to relevant ones (e.g., quantitative estimates of breast cancer risk, harms from screening). The proposed method elicits lay preferences in terms that can inform future screening guidelines, potentially improving communication between the public and policy makers.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer has a 5-year survival of just 10%. Services such as palliative care and hospice are thus crucial in this population, yet their geographic accessibility and utilization remains unknown. AIM: We studied the association between rurality of patient residence and the use of palliative care and hospice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study of continuously enrolled fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries age≥65 diagnosed with incident pancreatic cancer between 04/01/2016-08/31/2018 and who died by 12/31/2018. RESULTS: In this decedent cohort of 31,460 patients, 77% lived in metropolitan areas, 11% in micropolitan areas, 7% in small towns, and 5% in rural areas. Patient demographics were largely similar across rurality; however, the proportion of White, Non-Hispanic patients and social deprivation was highest in rural areas and lowest in metropolitan areas. Overall, 33% of patients used any palliative care and 77% received hospice services. After risk adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in the use of palliative care for patients residing in metropolitan versus micropolitan, small town, or rural areas. Patients in small town (OR=0.77, 95% CI:0.69–0.86) and rural areas (OR=0.75, 95% CI:0.66–0.85) had lower adjusted odds of receiving hospice care compared to patients in metropolitan areas. CONCLUSIONS: The use of palliative care services captured in Medicare was low, representing either underutilization or failure to accurately measure the extent of services used. While the overall level of hospice enrollment was high, patients in rural communities had relatively lower use of hospice services compared to those in metropolitan areas.

Introduction EQ-5D-3L preference-based value sets are predominately based on hypothetical health states and derived in cross-sectional settings. Therefore, we derived an experience-based value set from a prospective observational study. Methods The International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic fractures Study (ICUROS) was a multinational study on fragility fractures, prospectively collecting EQ-5D-3L and Time trade-off (TTO) within two weeks after fracture (including pre-fracture recall), and at 4, 12, and 18 months thereafter. We derived an EQ-5D-3L value set by regressing the TTO values on the ten impairment levels in the EQ-5D-3L. We explored the potential for response shift and whether preferences for domains vary systematically with prior impairment in that domain. Finally, we compared the value set to 25 other EQ-5D-3L preference-based value sets. Results TTO data were available for 12,954 EQ-5D-3L health states in 4683 patients. All coefficients in the value set had the expected sign, were statistically significant, and increased monotonically with severity of impairment. We found evidence for response shift in mobility, self-care, and usual activities. The value set had good agreement with the only other experience- and preference-based value set, but poor agreement with all hypothetical value sets. Conclusions We present an experience- and preference-based value set with high face validity. The study indicates that response shift may be important to account for when deriving value sets. Furthermore, the study suggests that perspective (experienced versus hypothetical) is more important than country setting or demographics for valuation of EQ-5D-3L health states.

ImportanceHealth care systems focus on delivering routine cancer screening to eligible individuals, yet little is known about the perceptions of primary care practitioners (PCPs) about barriers to timely follow-up of abnormal results.ObjectiveTo describe PCP perceptions about factors associated with the follow-up of abnormal breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening test results.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsSurvey study of PCPs from 3 primary care practice networks in New England between February and October 2020, prior to participating in a randomized clinical trial to improve follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results. Participants were physicians and advanced practice clinicians from participating practices.Main Outcomes and MeasuresSelf-reported process, attitudes, knowledge, and satisfaction about the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results.ResultsOverall, 275 (56.7%) PCPs completed the survey (range by site, 34.9%-71.9%) with more female PCPs (61.8% [170 of 275]) and general internists (73.1% [201 of 275]); overall, 28,7% (79 of 275) were aged 40 to 49 years. Most PCPs felt responsible for managing abnormal cancer screening test results with the specific cancer type being the best factor (range, 63.6% [175 of 275] for breast to 81.1% [223 of 275] for lung; P Conclusions and RelevanceIn this survey study of PCPs, important deficiencies in systems for managing abnormal cancer screening test results were reported. These findings suggest a need for comprehensive organ-agnostic systems to promote timely follow-up of abnormal cancer screening results using a primary care–focused approach across the range of cancer screening tests.

BACKGROUND: The demographics of heart failure are changing. The rate of growth of the “older” heart failure population, specifically those ≥ 75, has outpaced that of any other age group. These older patients were underrepresented in the early beta-blocker trials. There are several reasons, including a decreased potential for mortality benefit and increased risk of side effects, why the risk/benefit tradeoff may be different in this population. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the association between receipt of a beta-blocker after heart failure discharge and early mortality and readmission rates among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), specifically patients aged 75+. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We used 100% Medicare Parts A and B and a random 40% sample of Part D to create a cohort of beneficiaries with ≥ 1 hospitalization for HFrEF between 2008 and 2016 to run an instrumental variable analysis. MAIN MEASURE: The primary measure was 90-day, all-cause mortality; the secondary measure was 90-day, all-cause readmission. KEY RESULTS: Using the two-stage least squared methodology, among all HFrEF patients, receipt of a beta-blocker within 30-day of discharge was associated with a − 4.35% (95% CI − 6.27 to − 2.42%, p < 0.001) decrease in 90-day mortality and a − 4.66% (95% CI − 7.40 to − 1.91%, p = 0.001) decrease in 90-day readmission rates. Even among patients ≥ 75 years old, receipt of a beta-blocker at discharge was also associated with a significant decrease in 90-day mortality, − 4.78% (95% CI − 7.19 to − 2.40%, p < 0.001) and 90-day readmissions, − 4.67% (95% CI − 7.89 to − 1.45%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients aged ≥ 75 years who receive a beta-blocker after HFrEF hospitalization have significantly lower 90-day mortality and readmission rates. The magnitude of benefit does not appear to wane with age. Absent a strong contraindication, all patients with HFrEF should attempt beta-blocker therapy at/after hospital discharge, regardless of age. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06901-7

Background Estimating advanced breast cancer risk in women undergoing annual or biennial mammography could identify women who may benefit from less or more intensive screening. We developed an actionable model to predict cumulative 6-year advanced cancer (prognostic pathologic stage II or higher) risk according to screening interval. Methods We included 931 186 women aged 40-74 years in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium undergoing 2 542 382 annual (prior mammogram within 11-18 months) or 752 049 biennial (prior within 19-30 months) screening mammograms. The prediction model includes age, race and ethnicity, body mass index, breast density, family history of breast cancer, and prior breast biopsy subdivided by menopausal status and screening interval. We used fivefold cross-validation to internally validate model performance. We defined higher than 95th percentile as high risk (>0.658%), higher than 75th percentile to 95th or less percentile as intermediate risk (0.380%-0.658%), and 75th or less percentile as low to average risk ( Results Obesity, high breast density, and proliferative disease with atypia were strongly associated with advanced cancer. The model is well calibrated and has an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.682 (95% confidence interval = 0.670 to 0.694). Based on women’s predicted advanced cancer risk under annual and biennial screening, 69.1% had low or average risk regardless of screening interval, 12.4% intermediate risk with biennial screening and average risk with annual screening, and 17.4% intermediate or high risk regardless of screening interval. Conclusion Most women have low or average advanced cancer risk and can undergo biennial screening. Intermediate-risk women may consider annual screening, and high-risk women may consider supplemental imaging in addition to annual screening.

Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis may decrease false-positive results compared with digital mammography.To estimate the probability of receiving at least 1 false-positive result after 10 years of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography in the US.An observational comparative effectiveness study with data collected prospectively for screening examinations was performed between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2018, at 126 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Analysis included 903 495 individuals aged 40 to 79 years. Data analysis was conducted from February 9 to September 7, 2021.Screening modality, screening interval, age, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density.Cumulative risk of at least 1 false-positive recall for further imaging, short-interval follow-up recommendation, and biopsy recommendation after 10 years of annual or biennial screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography, accounting for competing risks of breast cancer diagnosis and death.In this study of 903 495 women, 2 969 055 nonbaseline screening examinations were performed with interpretation by 699 radiologists. Mean (SD) age of the women at the time of the screening examinations was 57.6 (9.9) years, and 58% of the examinations were in individuals younger than 60 years and 46% were performed in women with dense breasts. A total of 15% of examinations used tomosynthesis. For annual screening, the 10-year cumulative probability of at least 1 false-positive result was significantly lower with tomosynthesis vs digital mammography for all outcomes: 49.6% vs 56.3% (difference, -6.7; 95% CI, -7.4 to -6.1) for recall, 16.6% vs 17.8% (difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.6) for short-interval follow-up recommendation, and 11.2% vs 11.7% (difference, -0.5; 95% CI, -1.0 to -0.1) for biopsy recommendation. For biennial screening, the cumulative probability of a false-positive recall was significantly lower for tomosynthesis vs digital mammography (35.7% vs 38.1%; difference, -2.4; 95% CI, -3.4 to -1.5), but cumulative probabilities did not differ significantly by modality for short-interval follow-up recommendation (10.3% vs 10.5%; difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.7 to 0.5) or biopsy recommendation (6.6% vs 6.7%; difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4). Decreases in cumulative probabilities of false-positive results with tomosynthesis vs digital mammography were largest for annual screening in women with nondense breasts (differences for recall, -6.5 to -12.8; short-interval follow-up, 0.1 to -5.2; and biopsy recommendation, -0.5 to -3.1). Regardless of modality, cumulative probabilities of false-positive results were substantially lower for biennial vs annual screening (overall recall, 35.7 to 38.1 vs 49.6 to 56.3; short-interval follow-up, 10.3 to 10.5 vs 16.6 to 17.8; and biopsy recommendation, 6.6 to 6.7 vs 11.2 to 11.7); older vs younger age groups (eg, among annual screening in women ages 70-79 vs 40-49, recall, 39.8 to 47.0 vs 60.8 to 68.0; short-interval follow-up, 13.3 to 14.2 vs 20.7 to 20.9; and biopsy recommendation, 9.1 to 9.3 vs 13.2 to 13.4); and women with entirely fatty vs extremely dense breasts (eg, among annual screening in women aged 50-59 years, recall, 29.1 to 36.3 vs 58.8 to 60.4; short-interval follow-up, 8.9 to 11.6 vs 19.5 to 19.8; and biopsy recommendation, 4.9 to 8.0 vs 15.1 to 15.3).In this comparative effectiveness study, 10-year cumulative probabilities of false-positive results were lower on digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography. Biennial screening interval, older age, and nondense breasts were associated with larger reductions in false-positive probabilities than screening modality.

We evaluated self-report of decision quality and regret with breast cancer surgical treatment by pre-operative breast MRI use in women recently diagnosed with breast cancer.We conducted a survey with 957 women aged 18 + with stage 0-III breast cancer identified in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Participants self-reported receipt of pre-operative breast MRI. Primary outcomes were process measures in the Breast Cancer Surgery Decision Quality Instrument (BCS-DQI) (continuous outcome) and Decision Regret Scale (dichotomized outcome as any/none). Generalized estimating equations with linear and logit link were used to estimate adjusted associations between breast MRI and primary outcomes. All analyses were also stratified by breast density.Survey participation rate was 27.9% (957/3430). Study population was primarily 60 years, White, college educated, and diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. Pre-operative breast MRI was reported in 46% of women. A higher proportion of women who were younger age ( 50 years), commercially insured, and self-detected their breast cancer reported pre-operative breast MRI use. In adjusted analysis, pre-operative breast MRI use compared with no use was associated with a small but statistically significantly higher decision quality scores (69.5 vs 64.7, p-value = 0.043). Decision regret did not significantly differ in women who reported pre-operative breast MRI use compared with no use (54.2% v. 48.7%, respectively, p-value = 0.11). Study results did not vary when stratified by breast density for either primary outcome.Breast MRI use in the diagnostic work-up of breast cancer does not negatively alter women's perceptions of surgical treatment decisions in early survivorship.NCT03029286.

BACKGROUND: Consistency in reporting Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density on mammograms is important because breast density is used for breast cancer risk assessment and is reported directly to women and clinicians to inform decisions about supplemental screening. PURPOSE: To assess the consistency of BI-RADS density reporting between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM) and evaluate density as a breast cancer risk factor when assessed using DM versus DBT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium is a prospective cohort study of women undergoing mammography with DM or DBT. This secondary analysis included women aged 40–79 years who underwent at least two screening mammography examinations less than 36 months apart. Percentage agreement and κ statistic were estimated for pairs of BI-RADS density assessments. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) of breast density as a risk factor for invasive breast cancer. RESULTS: A total of 403 326 pairs of mammograms from 342 149 women were evaluated. There were no significant differences in breast density assessment in pairs consisting of one DM and one DBT examination (57 516 of 74 729 [77%]; κ = 0.64), two DM examinations (238 678 of 301 743 [79%]; κ = 0.67), and two DBT examinations (20 763 of 26 854 [77%]; κ = 0.65). Results were similar when restricting the analyses to pairs read by the same radiologist. The breast cancer HRs for breast density were similar for DM and DBT (P = .45 for interaction). The HRs for density acquired using DM and DBT, respectively, were 0.55 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.63) and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.66) for almost entirely fat, 1.47 (95% CI: 1.37, 1.58) and 1.36 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.82) for heterogeneously dense, and 1.72 (95% CI: 1.54, 1.93) and 2.05 (95% CI: 1.25, 3.36) for extremely dense breasts. CONCLUSION: Radiologist reporting of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System density obtained with digital breast tomosynthesis did not differ from that obtained with digital mammography. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

