Search

PurposeLittle is known about the roles of genetic and molecular testing and Lynch syndrome screening in the formulation of predictive and prognostic assessments for patients with stage II colorectal cancer (CRC).MethodsFrom 2012 to 2013, we surveyed medical oncologists in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium and evaluated oncologists' selection of microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, germline testing for MMR genes, BRAF and KRAS mutation analysis, and Oncotype DX in stage II CRC. Physicians were randomly assigned to receive one of three vignettes that varied by strength of CRC family history. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify physician and practice characteristics associated with test selection.ResultsAmong 327 oncologists, MSI and/or IHC for MMR proteins were most frequently selected (n = 205; 64%), with 82% versus 53% choosing MSI/IHC testing in patients with strong versus no CRC family history, respectively (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.87; 95% CI, 2.07 to 7.22). KRAS and Oncotype DX testing were chosen by 24% and 38% of oncologists, respectively. Graduates of non-US and Canadian medical schools and physicians compensated by fee-for-service or on the basis of productivity were more likely to choose KRAS testing versus those receiving salaries not on the basis of productivity (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.17 to 3.99; and OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.66, respectively). Fee-for-service or productivity-based salaries were also associated with increased odds of Oncotype DX testing (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.17 to 3.55).ConclusionAmong surveyed oncologists, we found undertesting and overtesting related to genetic and molecular testing and Lynch syndrome screening for patients with stage II CRC,highlighting the need for improved implementation, targeted education, and evaluation of organizational and financial arrangements to promote the appropriate use of such tests.

BackgroundQuality care for patients with cancer often requires access to specialty providers, but little is known about barriers to referring cancer patients for specialized care. Referral barriers may also lessen physician career satisfaction. The study was aimed at determining what factors are associated with these barriers and whether greater barriers are associated with low career satisfaction.MethodsThis cross-sectional study examined 1562 primary care physicians (PCPs) and 2144 specialists responding to the multiregional Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium physician survey. The prevalence of physician-reported barriers to referring cancer patients for more specialized care (restricted provider networks, preauthorization requirements, patient inability to pay, lack of surgical subspecialists, and excessive patient travel time) was assessed. The 5 items were averaged to calculate a barrier score. A multivariate linear regression was used to determine physician and practice setting characteristics associated with the barrier score, and a multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the association of the barrier score with physician career satisfaction.ResultsThree in 5 physicians reported always, usually, or sometimes encountering any barrier to cancer patient specialty referrals. In adjusted analyses of PCPs and specialists, international medical graduates, physicians practicing in solo or government-owned practices, and physicians with

BackgroundClinical trials are essential to establish the effectiveness of new cancer therapies, but less than 5% of adults with cancer enroll in trials. In addition to ineligibility or lack of available trials, barriers to enrollment may include limited patient awareness about the option of participation.MethodsWe surveyed a multiregional cohort of patients with lung or colorectal cancer (or their surrogates) three to six months after diagnosis. We assessed whether respondents reported learning that clinical trial participation might be an option, and, if so, with whom they discussed trials. We used logistic regression to assess the association of patient characteristics with discussing trial participation and enrolling in trials. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsOf 7887 respondents, 1114 (14.1%) reported discussing the possibility of clinical trial participation; most learned about trials from their physicians, and 287 patients (3.6% of all patients, 25.8% of trial discussants) enrolled. Among 2173 patients who received chemotherapy for advanced (stage III/IV lung or stage IV colorectal) cancer, 25.7% discussed trials, and 7.6% (29.5% of trial discussants) enrolled. Discussions were less frequent among older patients, African American or Asian vs white patients, and those with lower incomes and more comorbidity. Enrollment was higher among patients reporting shared vs physician-driven decisions (all P < .05).ConclusionsIn this population-based cohort, only 14% of patients discussed participation in clinical trials. Discussions were more frequent among advanced cancer patients but were still reported by a minority of patients. Strategies to expand access to trials and facilitate patient-provider communication about participation may accelerate development of better cancer therapeutics.

This study examined the physical and mental health of 126,685 males and females age 65 or over, with and without cancer that completed a Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) between 1998-2002. Cancer information was ascertained through the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program and linked to MHOS data. Results indicated that across most cancer types, cancer patients reported significantly more comorbid conditions and poorer physical and mental health compared with patients without cancer. Negative associations were most pronounced in those with two or more comorbidities and in those diagnosed with cancer within the past year.