Worry about recurrence and patient preferences for provider roles in collaborative breast cancer care.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 158-158
Author(s):  
Lauren P. Wallner ◽  
Nancy K. Janz ◽  
Yun Li ◽  
Christopher Ryan Friese ◽  
Kevin C. Ward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Preventive Care ◽  
Patient Preferences ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Multinomial Logistic Regression ◽  
Cancer Recurrence ◽  
Continuing Care ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Worry About Recurrence

158 Background: Prior studies have shown that worry about recurrence is a common problem during cancer treatment and survivorship and may be associated with symptom response and surveillance after primary treatment. However, whether worry about recurrence influences patient preferences for which provider to see for their continuing care remains unknown. Methods: A random sample of patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer in 2014-15 as reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries were surveyed approximately 6 months after diagnosis (N = 2,502, 70% response rate). Frequency of worry about recurrence was defined by asking women to indicate on a 5-pt scale how often they worried about their cancer coming back in the past month (not at all-always) and was then dichotomized as frequent worry (sometimes/often/almost always) vs. less worry (almost never/rarely). Patient preferences for which provider manages certain aspects of care after treatment were ascertained for: follow-up mammograms, screening for other cancers, general preventive care, and treatment of comorbidities. Response categories included primary care clinician (PCP), cancer doctors, either or both. The associations between patient-reported worry about recurrence with preferences for provider roles were assessed using multinomial logistic regression. Results: In this sample, 37% of women reported worrying frequently about recurrence. Controlling for patient and clinical factors, women who reported more frequent worry (vs. less worry) were more likely to prefer to see both clinicians (vs. PCP only) for mammograms (OR: 2.3, 95%CI: 1.5, 3.6), screening for other cancers (OR: 2.3, 95%CI: 1.5, 3.5), general preventive care (OR: 1.6, 95%CI: 1.1, 2.3) and comorbidity care (OR: 1.5, 95%CI: 1.03, 2.2). Conclusions: Frequent worry about recurrence was common in this sample of women with favorable prognosis breast cancer. More frequent worry about breast cancer recurrence was associated with stronger preferences for seeing both PCPs and oncologists for continuing care after treatment. Assessing and managing worry about recurrence early in survivorship may improve collaborative cancer care and reduce duplicated services after treatment.

Patient preferences for provider roles in collaborative breast cancer survivorship care.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 184-184
Author(s):  
Lauren P. Wallner ◽  
Paul Abrahamse ◽  
Christopher Ryan Friese ◽  
Steven J. Katz ◽  
Sarah T. Hawley
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Preventive Care ◽  
Patient Preferences ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Multinomial Logistic Regression ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Current Response ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Emotional Symptoms

184 Background: Prior studies have exploredbarriers to collaborative cancer care and suggest a need for greater clarity about clinician roles. However, little is known about patient’s preferences and expectations for which clinicians handle various aspects of care after primary cancer treatment. Methods: A weighted random sample of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients in the Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries were surveyed approximately 6 months after diagnosis (expected final N = 2600, 70% current response rate). Patient preferences for which clinician handles the following aspects of care after treatment were ascertained: follow-up mammograms, screening for other cancers, general preventive care, treatment of comorbidities, physical symptoms, emotional symptoms, and reassurance about their breast cancer. Response categories included primary care clinician (PCP), cancer doctors, either or both. The associations between patient demographic and clinical factors with preferences for clinician roles were assessed using multinomial logistic regression. Results: In a preliminary sample (N = 1038), the majority of women preferred to see oncologists for mammograms (63%), other cancer screening (67%) and reassurance about their cancer (75%) and PCPs for general preventive care (80%), comorbid care (85%) and emotional symptoms (67%). Black women (vs. White) were more likely to prefer to see both clinicians for mammograms (OR: 3.7, 95%CI: 2.5, 5.5), screening for other cancers (OR: 2.1, 95%CI: 1.3, 3.2), reassurance about their cancer (OR: 2.1, 95%CI: 1.3, 3.2), and general preventive care (OR: 4.0, 95%CI: 2.1, 7.8). Black and Hispanic women were more likely to prefer to see both for comorbidity care (Black OR: 3.2, 95%CI: 1.6, 6.3; Hispanic OR: 2.6, 95%CI: 1.1, 6.3). Less than a high school education was also associated with a preference for seeing both clinicians for comorbidity care. Conclusions: While patients report clear preferences for which clinicians handle various aspects of their collaborative survivorship care, variation exists by race and education. Targeting these patients to clarify clinician roles may be particularly effective in interventions to improve collaborative cancer care.