PURPOSE Hospitalizations are a common occurrence during chemotherapy for advanced cancer. Validated risk stratification tools could facilitate proactive approaches for reducing hospitalizations by identifying at-risk patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS We assembled two retrospective cohorts of patients receiving chemotherapy for advanced nonhematologic cancer; cohorts were drawn from three integrated health plans of the Cancer Research Network. We used these cohorts to develop and validate logistic regression models estimating 30-day hospitalization risk after chemotherapy initiation. The development cohort included patients in two health plans from 2005 to 2013. The validation cohort included patients in a third health plan from 2007 to 2016. Candidate predictor variables were derived from clinical data in institutional data warehouses. Models were validated based on the C-statistic, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated in reference to a prespecified risk threshold (hospitalization risk ≥ 18.0%). RESULTS There were 3,606 patients in the development cohort (median age, 63 years) and 634 evaluable patients in the validation cohort (median age, 64 years). Lung cancer was the most common diagnosis in both cohorts (26% and 31%, respectively). The selected risk stratification model included two variables: albumin and sodium. The model C-statistic in the validation cohort was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.75); 39% of patients were classified as high risk according to the prespecified threshold; 30-day hospitalization risk was 24.2% (95% CI, 19.9% to 32.0%) in the high-risk group and 8.7% (95% CI, 6.1% to 12.0%) in the low-risk group. CONCLUSION A model based on data elements routinely collected during cancer treatment can reliably identify patients at high risk for hospitalization after chemotherapy initiation. Additional research is necessary to determine whether this model can be deployed to prevent chemotherapy-related hospitalizations.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid shift to telemedicine to minimize patient and provider exposure risks. While telemedicine has been used in a variety of primary and specialty care settings for many years, it has been slow to be adopted in oncology care. Health care provider and administrator perspectives on factors affecting telemedicine use in oncology settings are not well understood, and the conditions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic offered the opportunity to study the adoption of telemedicine and the resulting provider and staff perspectives on its use. Objective The aim of this paper is to study the factors that influenced telemedicine uptake and sustained use in outpatient oncology clinics at a US cancer center to inform future telemedicine practices. Methods We used purposive sampling to recruit a mix of oncology specialty providers, practice managers, as well as nursing and administrative staff representing 5 outpatient oncology clinics affiliated with the Dartmouth Cancer Center, a large regional cancer center in the northeast of United States, to participate in semistructured interviews conducted over 6 weeks in spring 2021. The interview guide was informed by the 5 domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, which include inner and outer setting factors, characteristics of the intervention (ie, telemedicine modality), individual-level factors (eg, provider and patient characteristics), and implementation processes. In total, 11 providers, 3 leaders, and 6 staff participated following verbal consent, and thematic saturation was reached across the full sample. We used a mixed deductive and inductive qualitative analysis approach to study the main influences on telemedicine uptake, implementation, and sustainability during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic across the 5 settings. Results The predominant influencers of telemedicine adoption in this study were individual provider experiences and assumptions about patient preference and accessibility. Providers’ early telemedicine experiences, especially if negative, influenced preferences for telephone over video and affected sustained use. Telemedicine was most favorably viewed for lower-acuity cancer care, visits less dependent on physical exam, and for patient and caregiver education. A lack of clinical champions, leadership guidance, and vision hindered the implementation of standardized practices and were cited as essential for telemedicine sustainability. Respondents expressed anxiety about sustaining telemedicine use if reimbursements for telephonic visits diminished or ceased. Opportunities to enhance future efforts include a need to provide additional guidance supporting telemedicine use cases and evidence of effectiveness in oncology care and to address provider concerns with communication quality. Conclusions In a setting of decentralized care processes, early challenges in telemedicine implementation had an outsized impact on the nature and amount of sustained use. Proactively designed telemedicine care processes with attention to patient needs will be essential to support a sustained role for telemedicine in cancer care.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Neurohormonal therapy, which includes beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARBs), is the cornerstone of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) treatment. While neurohormonal therapies have demonstrated efficacy in randomized clinical trials, older patients, which now comprise the majority of HFrEF patients, were underrepresented in those original trials. This study aimed to determine the association between short- (30 day) and long-term (1 year) mortality and the use of neurohormonal therapy in HFrEF patients, across the age spectrum. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS This is a population-based, retrospective, cohort study between January 2008 and December 2015. We used 100% Medicare Parts A and B and a random 40% sample of Part D to create a cohort of 295,494 fee-for-service beneficiaries with at least one hospitalization for HFrEF between 2008 and 2015. All analyses were performed between May 2019 and July 2020. EXPOSURE We used Part D data to determine exposure to beta-blocker and ACEi and ARB therapy. RESULTS We found that in 295,494 patients admitted for HFrEF between 2008 and 2015, the average age was 80 years, 54% were female and 17% were non-white. The baseline mortality rate was higher among those aged ≥85, but the mortality benefits of neurohormonal therapy were preserved across the age spectrum. Among those ≥85 years old, the hazard ratio for death within 30 days was 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.62; p

PURPOSE: Increasingly epidemiological cohorts are being linked to claims data to provide rich data for healthcare research. These cohorts tend to be different than the general US population. We will analyze healthcare utilization of Nurses’ Health Study participants (NHS) to determine if studies of newly diagnosed incident early stage breast cancer can be generalized to the broader US Medicare population. METHODS: Analytic cohorts of fee-for-service NHS-Medicare linked participants and a 1:13 propensity matched SEER-Medicare cohort (SEER) with incident breast cancer in the years 2007–2011 were considered. Screening leading to, treatment-related, and general utilization in the year following early stage breast cancer diagnosis were determined using Medicare claims data. RESULTS: After propensity matching, NHS and SEER were statistically balanced on all demographics. NHS and SEER had statistically similar rates of treatments including chemotherapy, breast conserving surgery, mastectomy, and overall radiation use. Rates of general utilization include those related to hospitalizations, total visits, and ED visits were also balanced between the two groups. Total spending in the year following diagnosis were statistically equivalent for NHS and SEER ($36,180 vs. $35,399, p = 0.7045). CONCLUSIONS: NHS and the general female population had comparable treatment and utilization patterns following diagnosis of early stage incident breast cancers with the exception of type of radiation therapy received. This study provides support for the larger value of population-based cohorts in research on healthcare costs and utilization in breast cancer

Randomized trial with a concurrent observational cohort study.To compare 8-year outcomes between surgery and nonoperative care and among different fusion techniques for symptomatic lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).Surgical treatment of DS has been shown to be more effective than nonoperative treatment out to 4 years. This study sought to further determine the long-term (8-year) outcomes.Surgical candidates with DS from 13 centers with at least 12 weeks of symptoms and confirmatory imaging were offered enrollment in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or observational cohort study (OBS). Treatment consisted of standard decompressive laminectomy (with or without fusion) versus standard nonoperative care. Primary outcome measures were the Short Form-36 (SF-36) bodily pain and physical function scores and the modified Oswestry Disability Index at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and yearly up to 8 years.Data were obtained for 69% of the randomized cohort and 57% of the observational cohort at the 8-year follow up. Intent-to-treat analyses of the randomized group were limited by high levels of nonadherence to the randomized treatment. As-treated analyses in the randomized and observational groups showed significantly greater improvement in the surgery group on all primary outcome measures at all time points through 8 years. Outcomes were similar among patients treated with uninstrumented posterolateral fusion, instrumented posterolateral fusion, and 360° fusion.For patients with symptomatic DS, patients who received surgery had significantly greater improvements in pain and function compared with nonoperative treatment through 8 years of follow-up. Fusion technique did not affect outcomes.1.

BACKGROUND: Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of proximal humerus fractures in elderly individuals (age >70) carries a relatively high short-term complication and reoperation rate but is generally durable once healed. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) for fractures may be associated with superior short-term quality of life but carries the lifelong liabilities of joint replacement. The tradeoff between short and long-term risks, coupled with disparities in quality of life and cost, makes this clinical decision amenable to cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model was constructed with a base case of a 75 year-old patient. Reoperation rates, quality of life values, mortality rates, and costs were based upon published literature. The model was run until all patients had died to simulate the accumulated costs and benefits. RESULTS: RTSA was associated with greater quality of life (7.11 QALYs) than ORIF (6.22 QALYs). RTSA was cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3,945/QALY and $27,299/ QALY from payor and hospital perspectives, respectively. RTSA was favored and cost-effective at any age above 65 and any Charlson Score. The model was sensitive to the utility of both procedures CONCLUSION: RTSA resulted in a higher quality of life and was cost-effective in comparison to ORIF for elderly patients. Level of Evidence: III

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in numerous changes in delivery of healthcare services, including breast cancer screening and surveillance. Although facilities have implemented a number of strategies to provide services, women's thoughts and experiences related to breast cancer screening and surveillance during a pandemic are not well known. This focus group study with women across seven states recruited through the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium aims to remedy this gap in information. Thirty women ranging in age from 31 to 69 participated in five virtual focus groups, eight of whom had prior breast cancer. The first three focus groups covered a range of topics related to screening and surveillance during the pandemic while the last two groups covered experiences and then a review of sample communications to women about screening and surveillance during the pandemic to obtain reactions and recommendations. More than half of the women had screening or surveillance during the pandemic. Coding and analyses resulted in nine themes in three topic areas: decision factors, screening experiences, and preferred communications. Themes included weighing the risks of COVID-19 versus cancer; feelings that screening and surveillance were mostly safe but barriers may be heightened; feeling safe when undergoing screening but receiving a range of pandemic-specific communications from none to a lot; and wanting communications that are personalized, clear and concise. Based on these findings, providers and facilities should assure women of pandemic safety measures, review methods and content of communications, and assess for barriers to screening that may be amplified during the pandemic, including anxiety and access.

