Search

To support shared decision-making, patient-facing resources are needed to complement recently published guidelines on approaches for surveillance mammography in breast cancer survivors aged ≥ 75 or with 10-year life expectancy. We created a patient guide to facilitate discussions about surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors.The "Are Mammograms Still Right for Me?" guide estimates future ipsilateral and contralateral breast (in-breast) cancer risks, general health, and the potential benefits/harms of mammography, with prompts for discussion. We conducted in-clinic acceptability testing of the guide by survivors and their clinicians at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center, including two community practices. Patients and clinicians received the guide ahead of a clinic visit and surveyed patients (pre-/post-visit) and clinicians (post-visit). Acceptability was defined as ≥ 75% of patients and clinicians reporting that the guide (a) should be recommended to others, (b) is clear, (c) is helpful, and (d) contains a suitable amount of information. We also elicited feedback on usability and mammography intentions.We enrolled 45 patients and their 21 clinicians. Among those responding in post-visit surveys, 33/37 (89%) patients and 15/16 (94%) clinicians would recommend the guide to others; 33/37 (89%) patients and 15/16 (94%) clinicians felt everything/most things were clear. All other pre-specified acceptability criteria were met. Most patients reported strong intentions for mammography (100% pre-visit, 98% post-visit).Oncology clinicians and older breast cancer survivors found a guide to inform mammography decision-making acceptable and clear. A multisite clinical trial is needed to assess the guide's impact mammography utilization.ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT03865654, posted March 7, 2019.

e18554 Background: Low-income and minority women are less likely to receive breast cancer treatments and have higher mortality rates compared with other women.We examined economic hardship, health literacy, and numeracy by race/ethnicity and whether these factors were associated with differences in receipt of recommended treatment. Methods: We conducted a telephone survey in 2018-2020 of adult women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2013-2016 at three centers in Boston and New York. We asked women about treatment receipt and factors contributing to decision-making. We used X2 and Fischer exact tests to examine associations between economic distress, health literacy/numeracy, and treatment receipt by race/ethnicity. Results: Among 326 respondents (AAPOR cooperation rate 63-80% across sites), 55% were Non-Hispanic (NH) White, 23% were NH Black, and 14% Hispanic; 15% were Medicaid-insured. Due to item non-response, sample sizes ranged from 294-315 per question. A substantial proportion of women, and particularly Black and Hispanic women, reported economic distress, worse finances over time, and low literacy/numeracy (Table). Overall, 7% (n = 22) did not initiate at least one recommended treatment. Although we observed no differences in treatment by race/ethnicity (p = 0.70), those not initiating recommended treatment(s) reported more worry about paying large medical bills (52% vs. 27%) and covering visit costs (27 vs. 10%); p < .05 for both. Conclusions: In a diverse sample of breast cancer survivors, financial distress was common, particularly for non-White participants; non-White women also had lower literacy/numeracy. Although we observed some associations of these factors (but not race/ethnicity) with less receipt of recommended treatments, because few women declined treatments, understanding the scope of impact is limited. However, our results highlight the importance of up-front and longer-term assessments of resource needs and allocation of support for breast cancer survivors. Novelty of this work includes the granular measures on financial distress and the focus on health literacy/numeracy among a diverse population.[Table: see text]

The prognostic significance of low-volume residual nodal disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is unknown. Women with cT1–4N0–1 breast cancer treated with NAC were identified from Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center (DFBWCC) and the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) estimates according to pathologic nodal status were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method, with Cox proportional hazards regression used to assess the effect of clinical variables on survival outcomes. Among 967 DFBWCC patients, 27 (2.8%) had residual isolated tumor cells (ITCs) and 61 (6.3%) had micrometastases. Five-year DFS was significantly worse in those with residual ITCs (73.5%) and micrometastases (74.7%) relative to those who were ypN0 following NAC (88.4%, p