Patient preferences for provider roles in collaborative breast cancer survivorship care.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 99-99
Author(s):  
Lauren P. Wallner ◽  
Yun Li ◽  
Christopher Ryan Friese ◽  
Kevin C. Ward ◽  
Ann S. Hamilton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Black Women ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Preventive Care ◽  
Patient Preferences ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Multinomial Logistic Regression ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Race And Education

99 Background: Prior studies have explored barriers to collaborative cancer care and suggest a need for greater clarity about clinician roles. However, little is known about patient’s preferences and expectations for which clinicians handle various aspects of care after primary cancer treatment. Methods: A weighted random sample of patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer in 2014-15 as reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries were surveyed approximately 6 months after diagnosis (N = 2,342, 70% response rate). Patient preferences for which clinician handles the following aspects of care after treatment were ascertained: follow-up mammograms, screening for other cancers, general preventive care, treatment of comorbidities and reassurance about their breast cancer. Response categories included primary care clinician (PCP), cancer doctors, either or both. The associations between patient demographic and clinical factors with preferences for clinician roles were assessed using multinomial logistic regression. Results: The majority of women preferred to see oncologists for mammograms (65%), other cancer screening (64%), and reassurance about their cancer (69%), and PCPs for general preventive care (76%) and comorbidity care (79%). Black women and Hispanic women (vs. White) were more likely to prefer to see both clinicians (vs. PCP) for mammograms (Black OR: 2.8, 95%CI: 1.5, 5.1; Hispanic OR: 1.9, 95%CI: 1.1, 3.3), screening for other cancers (Black OR: 3.3, 95%CI: 1.8, 6.1; Hispanic OR: 1.8, 95%CI: 1.0, 3.1), general preventive care (Black OR: 3.5, 95%CI: 2.0, 6.0; Latina OR: 2.5, 95%CI: 1.4, 4.3) and comorbidity care (Black OR: 2.1, 95%CI: 1.3, 3.6; Hispanic OR: 2.0, 95%CI: 1.2, 3.3). Less than a high school education was also associated with a preference for seeing both clinicians for mammograms. Conclusions: While patients report clear preferences for which clinicians handle various aspects of their collaborative survivorship care, variation exists by race and education. Targeting these patients to clarify clinician roles may be particularly effective in interventions to improve collaborative cancer care.

scholarly journals The INTREST registry: protocol of a multicenter prospective cohort study of predictors of women’s response to integrative breast cancer treatment

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidemarie Haller ◽  
Petra Voiß ◽  
Holger Cramer ◽  
Anna Paul ◽  
Mattea Reinisch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Prospective Cohort Study ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Breast Cancer Treatment ◽  
Cancer Data ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background Cancer registries usually assess data of conventional treatments and/or patient survival. Beyond that, little is known about the influence of other predictors of treatment response related to the use of complementary therapies (CM) and lifestyle factors affecting patients’ quality and quantity of life. Methods INTREST is a prospective cohort study collecting register data at multiple German certified cancer centers, which provide individualized, integrative, in- and outpatient breast cancer care. Patient-reported outcomes and clinical cancer data of anticipated N = 715 women with pTNM stage I-III breast cancer are collected using standardized case report forms at the time of diagnosis, after completing neo−/adjuvant chemotherapy, after completing adjuvant therapy (with the exception of endocrine therapy) as well as 1, 2, 5, and 10 years after baseline. Endpoints for multivariable prediction models are quality of life, fatigue, treatment adherence, and progression-based outcomes/survival. Predictors include the study center, sociodemographic characteristics, histologic cancer and comorbidity data, performance status, stress perception, depression, anxiety, sleep quality, spirituality, social support, physical activity, diet behavior, type of conventional treatments, use of and belief in CM treatments, and participation in a clinical trial. Safety is recorded following the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Discussion This trial is currently recruiting participants. Future analyses will allow to identify predictors of short- and long-term response to integrative breast cancer treatment in women, which, in turn, may improve cancer care as well as quality and quantity of life with cancer. Trial registration German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00014852. Retrospectively registered at July 4th, 2018.

