Costs of Adjuvant Breast Cancer Treatments

Author(s):  
Nina Oestreicher
2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18) ◽  
pp. 2516-2521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina A. Bickell ◽  
Felice LePar ◽  
Jason J. Wang ◽  
Howard Leventhal

Purpose Women with breast cancer do not consistently receive adjuvant treatments that have been shown to increase survival. Acquiring an understanding of the reasons for these lost opportunities may inform strategies for quality improvement. Methods Interviews were conducted with surgeons treating 119 women who did not receive guideline-recommended adjuvant therapy to ascertain reasons underlying treatment omission. Primary reason for underuse was categorized as not recommended, recommended but declined, or system failure (treatment recommended, not refused but did not ensue). Logistic regression identified patient characteristics, and surgeons' practice and referral patterns associated with underuse. Results Surgeons did not recommend adjuvant treatment for 41 (34%) of 119 women, most often because perceived risks exceeded benefits (37 of 119; 31%); unawareness of treatment benefits was rare (four of 119; 3%). Among the 78 (66%) of 119 for whom surgeons recommended treatment, 37 (31%) declined therapy; 41 (34%) system failures occurred. System failures occurred more commonly among minority than white women (73% v 54%; P < .01), and more commonly in women who were receiving Medicaid or were uninsured than those with Medicare or commercial insurance (54% v 19%; P < .01). Women treated by a surgeon who works closely with oncologists were less likely to experience a system failure (84% v 68%; P < .05). Conclusion One third of underuse episodes were attributable to surgeons' perceptions that treatment was not indicated, one third because women did not accept recommendations, and one third were the result of system failures. Reasons for underuse of adjuvant breast cancer treatments appear multifactorial and this heterogeneity suggests the need for simultaneous development of different strategies to improve care.


2017 ◽  
Vol 72 ◽  
pp. S13
Author(s):  
H. Aula ◽  
T. Skyttä ◽  
T. Luukkaala ◽  
M. Hämäläinen ◽  
E. Moilanen ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 88 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 745-750 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda Pattanasri ◽  
Kenneth Elder ◽  
Carolyn Nickson ◽  
Samuel Cooke ◽  
Dorothy Machalek ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
G.D. Farmer ◽  
G.M. Pearson ◽  
W.J. Skylark ◽  
A.L.J. Freeman ◽  
D.J. Spiegelhalter

AbstractObjectivesTo develop a new interface for the widely used prognostic breast cancer tool: PREDICT. To facilitate shared decision-making around post-surgery breast cancer treatments. To derive insights into communicating the outputs of prognostic models to patients and their clinicians.MethodWe applied user-centred design principles in developing a new interface for PREDICT. The research involved online surveys, focus groups, meetings, and usability testing with patients, clinicians and the public.ResultsThe new interface has been launched and delivers around 30,000 sessions per month. We identified several principles that are useful when communicating the output of prognostic models, including multiple presentation formats, and contextualising statistics. A programme of future work based on patient and clinician feedback has been developed, including the provision of quantitative data on the adverse effects of adjuvant breast cancer treatments.ConclusionsFor prognostic algorithms to fulfil their potential to assist with shared decision-making they need carefully designed interfaces. User-centred design puts patients and clinicians needs at the forefront, allowing them to derive the maximum benefit from prognostic models.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document