Background Since 2007, digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) replaced screen-film mammography. Whether these technologic advances have improved diagnostic performance has, to the knowledge of the authors, not yet been established. Purpose To evaluate the performance and outcomes of surveillance mammography (digital mammography and DBT) performed from 2007 to 2016 in women with a personal history of breast cancer and compare with data from 1996 to 2007 and the performance of digital mammography screening benchmarks. Materials and Methods In this observational cohort study, five Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries provided prospectively collected mammography data linked with tumor registry and pathologic outcomes. This study identified asymptomatic women with American Joint Committee on Cancer anatomic stages 0-III primary breast cancer who underwent surveillance mammography from 2007 to 2016. The primary outcome was a second breast cancer diagnosis within 1 year of mammography. Performance measures included the recall rate, cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation, sensitivity, and specificity. Results Among 32 331 women who underwent 117 971 surveillance mammographic examinations (112 269 digital mammographic examinations and 5702 DBT examinations), the mean age at initial diagnosis was 59 years ± 12 (standard deviation). Of 1418 second breast cancers diagnosed, 998 were surveillance-detected cancers and 420 were interval cancers. The recall rate was 8.8% (10 365 of 117 971; 95% CI: 8.6%, 9.0%), the cancer detection rate was 8.5 per 1000 examinations (998 of 117 971; 95% CI: 8.0, 9.0), the interval cancer rate was 3.6 per 1000 examinations (420 of 117 971; 95% CI: 3.2, 3.9), the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation was 31.0% (998 of 3220; 95% CI: 29.4%, 32.7%), the sensitivity was 70.4% (998 of 1418; 95% CI: 67.9%, 72.7%), and the specificity was 98.1% (114 331 of 116 553; 95% CI: 98.0%, 98.2%). Compared with previously published studies, interval cancer rate was comparable with rates from 1996 to 2007 in women with a personal history of breast cancer and was higher than the published digital mammography screening benchmarks. Conclusion In transitioning from screen-film to digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis, surveillance mammography performance demonstrated minimal improvement over time and remained inferior to the performance of screening mammography benchmarks. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Moy and Gao in this issue.

Introduction: In the PARADIGM-HF study, sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated a 16% decrease in all-cause mortality and a 21% decrease in heart failure hospitalization. Cost and concern for a higher risk of side effects especially among older patients may have delayed early diffusion. This study aims to use a decision analysis approach to determine whether discharged on sacubitril/valsartan or ACEi/ARB is optimal after heart failure with reduced rejection fraction (HFrEF) hospitalization and whether this varies by age. Hypothesis: Discharge on sacubitril/valsartan will be associated with lower mortality and readmission rates across all age groups. Methods: We used an absorbing Markov chain simulation model with 1-month cycle length to determine the association between discharge on sacubitril/valsartan vs. ACEi/ARB and survival. We used a random 40% sample of Medicare A, B and D data from 2016-2017 to create a population of HFrEF patients (n=694,149) to determine the probabilities of drug discontinuation and adverse events. We used estimates from the PARADIGM-HF study to define the relative reduction in mortality and readmission rates with sacubitril/valsartan. Results: Among all patients, we found a 3.24 month survival advantage to discharge on sacubitril/valsartan. Among those aged 64-74, there was a 5.85 month survival advantage. Among those aged 74-85, there as a 3.47 month survival and among those aged 85+ there was a 1.38 month survival advantage ( Figure ). Conclusion: Among patients of all ages with HFrEF, there is a survival advantage to discharge on sacubitril/valsartan over ACEi/ARB but the magnitude of this benefit decreases with increasing age.

Introduction: The rate of growth of the older heart failure population has outpaced that of any other age group. Importantly, these older patients were underrepresented in the early beta-blocker trials and there are several reasons, including a decreased potential for mortality benefit and an increased risk of side effects, why the risk/benefit trade-off may be different in this older population. Hypothesis: The association between receipt of a beta-blocker at the time of hospital discharge and early mortality and readmissions in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients aged ≥75 is not significantly different than among HFrEF patients Methods: We used 100% Medicare Parts A and B and a random 40% sample of Part D to create a cohort of beneficiaries with ≥1 hospitalization for HFrEF between 2008 and 2016 and determined beta-blocker use at hospital discharge. The primary outcome was 90-day, all-cause mortality; the secondary outcome was 90-day, all-cause readmission. To address both measured and unmeasured confounding, we used the two-stage least squared instrumental variable analysis method. Results: Among all HFrEF patients, receipt of a beta-blocker at the time of discharge was associated with a -4.34% (95% CI -6.26% to -2.42%, p75 years old, receipt of a beta-blocker was also associated with a significant -4.74% decrease (95% CI -7.13% to -2.34%, p Conclusions: We find that patients aged ≥75 years who receive a beta-blocker at HFrEF discharge have significantly lower 90-day mortality and readmission rates. The magnitude of benefit from beta-blocker therapy after HFrEF discharge does not appear to wane with age.

Background Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) with early‐stage breast cancer are more likely to report poorer physician‐patient communication, lower satisfaction with surgery, lower involvement in decision making, and higher decision regret compared to women of higher SES. The objective of this study was to understand how to support women across socioeconomic strata in making breast cancer surgery choices. Methods We conducted a 3‐arm (Option Grid, Picture Option Grid, and usual care), multisite, randomized controlled superiority trial with surgeon‐level randomization. The Option Grid (text only) and Picture Option Grid (pictures plus text) conversation aids were evidence‐based summaries of available breast cancer surgery options on paper. Decision quality (primary outcome), treatment choice, treatment intention, shared decision making (SDM), anxiety, quality of life, decision regret, and coordination of care were measured from T0 (pre‐consultation) to T5 (1‐year after surgery. Results Sixteen surgeons saw 571 of 622 consented patients. Patients in the Picture Option Grid arm (n = 248) had higher knowledge (immediately after the visit [T2] and 1 week after surgery or within 2 weeks of the first postoperative visit [T3]), an improved decision process (T2 and T3), lower decision regret (T3), and more SDM (observed and self‐reported) compared to usual care (n = 257). Patients in the Option Grid arm (n = 66) had higher decision process scores (T2 and T3), better coordination of care (12 weeks after surgery or within 2 weeks of the second postoperative visit [T4]), and more observed SDM (during the surgical visit [T1]) compared to usual care arm. Subgroup analyses suggested that the Picture Option Grid had more impact among women of lower SES and health literacy. Neither intervention affected concordance, treatment choice, or anxiety. Conclusions Paper‐based conversation aids improved key outcomes over usual care. The Picture Option Grid had more impact among disadvantaged patients. Lay Summary The objective of this study was to understand how to help women with lower incomes or less formal education to make breast cancer surgery choices.Compared with usual care, a conversation aid with pictures and text led to higher knowledge. It improved the decision process and shared decision making (SDM) and lowered decision regret. A text‐only conversation aid led to an improved decision process, more coordinated care, and higher SDM compared to usual care. The conversation aid with pictures was more helpful for women with lower income or less formal education.Conversation aids with pictures and text helped women make better breast cancer surgery choices., A paper‐based pictorial conversation aid (pictures plus text) is beneficial to all patients with early‐stage breast cancer and particularly to disadvantaged patients. Between‐surgeon variation suggests that the maximal impact of such interventions requires standardized physician training combined with these interventions.

