Comparison of care process for newly diagnosed breast cancer in insured versus uninsured populations: Opportunities for improving health equity.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18518-e18518
Author(s):  
Gehan Botrus ◽  
Natalie Ertz-Archambault ◽  
Nellie Nafissi ◽  
Miguel Gonzalez Velez ◽  
Heidi E. Kosiorek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Radiation Treatment ◽  
Care Process ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Similar Treatment ◽  
Hispanic Ethnicity ◽  
Abnormal Mammogram ◽  
Zip Code ◽  
Hispanic White

e18518 Background: Initiatives enhancing equitable oncologic care are an increasingly emphasized priority. Our study aims to identify aspects of breast cancer (BC) care in which differences exist based on insurance coverage status. Methods: We performed a retrospective, case control study consisting of 39 Hispanic ethnicity uninsured patients (UP) with newly diagnosed BC at federally qualified health centers and 119 insured patients (IP) diagnosed at Mayo Clinic Arizona (MCA). Patients were matched 3:1 for age, stage, year of diagnosis, ER and HER2 status. Demographic information, clinical variables, and zip code level specific socioeconomic information were compared. Continuous variables were compared by Wilcoxon rank-sum test and categorical variables by chi-square test. All patients ultimately received their cancer treatment at MCA. Results: Similar treatment patterns with chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation treatment were observed between groups. Primary language was Spanish for 94% of UP and English for 97.5% of IP. The majority of UP were of Hispanic ethnicity (97.4%); IP were 83.2% non-Hispanic White, 9.2% Hispanic, 3.4% African American. Zip code level information reflected more unemployment with a median of 10.6% versus 6.9% p ˂ 0.001, percent of high school or lower (53.0 % v 23.2 %, p ˂ 0.001), and lower income for UP (33733.5 v 64728.0 p values ˂ 0.001). UP BMI was significantly higher (30.6 V 24.7, p=0.005), with presence of more co-morbidities; diabetes (28.2% v 5.0%, p ˂ 0.001), hypertension (35.9 % v 20.2%, p= 0.046), dyslipidemia (28.2% v 12.6%, p = 0.023), metabolic syndrome (p 23.7% v 8.5, p= 0.013), and tobacco use (17.9% v 2.5%, p ˂ 0.001). IP had higher alcohol use (52.9% v 5.3%, p ˂ 0.001). Genetics consultation was performed for 62.2% IP versus 35.9% UP (p=0.004), lower acceptance of oncology nutrition consultation for UP (29.4% vs 7.4%, p= 0.024) Median time from abnormal mammogram to biopsy (25.5 days vs. 14 days, p=0.056), and interval from diagnosis to treatment (62 days vs. 39 days) (p=0.001) were less favorable for UP compared to IP. Conclusions: In comparing the status of UP (primarily Hispanic, Spanish-speaking) and IP (primarily non-Hispanic White, English-speaking) with newly diagnosed BC we identified greater prevalence of co-morbidities and adverse social determinants of health in the former group. We identified access to genetic counseling services, access to oncology nutrition consultation, and timeliness of diagnostic biopsy and initiation of treatment as disparate features in the care pathway. These observations can allow development of tailored interventions to achieve greater equity in delivery of BC care.

Identifying opportunities to improve equity in breast cancer care for uninsured Hispanic patients in underserved communities.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 132-132
Author(s):  
Gehan Botrus ◽  
Natalie Ertz -Archambault ◽  
Heidi E. Kosiorek ◽  
Nellie Nafissi ◽  
Miguel Gonzales ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Mayo Clinic ◽  
Care Pathway ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Continuous Variables ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Underserved Communities ◽  
Similar Treatment ◽  
Hispanic Ethnicity ◽  
Zip Code

