Search

Breast cancer is the most prevalent malignancy in pregnancy. Pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC), defined here as cancer detected during pregnancy or in the first year after miscarriage or delivery, accounts for nearly 7% of breast cancers in women under 45 years of age. This rate nearly doubles among women under 35. While there is increasing attention to the pathology of PABC, little is known about the pathways to diagnosis, how these young women navigate these pathways, and the barriers resulting in delays. Methods We conducted a qualitative study of young breast cancer survivors (YBCS) under age 45 to explore their paths to diagnosis. We administered a 52-item online survey to a convenience sample of YBCS (n=163), including open-ended questions about diagnosis experience and multiple-choice and short answer questions on demographics and disease status. This analysis focuses on the subset of women diagnosed with PABC (n=26). Data were analyzed using qualitative methods of content analysis. Results Our analysis generated a patient-experience model of YBCS diagnosis comprised of four phases: discovery, exploration, investigation, and confirmation. In discovery, women with PABC often delayed seeking care, attributing breast changes to pregnancy or breastfeeding and waiting to explore symptoms until their next scheduled clinic appointment. Participants also reported delays following discovery due to availability of newborn/child-care or insurance issues. In exploration, women with PABC frequently relied on their regular healthcare provider to assess their symptoms. They reported that providers often expressed confidence that symptoms were due to pregnancy or breastfeeding and did not recommend further investigation until symptoms worsened. Women with PABC generally demonstrated trust in providers’ assessments of symptoms, with limited evidence to suggest that respondents requested more aggressive or timely evaluation. In investigation, women with PABC reported that when symptoms progressed, the pace of the diagnostic process shifted, moving quickly with few delays or barriers, and rapid scheduling for diagnostic testing and follow-up managed by the healthcare provider. This rapid pace continued through confirmation, when respondents noted prompt, short intervals between diagnostics and intensive activities in preparation for treatment. Women with PABC also noted they often received referrals for mental health support as part of the diagnosis process. While participants reported frequent reliance on their partner, mother, and mother-in-law for support, they often experienced isolation due to the time and effort required to care for a newborn during preparation for breast cancer treatment. Conclusions This patient-experience model of pregnancy associated breast cancer diagnosis in young women documents the timing and nature of delays, including the phases where delays occur most frequently, and can help inform the development and evaluation of targeted interventions to improve timely care. Delays experienced in the discovery and exploration phases are often due to the attribution of symptoms to pregnancy or breastfeeding by both patients and possibly their healthcare providers. The intensity and pace of the diagnostic process shifts notably when symptoms progress, with healthcare providers taking an active role to ensure rapid diagnosis and treatment planning. The model identifies opportunities for health care systems to address barriers and facilitators to the diagnostic process for PABC and improve quality of care across all phases. A detailed understanding of the PABC patient experience identifies opportunities to reduce barriers to care, facilitate timely diagnosis, and provide a roadmap to support the unique needs of young women undergoing an evaluation for breast cancer while pregnant or postpartum. Citation Format: Tamara Hamlish, Sarah Strom, Pamela Ganschow. A patient experience model of diagnosis of pregnancy associated breast cancer (PABC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-12-06.