Importance Many US radiologists have screening mammography recall rates above the expert-recommended threshold of 12%. The influence of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) on the distribution of radiologist recall rates is uncertain. Objective To evaluate radiologists’ recall and cancer detection rates before and after beginning interpretation of DBT examinations. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study included 198 radiologists from 104 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium who interpreted 251 384 DBT and 2 000 681 digital mammography (DM) screening examinations from 2009 to 2017, including 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations during the study period and 72 (36.4%) who exclusively interpreted DM examinations (to adjust for secular trends). Data were analyzed from April 2018 to July 2019. Exposures Digital breast tomosynthesis and DM screening examinations. Main Outcomes and Measures Recall rate and cancer detection rate. Results A total of 198 radiologists interpreted 2 252 065 DM and DBT examinations (2 000 681 [88.8%] DM examinations; 251 384 [11.2%] DBT examinations; 710 934 patients [31.6%] aged 50-59 years; 1 448 981 [64.3%] non-Hispanic white). Among the 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations, 83 (65.9%) had unadjusted DM recall rates of no more than 12% before using DBT, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 10.0% (7.5%-13.0%). On DBT examinations, 96 (76.2%) had an unadjusted recall rate of no more than 12%, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 8.8% (6.3%-11.3%). A secular trend in recall rate was observed, with the multivariable-adjusted risk of recall on screening examinations declining by 1.2% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.5%) per year. After adjusting for examination characteristics and secular trends, recall rates were 15% lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use (relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.87). Adjusted recall rates were significantly lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use for 45 radiologists (35.7%) and significantly higher for 18 (14.3%); 63 (50.0%) had no statistically significant change. The unadjusted cancer detection rate on DBT was 5.3 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 5.0-5.7 per 1000 examinations) compared with 4.7 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 4.6-4.8 per 1000 examinations) on DM examinations interpreted before DM use (multivariable-adjusted risk ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.33). Conclusions and Relevance In this study, DBT was associated with an overall decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. However, our results indicated that there is wide variability among radiologists, including a subset of radiologists who experienced increased recall rates on DBT examinations. Radiology practices should audit radiologist DBT screening performance and consider additional DBT training for radiologists whose performance does not improve as expected.

Drugs that increase the risk of fracture are commonly prescribed to survivors of a fragility fracture. This study shows that starting new high-risk medications after fracture increases the risk of a second, potentially preventable fracture. For most drug classes, however, it is safe to continue medications taken before the fracture. Most patients who survive a fragility fracture are subsequently exposed to prescription drugs that have been linked to increased fracture risk. This study was designed to quantify the extent to which current prescribing practices result in potentially preventable second fractures. We analyzed a cohort of 138,526 Medicare beneficiaries who returned to the community after a fragility fracture. Post-fracture drug use was defined using retail pharmacy fills. The risk of second fracture associated with individual drug classes was analyzed using Cox proportional hazard models. Data were further analyzed to determine whether there is a difference in risk between continuing previous therapy and initiating new therapy after fracture. Many drug classes previously identified as increasing fracture risk were not associated with increased fracture risk in this cohort. Discontinuing therapy at the time of fracture was only beneficial for patients taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; however, initiating therapy in previous non-users increased second fracture risk for five classes of drugs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, antipsychotics, proton pump inhibitors, and non-benzodiazepine hypnotics). Discontinuing high-risk drugs after fracture was not generally protective against subsequent fractures. Preventing the addition of new medications may result in greater improvements in post-fracture care.

BACKGROUND: As of 2019, 37 US states have breast density notification laws. No qualitative study to date has examined women’s perspectives about breast density in general or by states with and without notification laws. OBJECTIVE: Explore women’s knowledge and perceptions of breast density and experiences of breast cancer screening across three states with and without notification laws. DESIGN: Qualitative research design using four focus groups conducted in 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-seven women who had a recent normal mammogram and dense breasts in registry data obtained through the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. APPROACH: Focus groups were 90 min, audio recorded, and transcribed for analysis. Data were analyzed using mixed deductive and inductive coding. KEY RESULTS: Women reported variable knowledge levels of personal breast density and breast density in general, even among women living in states with a notification law. A number of women were aware of the difficulty of detecting cancer with dense breasts, but only one knew that density increased breast cancer risk. Across all states, very few women reported receiving information about breast density during healthcare visits beyond being encouraged to get supplemental imaging or to pay for new mammography technology (i.e., breast tomosynthesis). Women offered more imaging or different technology held strong convictions that these were “better,” even though knowledge of differences, effectiveness, or harms across technologies seemed limited. Women from all states expressed a strong desire for more information about breast density. CONCLUSIONS: More research needs to be done to understand how the medical community can best assist women in making informed decisions related to breast density, mammography, and supplemental screening. Options to explore include improved breast density notifications and education materials about breast density, continued development of personalized risk information tools, strategies for providers to discuss evidence and options based on risk stratification, and shared decision-making.

Decades of persuasive messages have reinforced the importance of traditional screening mammography at regular intervals. A potential new paradigm, risk-based screening, adjusts mammography frequency based on a woman’s estimated breast cancer risk in order to maximize mortality reduction while minimizing false positives and overdiagnosis. Women’s views of risk-based screening are unknown. To explore women’s views and personal acceptability of a potential risk-based mammography screening paradigm. Four semi-structured focus group discussions about screening mammography and surveys before provision of information about risk-based screening. We analyzed coded focus group transcripts using a mixed deductive (content analysis) and inductive (grounded theory) approach. Convenience sample of 29 women (40–74 years old) with no personal history of breast cancer recruited by print and online media in New Hampshire and Vermont. Twenty-seven out of 29 women reported having undergone mammography screening. All participants were white and most were highly educated. Some women accepted the idea that early cancer detection with traditional screening was beneficial—although many also reported hearing inconsistent recommendations from clinicians and mixed messages from media reports about mammography. Some women were familiar with a risk-based screening paradigm (primarily related to cervical cancer, n = 8) and thought matching screening mammography frequency to personal risk made sense (n = 8). Personal acceptability of risk-based screening was mixed. Some believed risk-based screening could reduce the harms of false positives and overdiagnosis (n = 7). Others thought screening less often might result in missing a dangerous diagnosis (n = 14). Many (n = 18) expressed concerns about the feasibility of risk-based screening and questioned whether breast cancer risk estimates could be accurate. Some suspected that risk-based mammography was motivated by a desire to save money (n = 6). Some women thought risk-based screening made sense. Willingness to abandon traditional screening for the new paradigm was mixed. Broad acceptability of risk-based screening will require clearer communication about its rationale and feasibility and consistent messages from the health care team.

In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended biennial mammography for women aged 50-74 years and shared decision-making for women aged 40-49 years for breast cancer screening. We evaluated changes in mammography screening interval after the 2009 recommendations.We conducted a prospective cohort study of women aged 40-74 years who received 821,052 screening mammograms between 2006 and 2012 using data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We compared changes in screening intervals and stratified intervals based on whether the mammogram at the end of the interval occurred before or after the 2009 recommendation. Differences in mean interval length by woman-level characteristics were compared using linear regression.The mean interval (in months) minimally decreased after the 2009 USPSTF recommendations. Among women aged 40-49 years, the mean interval decreased from 17.2 months to 17.1 months (difference -0.16%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.30 to -0.01). Similar small reductions were seen for most age groups. The largest change in interval length in the post-USPSTF period was declines among women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer (difference -0.68%, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.54) or a 5-year breast cancer risk ≥2.5% (difference -0.58%, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.44).The 2009 USPSTF recommendation did not lengthen the average mammography interval among women routinely participating in mammography screening. Future studies should evaluate whether breast cancer screening intervals lengthen toward biennial intervals following new national 2016 breast cancer screening recommendations, particularly among women less than 50 years of age.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has shown potential to improve breast cancer screening and diagnosis compared to digital mammography (DM). The FDA approved DBT use in conjunction with conventional DM in 2011, but coverage was approved by CMS recently in 2015. Given changes in coverage policies, it is important to monitor diffusion of DBT by insurance type. This study examined DBT trends and estimated associations with insurance type. From June 2011 to September 2014, DBT use in 22 primary care centers in the Dartmouth ‐Brigham and Women's Hospital Population‐based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens research center (PROSPR) was examined among women aged 40–89. A longitudinal repeated measures analysis estimated the proportion of DBT performed for screening or diagnostic indications over time and by insurance type. During the study period, 93,182 mammograms were performed on 48,234 women. Of these exams, 16,506 DBT tests were performed for screening (18.1%) and 2537 were performed for diagnosis (15.7%). Between 2011 and 2014, DBT utilization increased in all insurance groups. However, by the latest observed period, screening DBT was used more frequently under private insurance (43.4%) than Medicaid (36.2%), Medicare (37.8%), other (38.6%), or no insurance (32.9%; P