scholarly journals Patient Preferences for Primary Care Provider Roles in Breast Cancer Survivorship Care

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (25) ◽  
pp. 2942-2948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren P. Wallner ◽  
Yun Li ◽  
Allison K.C. Furgal ◽  
Christopher R. Friese ◽  
Ann S. Hamilton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
High School ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Preventive Care ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Patient Preferences ◽  
Minority Women ◽  
High School Education ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Care Needs

Purpose Prior studies have suggested a need for greater clarity about provider roles in team-based cancer care; however, little is known about patients’ preferences regarding which providers handle their care needs after primary cancer treatment. Methods We surveyed women with newly diagnosed stages 0 to II breast cancer who were treated in 2014 and 2015 as reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries (N = 2,372; 68% response rate). Patient preferences regarding which provider handles the following care needs after treatment were ascertained: follow-up mammograms, screening for other cancers, general preventive care, and comorbidity management. Associations between patient demographic factors with preferences for provider roles—oncology-directed care versus primary care provider (PCP)–directed care—were assessed by using multivariable logistic regression. Results The majority of women preferred that their PCPs handle general preventive care (79%) and comorbidity care (84%), but a notable minority of women preferred that their oncologists direct this care (21% and 16%, respectively). Minority women—black and Asian versus white—and women with a high school education or less—versus undergraduate college education or more—displayed greater odds of preferring oncology-directed care—versus PCP-directed care—for their general preventive care (black odds ratio [OR], 2.01; 95% CI, 1.43 to 2.82; Asian OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.69; high school education or less OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). Similar variations existed for comorbidity care. Conclusion In this sample, minority women and those with less education more often preferred that oncologists direct certain aspects of their care after breast cancer treatment that are normally delivered by a PCP. Efforts to clarify provider roles in survivorship care to patients may be effective in improving team-based cancer care.

Integrating cancer care: Patient and practice management processes among surgeons who treat breast cancer

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6526-6526
Author(s):  
S. J. Katz ◽  
S. T. Hawley ◽  
J. J. Griggs ◽  
M. Morrow ◽  
T. P. Hofer
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Practice Management ◽  
Management Process ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Process Measures ◽  
Patient Support Group ◽  
Cancer Program ◽  
Management Processes

6526 Background: The Institute of Medicine has called for cancer care models that parallel those underway to integrate the management of patients with chronic conditions. The objective of this study was to evaluate patterns and correlates of such initiatives in the practices of surgeons treating women with breast cancer. Methods: We developed 5 multi-item scales to describe breast cancer patient and practice management processes based on the Chronic Care Model (multidisciplinary clinician communication; availability of clinical information; patient decision support; access to information technology; and practice management initiatives). We then performed a survey among attending surgeons of a population-based sample of patients diagnosed with breast cancer during a period from June 2005-February 2007 in metropolitan Los Angeles and Detroit (N = 312, response rate 76.1%). We evaluated the distribution of management process measures across selected characteristics of providers and practices. Results: About half of the surgeons devoted 15% or less of their total practice to breast cancer; while 16.2% of surgeons devoted 50% or more. The deployment of management processes varied markedly with most surgeons reporting low use. For example, only about 10% of surgeons indicated that half or more of their patients were exposed to multidisciplinary physician communication; while only 5% indicated that half or more of their patients were provided decision and care support services such as attending a presentation or viewing a video about breast cancer prior to surgery or attended a patient support group. Management process measures were positively associated with greater levels of surgeon specialization and the presence of a teaching program. Cancer program status (NCI center, ACS cancer program, neither) was weakly associated with any of the management process measures. Conclusions: The low uptake of patient and practice management processes observed in this study suggests that breast surgeons are not convinced that these processes matter or that there are logistical and cost barriers to implementation. More research is needed to understand how variation in patient and practice management processes may affect the quality of care for patients with breast cancer. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Implementing value-based cancer care: A multidisciplinary approach to defining breast cancer outcomes.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 16-16
Author(s):  
Oluwadamilola M. Fayanju ◽  
Tinisha L. Mayo ◽  
Tracy E. Spinks ◽  
Seohyun Lee ◽  
Carlos Hernando Barcenas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Performance Improvement ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
The United States ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Patient Portal ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Patient Reported