Background: Patients at increased risk of breast (BC) and/or ovarian (OC) cancer can opt for risk-reducing surgeries (RRS). However, there are disparities in access to genomic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) and cancer prevention interventions related to geography, socioeconomic status, and limited public health support. We studied factors that affect the uptake of risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in Hispanic patients of Latin America (LatAm) and the United States (US). Methods: Hispanic women enrolled in the Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network registry between 1997-2019 who underwent genetic testing, had a personal or family history (FHX) of BC or OC, and had ≥6 months of follow-up data were considered eligible. Demographic and clinical factors associated with risk-appropriate uptake of RRS were considered. Data were analyzed using Fisher’s exact tests and logistic regression models. Results: 1818 patients with a median follow-up of 43 months were studied. Most were from the US (65%), followed by Mexico (21%), Peru (10%), Colombia (2%), and Puerto Rico (2%). Median age at enrollment was 44 years; 81% had a personal history of BC and 5% of OC. Cancer-associated pathogenic variants (PVs) were identified in 459 patients (25%); 409 were in BRCA, 36 had other BC-susceptibility PVs (ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, PTEN, or TP53), and 14 had other OC-susceptibility PVs (BRIP1, MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, or RAD51C). Overall, 449/1715 (26.2%) patients underwent RRM, with a higher rate among patients in the US than those in LatAm (31% vs. 17%, p Conclusion: There are disparities in the uptake of RRS outside the US. Beyond limitations in resources, understanding the factors associated with undergoing RRS could be key to developing targeted interventions to improve the uptake of risk-appropriate measures in hereditary cancer syndrome patients. Citation Format: Jeffrey N. Weitzel, Yanin Chavarri-Guerra, Ana Ferrigno, Pamela Mora-Alférez, Annette Campbell-Fontaine, Cynthia Villarreal-Garza, Alejandro Mohar-Betancourt, Gubidxa Gutierrez-Seymour, Gary W. Unzeitig, Sandra Brown, Bita Nehoray, Azucena del Toro-Valero, Pamela Ganschow, Ian Komenaka, Yenni Rodriguez, Francisco Gutierrez-Delgado, Kathleen R. Blazer. Disparity in the uptake of risk-reducing surgery after GCRA in Hispanic patients in Latin America and in the United States [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 2214.

Background: Multiple interventions have been developed to address Latina-White breast cancer (BC) disparities. Yet, little is known about what drives successful implementation, resulting in limited and less successful translation to practice. Engaging participants, community staff, and academicians in program evaluation may enhance identification of factors driving implementation, given differences in lived experience and intervention roles. Objective: We engaged 20 Latina participants, 3 community health workers (CHWs), and 3 research staff to identify determinants of: (1) intervention appropriateness (extent to which interventions addressed BC disparities), (2) feasibility (extent to which intervention delivery/participation was possible), and (3) acceptability (extent to which interventions were satisfactory). Method: The “Empowering Latinas to Obtain Breast Cancer Screenings” trial compared the efficacy of two interventions on BC screening uptake among 142 Latinas who were non-adherent to US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) BC screening guidelines. Both interventions employed CHWs with personal/family history of BC to deliver 3 group sessions and refer patients to navigation services. The current study focuses on a qualitative program evaluation of the trial. All participants completed audio-recorded semi-structured interviews. A sample question was “What helped make it possible to participate in/lead the intervention?.” We conducted deductive content analysis, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science, on verbatim transcripts. Results: Emergent themes suggest distinct multilevel determinants of different implementation outcomes. Intervention acceptability and appropriateness were driven by (1) characteristics at intervention (e.g., adaptability to personal needs – e.g., personalized literacy assistance; addressing diverse barriers to BC screening); (2) characteristics of the CHW interventionists (e.g., information delivered via BC survivors' personal experiences); and, (3) characteristics of organizations (e.g., trusted service providers). Intervention feasibility was driven by (1) organizational (e.g., intervention compatibility with mission; clear delineated a priori tasks for intervention delivery) and (2) partnership characteristics (e.g., strength of relationships between academics, community leaders, and clinical navigation BC services). Differences in stakeholder perspectives aligned with their lived experiences. For example, participants' personal challenges with BC screening, CHWs' past experiences leading BC programs, and researchers' awareness of past research on BC disparities affected perceptions about intervention appropriateness. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the value of multi-stakeholder analysis and specify the types of intervention and study team characteristics that are needed to make interventions appropriate, acceptable, and feasible for Latina-White BC equity. Citation Format: Yamilé Molina, Perla Chebli, Stephanie A. Torres, Joanna Olazar, Jeanette Olazar, Katherine Reyes, Juanita Arroyo, Maria Medina, Nora Coronado, Araceli Lucio, Garth H. Rauscher, Lauren Green, Pamela Ganschow, Candyce H. Kroenke, Marc Atkins. Successful implementation of Latina breast health programs: A multi-stakeholder analysis to answer a multilevel question [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: 14th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2021 Oct 6-8. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-028.