SummaryBackground Melanoma incidence has increased in recent decades in the U.S.A. Uncertainty remains regarding how much of this increase is attributable to greater melanoma screening activities, potential detection bias and overdiagnosis. Objectives To use a cross-sectional ecological analysis to evaluate the relationship between skin biopsy and melanoma incidence rates over a more recent time period than prior reports. Methods Examination of the association of biopsy rates and melanoma incidence (invasive and in situ) in SEER-Medicare data (including 10 states) for 2002–2009. Results The skin biopsy rate increased by approximately 50% (6% per year) throughout this 8-year period, from 7012 biopsies per 100 000 persons in 2002 to 10 528 biopsies per 100 000 persons in 2009. The overall melanoma incidence rate increased approximately 4% (< 1% per year) over the same time period. The incidence of melanoma in situ increased approximately 10% (1% per year), while the incidence of invasive melanoma increased from 2002 to 2005 then decreased from 2006 to 2009. Regression models estimated that, on average, for every 1000 skin biopsies performed, an additional 5·2 (95% confidence interval 4·1–6·3) cases of melanoma in situ were diagnosed and 8·1 (95% confidence interval 6·7–9·5) cases of invasive melanoma were diagnosed. When considering individual states, some demonstrated a positive association between biopsy rate and invasive melanoma incidence, others an inverse association, and still others a more complex pattern. Conclusions Increased skin biopsies over time are associated with increased diagnosis of in situ melanoma, but the association with invasive melanoma is more complex.

Revised breast cancer screening guidelines have fueled debate about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography, encouraging discussion between women and their providers. To examine whether primary care providers’ (PCPs’) beliefs about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography are associated with utilization by their patients. Cross-sectional survey data from PCPs (2014) from three primary care networks affiliated with the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium, linked with data about their patients’ mammography use (2011–2014). PCPs (n = 209) and their female patients age 40–89 years without breast cancer (n = 30,233). Outcomes included whether (1) women received a screening mammogram during a 2-year period; and (2) screened women had >1 mammogram during that period, reflecting annual screening. Principal independent variables were PCP beliefs about the effectiveness of mammography and their recommendations for screening frequency. Overall 65.2% of women received >1 screening mammogram. For women 40–48 years, mammography use was modestly lower for those cared for by PCPs who believed that screening was ineffective compared with those who believed it was somewhat or very effective (59.1%, 62.3%, and 64.7%; p = 0.019 after controlling for patient characteristics). Of women with PCPs who reported they did not recommend screening before age 50, 48.1% were nonetheless screened. For women age 49–74 years, the vast majority were cared for by providers who believed that screening was effective. Provider recommendations were not associated with screening frequency. For women ≥75 years, those cared for by providers who were uncertain about effectiveness had higher screening use (50.7%) than those cared for by providers who believed it was somewhat effective (42.8%). Patients of providers who did not recommend screening were less likely to be screened than were those whose providers recommended annual screening, yet 37.1% of patients whose providers recommended against screening still received screening. PCP beliefs about mammography effectiveness and screening recommendations are only modestly associated with use, suggesting other likely influences on patient participation in mammography.

Personal risk for multiple conditions should be assessed in primary care. This study evaluated whether collection of risk factors to generate electronic health record (EHR)-linked health risk appraisal (HRA) for coronary heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer was associated with improved patient-provider communication, risk assessment, and plans for breast cancer screening.This pragmatic trial recruited adults with upcoming visits to 11 primary care practices during 2013-2014 (N=3,703). Pre-visit, intervention patients completed a risk factor and perception assessment and received an HRA; coded risk factor data were sent to the EHR. Post-visit, intervention patients reported risk perception. Pre-visit, control patients only completed the risk perception assessment; post-visit they also completed the risk factor assessment and received the HRA. No data were sent to the EHR for controls. Accuracy/improvement of self-perceived risk was assessed by comparing self-perceived to calculated risk.The intervention was associated with improvement of patient-provider communication of changes to improve health (78.5% vs 74.1%, AOR=1.67, 99% CI=1.07, 2.60). There was a similar trend for discussion of risk (54.1% vs 45.5%, AOR=1.34, 95% CI=0.97, 1.85). The intervention was associated with greater improvement in accuracy of self-perceived risk for diabetes (16.0% vs 12.6%, p=0.006) and colorectal cancer (27.9% vs 17.2%, p0.001) with a similar trend for coronary heart disease and breast cancer. There were no changes in plans for breast cancer screening.Patient-reported risk factors and EHR-linked multi-condition HRAs in primary care can modestly improve communication and promote accuracy of self-perceived risk.

Importance Disability persists after hip fracture in older persons. Current rehabilitation may not be sufficient to restore ability to walk in the community. Objective To compare a multicomponent home-based physical therapy intervention (training) with an active control on ability to walk in the community. Design, Setting, and Participants Parallel, 2-group randomized clinical trial conducted at 3 US clinical centers (Arcadia University, University of Connecticut Health Center, and University of Maryland, Baltimore). Randomization began on September 16, 2013, and ended on June 20, 2017; follow-up ended on October 17, 2017. Patients aged 60 years and older were enrolled after nonpathologic, minimal trauma hip fracture, if they were living in the community and walking without human assistance before the fracture, were assessed within 26 weeks of hospitalization, and were not able to walk during daily activities at the time of enrollment. A total of 210 participants were randomized and reassessed 16 and 40 weeks later. Interventions The training intervention (active treatment) (n = 105) included aerobic, strength, balance, and functional training. The active control group (n = 105) received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and active range-of-motion exercises. Both groups received 2 to 3 home visits from a physical therapist weekly for 16 weeks; nutritional counseling; and daily vitamin D (2000 IU), calcium (600 mg), and multivitamins. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome (community ambulation) was defined as walking 300 m or more in 6 minutes at 16 weeks after randomization. The study was designed to test a 1-sided hypothesis of superiority of training compared with active control. Results Among 210 randomized participants (mean age, 80.8 years; 161 women [76.7%]), 197 (93.8%) completed the trial (187 [89.0%] by completing the 6-minute walk test at 16 weeks and 10 [4.8%] by adjudication of the primary outcome). Among these, 22 of 96 training participants (22.9%) and 18 of 101 active control participants (17.8%) (difference, 5.1% [1-sided 97.5% CI, −∞ to 16.3%]; 1-sidedP = .19) became community ambulators. Seventeen training participants (16.2%) and 15 control participants (14.3%) had 1 or more reportable adverse events during the intervention period. The most common reportable adverse events reported were falls (training: 6 [5.7%], control: 4 [3.8%]), femur/hip fracture (2 in each group), pneumonia (training: 2, control: 0), urinary tract infection (training: 2, control: 0), dehydration (training: 0, control: 2), and dyspnea (training: 0, control: 2). Conclusions and Relevance Among older adults with a hip fracture, a multicomponent home-based physical therapy intervention compared with an active control that included transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and active range-of-motion exercises did not result in a statistically significant improvement in the ability to walk 300 m or more in 6 minutes after 16 weeks. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT01783704

10500 Background: Inherited pathogenic variants in ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 confer moderate to high risks of breast cancer. The optimal approach to screening in these women has not been established. Methods: We used two simulation models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) and data from the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility consortium (CARRIERS) to project lifetime breast cancer incidence and mortality in ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 carriers. We simulated screening with annual mammography from ages 40-74 alone and with annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) starting at ages 40, 35, 30, and 25. Joint and separate mammography and MRI screening performance was based on published literature. Lifetime outcomes per 1,000 women were reported as means and ranges across both models. Results: Estimated risk of breast cancer by age 80 was 22% (21-23%) for ATM, 28% (26-30%) for CHEK2, and 40% (38-42%) for PALB2. Screening with MRI and mammography reduced breast cancer mortality by 52-60% across variants (Table). Compared to no screening, starting MRI at age 30 increased life years (LY)/1000 women by 501 (478-523) in ATM, 620 (587-652) in CHEK2, and 1,025 (998-1,051) in PALB2. Starting MRI at age 25 versus 30 gained 9-12 LY/1000 women with 517-518 additional false positive screens and 197-198 benign biopsies. Conclusions: For women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants, breast cancer screening with MRI and mammography halves breast cancer mortality. These mortality benefits are similar to those for MRI screening for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and should inform practice guidelines.[Table: see text]