16 Background: Value in healthcare (patient-centered outcomes achieved per dollar spent) unifies performance improvement goals with health outcomes of importance to patients. We describe the process through which value-based measures for breast cancer patients and dynamic capture of these metrics via our new electronic health record (EHR) were developed at our institution. Methods: A review of the breast cancer literature was conducted on treatment options as well as expected outcomes and potential treatment complications. Patient perspective was obtained via focus groups. Multidisciplinary teams met to inform a 3-phase process of (1) concept development, (2) measure specification, and (3) implementation via EHR integration, planned for spring 2016. Results: Outcomes were divided into 3 previously defined tiers (NEJM 2010; 363:2477-2481) that reflect the entire cycle of care (Table).Within these tiers, 22 patient-centered outcomes were defined with inclusion/exclusion criteria, specifications for reporting, and sources for data including the EHR and validated patient-reported outcome questionnaires (e.g., FACT-B+4) administered via our patient portal. Conclusions: A value-based approach to cancer care with transparently reported patient outcomes not only creates opportunity for performance improvement but also enables benchmarking within and across providers, healthcare systems, and even countries. Our value-based framework for breast cancer is the first of its kind in the United States, with a similar model being pursued internationally as well. [Table: see text]

Outcomes in breast cancer from the patient perspective: Development of an innovative, user-centered platform for collection and reporting of patient-reported data.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 188-188
Author(s):  
Elena Tsangaris ◽  
Rakasa Pattanaik ◽  
Joanna O'Gorman ◽  
Jessica Means ◽  
Noah Sarucia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Web Application ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Quality Improvement Initiative ◽  
Breast Cancer Care ◽  
Clinical Implementation ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Reported Data ◽  
User Centered

188 Background: Transition towards a patient-centered healthcare model has been recognized as an important step towards improving the quality and coordination of breast cancer care. Although evidence suggests that patient self-reporting of quality of life improves clinical care, there are significant barriers to successful collection and use of patient-reported data (PRD) including a lack of a technology designed to fully engage patients and providers, limited electronic health record (EHR) integration, and suboptimal clinical implementation strategies. To address this, our team developed imPROVE, an innovative and customizable patient-reported data (PRD) collection platform consisting of a patient web-application and a clinician portal. Methods: This study was performed as a quality improvement initiative at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) and Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH). Multiple perspectives were sought from key stakeholders to ensure that the content and design of the platform target the needs of the end-users and garners the latest in technological advances. Development and testing were performed using best practices in user-centered design and agile development, and iterative programming sprints followed by stakeholder feedback and testing. Content was evaluated using probing questions about relevance, comprehensiveness, and clarity. Design was assessed through feedback about the look and feel of the platform and its usability. Results: A multidisciplinary team of 28 stakeholders in the field of breast cancer care, patient-reported outcomes research and value-based healthcare was assembled. Recurring group meetings (n = 8), individual patient interviews (n = 23), and two focus groups with the DF/HCC Breast Cancer Advocacy Group, were conducted. The resultant application is a hybrid mHealth application that is supported by iOS and Android and is comprised of five screens (myCare, myStory, myResources, myCommunity, myNotes). Patients are provided written and graphical displays of their PRD as well as tailored resources that are customized depending on their type and stage of treatment. The clinician portal is comprised of an overview table listing all patients enrolled for each individual clinician, as well as individual patient profiles demonstrating demographic, clinical, and outcomes data. Conclusions: imPROVE has the potential to create a paradigm shift in the delivery of care for breast cancer patients. Next steps will include implementation of imPROVE within the breast oncology and plastic surgery services at DFCI and BWH.