A1 Introduction to the 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation: Optimizing Personal and Population Health David Chambers1, Lisa Simpson2 1Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA; 2AcademyHealth, Washington, DC, 20036, USA For the second year in a row, we are pleased to be able to share the proceedings of the Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health, a large meeting reflecting the expanding and evolving research field that seeks to optimize the use of evidence, interventions, and tools from health research within the myriad of settings where people receive health care, make health-related decisions, and increase knowledge of influences on the health of the population. We once again benefitted from a strong partnership, co-led by AcademyHealth and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with co-sponsorship from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the WT Grant Foundation. In addition, we benefitted from the collaboration of staff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). NIH and AcademyHealth again co-led the program planning committee, which focused on the development of the plenary sessions, and convened a scientific advisory panel to suggest speakers and advise on the overall conference development. The planning committee identified four key areas around which to focus the plenary panels and keynote address. Dr. America Bracho, M.D., M.P.H., Executive Director of Latino Health Access in Orange County, California, spoke about the opportunities for implementation science to inform efforts to improve community health and engage underserved populations. The three plenary panels each focused on a significant future direction for dissemination and implementation (D & I) research: the interface between D&I science and population health, emerging opportunities for global implementation science, and the challenges around implementation of precision medicine. The plenary sessions were complemented by facilitated lunchtime discussions on the same three topics, which offered participants an opportunity to identify key research questions for each and brainstorm next steps. Synopses of the lunchtime discussions are included in this supplement. Given the overwhelming success of the 2014 conference and the large number of abstracts received in 2014 (660), the program planning committee identified eight program tracks for abstract submitters to respond to, and through which the concurrent sessions of the conference would be organized. These tracks—Behavioral Health, Big Data and Technology for Dissemination and Implementation Research, Clinical Care Settings, Global Dissemination and Implementation, Promoting Health Equity and Eliminating Disparities, Health Policy Dissemination and Implementation, Prevention and Public Health, and Models, Measures and Methods— were designed to enable conference participants to follow a consistent theme across the multiple sessions of the conference and form the structure of this supplement. The call for abstracts, including individual paper presentations, individual posters and panel presentations, resulted in 515 submissions, spread across the eight thematic tracks. Over one hundred reviewers devoted their time to ensuring a comprehensive and expert review, and reviews were conducted within each track and coordinated by the track leads. For the final program, 64 oral presentations, 12 panels, and 263 posters were presented over the two-day meeting. Slides for the oral presentations and panels (with the agreement of the authors) were posted on the conference website (http://diconference.academyhealth.org/archives/2015archives) and all abstracts were included on the conference webapp (https://academyhealth.confex.com/academyhealth/2015di/meetingapp.cgi). This supplement has compiled the abstracts for presented papers, panel sessions, and lunchtime discussions from the 8th Annual Meeting on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health: Optimizing Personal and Population Health. We are pleased to have the abstracts from the conference together in one volume once again, and look forward to the 9th Annual meeting, scheduled for December in Washington, D.C.

To provide health care providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on the diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).An non-DHHS, nonadvocate 14-member panel representing the fields of fields of oncology, radiology, surgery (general and reconstructive), pathology, radiation oncology, internal medicine, epidemiology, biostatistics, nursing, obstetrics and gynecology, preventative medicine and population health, and social work. In addition, 22 experts from pertinent fields presented data to the panel and conference audience.Presentations by experts and a systematic review of the literature prepared by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience.The panel drafted its statement based on scientific evidence presented in open forum and on published scientific literature. The draft statement was presented on the final day of the conference and circulated to the audience for comment. The panel released a revised statement later that day at http://consensus.nih.gov. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government.The diagnosis and management of DCIS is highly complex with many unanswered questions, including the fundamental natural history of untreated disease. Because of the noninvasive nature of DCIS, coupled with its favorable prognosis, strong consideration should be given to remove the anxiety-producing term "carcinoma" from the description of DCIS. The outcomes in women treated with available therapies are excellent. Thus, the primary question for future research must focus on the accurate identification of patient subsets diagnosed with DCIS, including those persons who may be managed with less therapeutic intervention without sacrificing the excellent outcomes presently achieved. Essential in this quest will be the development and validation of accurate risk stratification methods based on a comprehensive understanding of the clinical, radiological, pathological, and biological factors associated with DCIS.