6562 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted breast cancer control through short-term declines in screening, delays in diagnosis and reduced/delayed treatments. We projected the impact of COVID-19 on future breast cancer mortality.Methods: Three established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models projected the impact of pandemic-related care disruptions on breast cancer mortality between 2020 and 2030 vs. pre-pandemic care patterns. Based on Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data, we modeled reductions in mammography screening utilization, delays in symptomatic cancer diagnosis, and reduced use of chemotherapy for women with early-stage disease for the first six months of the pandemic with return to pre-pandemic patterns after that time. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the effect of key model parameters, including the duration of the pandemic impact. Results: By 2030, the models project 1,297 (model range: 1,054-1,900) cumulative excess deaths related to reduced screening; 1,325 (range: 266-2,628) deaths from delayed diagnosis of symptomatic women, and 207 (range: 146-301) deaths from reduced chemotherapy use for early-stage cancer. Overall, the models predict 2,487 (range 1,713-4,875) excess deaths, representing a 0.56% (range: 0.36%-0.99%) cumulative increase over deaths that would be expected by 2030 in the absence of the pandemic’s disruptions. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the impact on mortality would approximately double if the disruptions lasted for a 12-month period. Conclusions: The impact of the initial pandemic-related disruptions in breast cancer care will have a small long-term cumulative impact on breast cancer mortality. The impact of the initial pandemic-related disruptions on breast cancer mortality will largely be mitigated by the rapid return to usual care. As the pandemic continues it will be important to monitor trends in care and reassess the mortality impact.[Table: see text]

1530 Background: Patients receiving treatment for advanced cancer are at substantial risk for unplanned hospitalization. A validated two-variable risk model can identify patients at increased risk for hospitalization. However, little is known about how model-based estimates of hospitalization risk compare with assessments of treating clinicians. Methods: We identified patients initiating a new line of systemic therapy for advanced non-hematologic cancer. For each patient, we assigned three categorical estimates of 30-day hospitalization risk. The first risk estimate was generated by a validated two-variable risk prediction model with inputs of pretreatment plasma sodium and albumin (PMID: 30995122); continuous risk scores were converted to risk tertiles. We solicited a second risk estimate by real-time survey of a treating oncology clinician; clinicians were instructed to estimate hospitalization risk as low, intermediate, or high, as compared with other patients. A third hybrid risk estimate retained the highest risk category from either the clinician or model risk assessment. We describe the agreement of clinician and model-based estimates of 30-day hospitalization risk, and we compare the sensitivity and specificity of clinician, model, and hybrid high-risk assessments, using McNemar’s test. We compared discrimination of the three risk estimates via the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Results: We identified 104 patients with valid clinician and model hospitalization risk estimates and complete 30-day follow-up. The most common cancer type was lung cancer (27%), the median age was 68 years, and 62% of patients were male. 30-day hospitalization occurred in 21 patients (20.2%). There was moderate to poor agreement between clinician and model categorical estimates of hospitalization risk (weighted kappa = 0.245). The proportion of patients identified as high-risk by the clinician, model, and hybrid assessments was 15.4%, 26.0%, and 33.7%. Sensitivity and specificity of the high-risk categorization for 30-day hospitalization were 38% and 90% for the clinician assessment, 57% and 82% for the model assessment (NSS for comparison with clinician assessment), and 76% and 77% for the hybrid assessment (greater sensitivity [p = 0.008] and lesser specificity [p = 0.001] than clinician assessment). The AUC values for the clinician, model, and hybrid assessments were 0.674, 0.757, and 0.764, respectively. Conclusions: Compared with the estimate of a treating clinician, a two-variable risk model exhibited similar sensitivity and specificity for 30-day hospitalization risk. A hybrid risk assessment incorporating information from the risk model significantly improved on the sensitivity of the clinician risk assessment. Future research should test strategies to prevent hospitalizations by targeting interventions to high-risk patients.

55 Background: Fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy agents, including 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine, are the backbone of adjuvant treatment for colon cancer, and adjuvant chemotherapy substantially reduces recurrence and mortality after surgical resection of stage 3 colon cancer. While fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy is generally safe, the risk of severe, potentially fatal chemotherapy toxicity is substantially increased for the 2-3% of U.S. patients with DPD deficiency caused by pathogenic variants in the DPYD gene. DPYD genotype testing is readily available in the U.S. but has not been widely adopted. We evaluated the cost effectiveness of DPYD genotyping prior to adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer in the U.S. Methods: We constructed a Markov model to simulate screening for DPD deficiency with DPYD genotyping (versus no screening) among patients receiving fluoropyrimidine-based adjuvant chemotherapy for stage 3 colon cancer. Screen-positive patients were modeled to receive dose-reduced fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. Model transition probabilities for treatment-related toxicities were derived from published clinical trial data with annotation of DPYD genotype and chemotherapy dosing strategy. Our analysis is from the healthcare perspective, with a time horizon of five years and an annual discount rate of 3% for future costs and benefits. Direct healthcare costs and health utilities were estimated from published sources and converted to 2020 US dollars, and post-treatment survival was modeled from SEER data. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). We used a value of $100,000/QALY as the cost-effectiveness threshold. One-way sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. Results: Compared with no screening, screening for DPD deficiency with DPYD genotyping increased per-patient costs by $106 and improved quality-adjusted survival by 0.0028 QALYs, leading to an ICER of $37,300/QALY. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the ICER exceeded $100,000/QALY when the carrier frequency of pathogenic DPYD gene variants was less than 1.17%, and when the specificity of DPYD genotyping was less than 98.9%. Cost-effectiveness estimates were not sensitive to the cost of DPYD genotyping, the cost of toxicity-related hospitalizations, or the health utility associated with grade 3-4 toxicity. Conclusions: Among patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for stage 3 colon cancer, screening for DPD deficiency with DPYD genotyping is a cost-effective strategy for preventing infrequent but severe, sometimes fatal toxicities of fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy.

PURPOSE We compared the frequency and sequence of breast imaging and biopsy use for the diagnostic and preoperative workup of breast cancer according to breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) use among older women. MATERIALS AND METHODS Using SEER-Medicare data from 2004 to 2010, we identified women with and without breast MRI as part of their diagnostic and preoperative breast cancer workup and measured the number and sequence of breast imaging and biopsy events per woman. RESULTS A total of 10,766 (20%) women had an MRI in the diagnostic/preoperative period, 32,178 (60%) had mammogram and ultrasound, and 10,669 (20%) had mammography alone. MRI use increased across study years, tripling from 2005 to 2009 (9%-29%). Women with MRI had higher rates of breast imaging and biopsy compared with those with mammogram and ultrasound or those with mammography alone (5.8 vs. 4.1 vs. 2.8, respectively). There were 4254 unique sequences of breast events; the dominant patterns for women with MRI were an MRI occurring at the end of the care pathway. Among women receiving an MRI postdiagnosis, 26% had a subsequent biopsy compared with 51% receiving a subsequent biopsy in the subgroup without MRI. CONCLUSIONS Older women who receive breast MRI undergo additional breast imaging and biopsy events. There is much variability in the diagnostic/preoperative work-up in older women, demonstrating the opportunity to increase standardization to optimize care for all women.

Background Despite substantial resources devoted to cancer screening nationally, the availability of clinical practice-based systems to support screening guidelines is not known.