Recent time trends in chemotherapy use and oncologists' chemotherapy recommendations for early-stage, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 541-541
Author(s):  
Allison W. Kurian ◽  
Irina Bondarenko ◽  
Reshma Jagsi ◽  
Chandler McLeod ◽  
Sarah T. Hawley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Patient Preferences ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Genomic Profiling ◽  
Patient Report ◽  
Node Negative ◽  
Breast Cancer Chemotherapy ◽  
Node Positive

541 Background: Advances in tumor genomic profiling enable increasingly precise estimates of the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer. However, little is known about how chemotherapy use, medical oncologists’ (MO) perspectives and recommendations have changed in recent years, particularly in key clinical subgroups such as node-negative and node-positive. Methods: We surveyed 5,080 women (70% response rate), newly diagnosed with breast cancer in 2013-2015 and accrued through two population-based SEER registries (Georgia and Los Angeles), about their MOs’ chemotherapy recommendations and whether they received chemotherapy. Using patient report, we identified 470 attending MOs and surveyed them (n=310, 66% response) about approaches to chemotherapy recommendation, using node-negative and node-positive case scenarios. We evaluated factors associated with chemotherapy receipt over time using multi-level logistic regression. Results: The analytic sample was 2,926 patients with stages I-II, estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. Chemotherapy use declined to 21% from 34% during the study period (2013-2015, p<.001). For node-positive patients, chemotherapy use declined to 64% from 81% and for node-negative/micrometastasis patients to 14% from 27%. Based on patient report, MOs’ recommendations for chemotherapy declined during the study period to 32% from 45% (p<.001). Recommendations reported by MOs were generally guideline-concordant. MOs were much more likely to order tumor genomic profiling when patient preferences were discordant with recommendations [67%, standard error (SE) 3% versus 18% (SE 2%) without discordance], and they adjusted chemotherapy recommendations based on patient preferences and genomic profiling results. Conclusions: For both node-negative/micrometastasis and node-positive patients, chemotherapy receipt and oncologists’ recommendations for chemotherapy declined markedly in recent years. The results of ongoing clinical trials of genomic profiling will be essential to confirm the quality of this approach to breast cancer care. Funded by NCI P01CA163233.

scholarly journals Smartphone problem-solving and behavioural activation therapy to reduce fear of recurrence among patients with breast cancer (SMartphone Intervention to LEssen fear of cancer recurrence: SMILE project): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. e024794 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatsuo Akechi ◽  
Takuhiro Yamaguchi ◽  
Megumi Uchida ◽  
Fuminobu Imai ◽  
Kanae Momino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cancer Recurrence ◽  
Fear Of Cancer Recurrence ◽  
Random Allocation ◽  
Behavioural Activation ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Fear Of Cancer ◽  
Smartphone Intervention

IntroductionOne of the most common distressing conditions experienced by breast cancer survivors is fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). There is, however, no standard intervention for ameliorating FCR. Our clinical experience and previous studies have suggested the potential benefits of problem-solving therapy (PST) and behavioural activation (BA). Given the huge number of cancer survivors and limited number of therapists to competently conduct PST and BA, we have developed PST and BA smartphone applications. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the smartphone-based PST (Kaiketsu-App) and BA (Genki-App) apps in reducing FCR in patients with breast cancer.Methods and analysisThe SMartphone Intervention to LEssen fear of cancer recurrence project is an open-label, individually randomised, parallel-group trial. Allocation will be managed by a central server using a computer-generated random allocation sequence provided by an independent data centre. Participants will be randomised to smartphone-based intervention plus treatment as usual (TAU) or waitlist control with TAU alone. The primary endpoint of the study is the Japanese version of the Concerns About Recurrence Scale, which will be administered as an electronic patient-reported outcome on the patients’ smartphone after 8 weeks.Ethics and disseminationThe present study is subject to the ethical guidelines for clinical studies published by Japan’s Ministry of Education, Science and Technology and Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and the modified Act on the Protection of Personal Information as well as the ethical principles established for research on humans stipulated in the Declaration of Helsinki and further amendments thereto. The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Nagoya City University on 15 January 2018 (ID: 60-00-1171).Trial statusThe randomised trial, which commenced on 2 April 2018, currently enrols participants. The estimated end date for this study is in March 2020.Trial registration numberUMIN000031140; Pre-results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document