Study design An analysis of the State Inpatient Database of North Carolina, 2005 to 2012, and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, including all inpatient lumbar fusion admissions from nonfederal hospitals. Objective The aim of the study was to examine the influence of a major commercial policy change that restricted lumbar fusion for certain indications and to forecast the potential impact if the policy were adopted nationally. Summary of background data Few studies have examined the effects of recent changes in commercial coverage policies that restrict the use of lumbar fusion. Methods We included adults undergoing elective lumbar fusion or re-fusion operations in North Carolina. We aggregated data into a monthly time series to report changes in the rates and volume of lumbar fusion operations for disc herniation or degeneration, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, or revision fusions. Time series regression models were used to test for significant changes in the use of fusion operation following a major commercial coverage policy change initiated on January 1, 2011. Results There was a substantial decline in the use of lumbar fusion for disc herniation or degeneration following the policy change on January 1, 2011. Overall rates of elective lumbar fusion operations in North Carolina (per 100,000 residents) increased from 103.2 in 2005 to 120.4 in 2009, before declining to 101.9 by 2012. The population rate (per 100,000 residents) of fusion among those under age 65 increased from 89.5 in 2005 to 101.2 in 2009, followed by a sharp decline to 76.8 by 2012. There was no acceleration in the already increasing rate of fusion for spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, or revision procedures, but there was a coincident increase in decompression without fusion. Conclusion This commercial insurance policy change had its intended effect of reducing fusion operations for indications with less evidence of effectiveness without changing rates for other indications or resulting in an overall reduction in spine surgery. Nevertheless, broader adoption of the policy could significantly reduce the national rates of fusion operations and associated costs. Level of evidence 3.

Study design Cost-effectiveness analysis. Objective To examine the cost-effectiveness of operative versus non-operative treatment of type-II odontoid fractures in patients older than 64 years old. Summary of background data Significant controversy exists regarding the optimum treatment of geriatric patients with type-II odontoid fractures. Operative treatment leads to lower rates of non-union but carries surgical risks. Non-operative treatment does not carry surgical risks but has higher non-union rates. Methods A decision-analytic model was created to compare operative and non-operative treatment of type-II odontoid fractures among three age cohorts (65-74, 75-84, >84) based on expected costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; cost per QALY gained). Age-specific mortality rates for both treatments, costs for treatment, and complication rates were taken from the literature, and data from 2010 US life tables were used for age-specific life expectancy. Costs of complications were estimated using data obtained at a level-I trauma center using micro-costing. Sensitivity analyses of all model parameters were conducted. Results Among the 65- to 74-year-old cohort, operative treatment was more costly ($53,407 vs. $30,553) and more effective (12.00 vs. 10.11 QALY), with an ICER of $12,078/QALY. Among the 75- to 84-year-old cohort, operative treatment was more costly ($51,308 vs. $29,789) and more effective (6.85 vs. 6.31 QALY), with an ICER of $40,467/QALY. Among the over-84 cohort, operative treatment was dominated by non-operative treatment as it was both more costly ($45,978 vs. $28,872) and less effective (2.48 vs. 3.73 QALY). The model was robust to sensitivity analysis across reasonable ranges for utility of union, disutility of complications and delayed surgery, and probabilities of non-union and complications. Conclusion Operative treatment is cost-effective in patients age 65 to 84 when using $100,000/QALY as a benchmark but less effective and more costly than non-operative treatment in patients older than 84 years. Level of evidence 2.

We report on second fracture occurrence in the year following a hip, shoulder or wrist fracture using insurance claims. Among 273,330 people, 4.3 % had a second fracture; risk did not differ by first fracture type. Estimated adjusted second fracture probabilities may facilitate population-based evaluation of secondary fracture prevention strategies. The purpose of this study was estimate second fracture risk for the older US population in the year following a hip, shoulder, or wrist fracture. Observational cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with an index hip, shoulder, or wrist fragility fracture in 2009. Time-to-event analyses using Cox proportional hazards models to characterize the relationship between index fracture type (hip, shoulder, wrist) and patient factors (age, gender, and comorbidity) on second fracture risk in the year following the index fracture. Among 273,330 individuals with fracture, 11,885 (4.3 %) sustained a second hip, shoulder or wrist fracture within one year. Hip fracture was most common, regardless of the index fracture type. Comparing adjusted second fracture risks across index fracture types reveals that the magnitude of second fracture risk within each age-comorbidity group is similar regardless of the index fracture. Men and women face similar risks with frequently overlapping confidence intervals, except among women aged 85 years or older who are at greater risk. Regardless of index fracture type, second fractures are common in the year following hip, shoulder or wrist fracture. Secondary fracture prevention strategies that take a population perspective should be informed by these estimates which take competing mortality risks into account.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is emerging as the new standard of care for breast cancer screening based on improved cancer detection coupled with reductions in recall compared to screening with digital mammography (DM) alone. However, many prior studies lack follow-up data to assess false negatives examinations. The purpose of this study is to assess if DBT is associated with improved screening outcomes based on follow-up data from tumor registries or pathology. Retrospective analysis of prospective cohort data from three research centers performing DBT screening in the PROSPR consortium from 2011 to 2014 was performed. Recall and biopsy rates were assessed from 198,881 women age 40-74 years undergoing screening (142,883 DM and 55,998 DBT examinations). Cancer, cancer detection, and false negative rates and positive predictive values were assessed on examinations with one year of follow-up. Logistic regression was used to compare DBT to DM adjusting for research center, age, prior breast imaging, and breast density. There was a reduction in recall with DBT compared to DM (8.7 vs. 10.4 %, p < 0.0001), with adjusted OR = 0.68 (95 % CI = 0.65-0.71). DBT demonstrated a statistically significant increase in cancer detection over DM (5.9 vs. 4.4/1000 screened, adjusted OR = 1.45, 95 % CI = 1.12-1.88), an improvement in PPV1 (6.4 % for DBT vs. 4.1 % for DM, adjusted OR = 2.02, 95 % CI = 1.54-2.65), and no significant difference in false negative rates for DBT compared to DM (0.46 vs. 0.60/1000 screened, p = 0.347). Our data support implementation of DBT screening based on increased cancer detection, reduced recall, and no difference in false negative screening examinations.

Primary care providers and health systems have prominent roles in guiding effective cancer screening. To characterize variation in screening abnormality rates and timely initial follow-up for common cancer screening tests. Population-based cohort undergoing screening in 2011, 2012, or 2013 at seven research centers comprising the National Cancer Institute-sponsored Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. Adults undergoing mammography with or without digital breast tomosynthesis (n = 97,683 ages 40–75 years), fecal occult blood or fecal immunochemical tests (n = 759,553 ages 50–75 years), or Papanicolaou with or without human papillomavirus tests (n = 167,330 ages 21–65 years). Breast, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening. Abnormality rates per 1000 screens; percentage with timely initial follow-up (within 90 days, except 9-month window for BI-RADS 3). Primary care clinic-level variation in percentage with screening abnormality and percentage with timely initial follow-up. There were 10,248/97,683 (104.9 per 1000) abnormal breast cancer screens, 35,847/759,553 (47.2 per 1000) FOBT/FIT-positive colorectal cancer screens, and 13,266/167,330 (79.3 per 1000) abnormal cervical cancer screens. The percentage with timely follow-up was 93.2 to 96.7 % for breast centers, 46.8 to 68.7 % for colorectal centers, and 46.6 % for the cervical cancer screening center (low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or higher). The primary care clinic variation (25th to 75th percentile) was smaller for the percentage with an abnormal screen (breast, 8.5–10.3 %; colorectal, 3.0–4.8 %; cervical, 6.3–9.9 %) than for the percentage with follow-up within 90 days (breast, 90.2–95.8 %; colorectal, 43.4–52.0 %; cervical, 29.6–61.4 %). Variation in both the rate of screening abnormalities and their initial follow-up was evident across organ sites and primary care clinics. This highlights an opportunity for improving the delivery of cancer screening through focused study of patient, provider, clinic, and health system characteristics associated with timely follow-up of screening abnormalities.