132 Background: Enhancing equitable oncologic care is an increasingly emphasized priority. Our study aims to identify aspects of breast cancer (BC) care in which differences exist based on insurance coverage. Methods: We performed a retrospective, case control study, (from 2014-2020); 39 Hispanic ethnicity uninsured patients (UP) from underserved communities with newly diagnosed BC and 119 insured patients (IP) diagnosed at Mayo Clinic Arizona (MCA). Patients were matched 3:1 for age, stage, year of diagnosis, estrogen receptors and HER-2 status. Demographic information, clinical variables, and zip code level specific socioeconomic information were compared. Continuous variables were compared by Wilcoxon rank-sum test and categorical variables by chi-square test. All patients were treated at MCA. Results: Similar treatment patterns with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and surgery were observed between groups. Primary language was Spanish for 94% of UP and English for 97.5% of IP. The majority of UP were of Hispanic ethnicity (97.4%); IP were 83.2% non-Hispanic White, 9.2% Hispanic, 3.4% African American. Zip code level information reflected more unemployment with a median of 10.6% versus 6.9% p < 0.001, percent of high school or lower (53.0 % v 23.2 %, p < 0.001), and lower income for UP (33733.5 v 64728.0 p values < 0.001).BMI was significantly higher for UP (30.6 V 24.7, p = 0.005), with presence of more co-morbidities; diabetes (28.2% v 5.0%, p < 0.001), hypertension (35.9 % v 20.2%, p = 0.046), dyslipidemia (28.2% v 12.6%, p = 0.023), metabolic syndrome (p 23.7% v 8.5, p = 0.013), and tobacco use (17.9% v 2.5%, p < 0.001). Genetics consultation was performed for 62.2% IP versus 35.9% UP (p = 0.004), lower acceptance of nutrition consultation for UP (29.4% vs 7.4%, p = 0.024). Median time from mammogram to biopsy (25.5 days vs. 14 days, p = 0.056), and interval from diagnosis to treatment (62 days vs. 39 days) (p = 0.001) were less favorable for UP compared to IP. Conclusions: In comparing the status of UP and IP with newly diagnosed BC, we identified greater prevalence of co-morbidities and adverse social determinants of health in the former group. We identified access to genetic counseling, nutrition consultation, and timeliness of diagnostic biopsy and initiation of treatment as disparate features in the care pathway. These observations allowed development of tailored interventions to achieve greater equity in delivery of BC care at Mayo Clinic.

Association between obesity and the clinical stage of newly diagnosed breast cancer: Experience with 2212 patients.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e12602-e12602
Author(s):  
Bader I Alshamsan ◽  
Kausar Suleman ◽  
Naela Agha ◽  
Marwa Ismail Abdelgawad ◽  
Mashari J Alzahrani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Overweight And Obesity ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Time Of Presentation

e12602 Background: Excess weight is currently recognized as a risk factor for several cancer types, including breast cancer. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of overweight and obesity in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients at the time of presentation. Methods: A retrospective analysis of breast cancer from a prospective database of all newly diagnosed non-metastatic breast cancer patients seen at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center between 2002 and 2014 was performed. The clinical stages were divided into early stage breast cancer and locally advanced breast cancer. The body mass index (BMI) groups were underweight, normal, overweight, and obese based on the World Health Organization classifications of BMI. The patient characteristics are presented as medians with interquartile ranges (IQRs) and frequencies for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. The association between BMI groups and clinical stage at presentation was evaluated using the logistic regression model. Survival probabilities were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Results: In total, 2212 patients were eligible for the study. The median age at diagnosis was 45 (IQR = 39-52) years; 62% patients were pre-menopausal, and 31% were post-menopausal. The median BMI was 30 (IQR = 26-34) kg/m2. In this population, 53% patients were obese; 31%, overweight; and 14.7%, in the normal range at diagnosis. Regression analysis revealed a significant association between clinical stage and BMI at the time of presentation (p = 0.006). Obese patients showed a 40% higher chance of having locally advanced presentation than the normal BMI group (OR = 1.41, 95% confidence interval = 1.06-1.86, p = 0.02). However, overweight had no significant association with clinical stage (OR = 1.03, 95% confidence interval = 0.76-1.8). The median follow-up duration was 39 (IQR = 22-66.6) months. Overall survival showed no significant association with different BMI groups and breast cancer subtypes. Conclusions: The prevalence of overweight and obesity was found to be high (85%) in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients in Saudi Arabia. Obesity is associated with a more advanced clinical stage at the time of diagnosis of breast cancer and may be a contributing factor for more locally advanced presentations in the region.

Understanding barriers to receiving genetic testing after referral.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13108-e13108
Author(s):  
Drew Murray ◽  
Mounika Mandadi
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Insurance Status ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Nccn Guidelines

e13108 Background: About 5-10% of breast cancers are hereditary. Identifying women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes helps implement screening strategies, chemoprevention regimens, preventative surgeries and identify family members at risk. Little is known about reasons for non-compliance with genetic testing after referral by an oncologist. To gain insight we investigated these barriers in a population of patients in Louisville, Kentucky. Methods: The study design was a IRB approved single institution retrospective analysis of all newly diagnosed breast cancer patients in the year 2014. Data on age, gender, race, education, insurance status, family history, referral orders and genetic testing results were analyzed for 204 patients. Characteristics of patients who received genetic testing after referral was made were compared to patients who did not receive genetic testing, despite referral. The categorical variables were compared using the Pearson Chi-square test for contingency tables while the t-test was used for continuous variables. Significance level was set at p≤0.05. All calculations are performed with SAS statistical software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Results: Of 204 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients seen in 2014, 109 met NCCN guidelines for genetic testing. 89 total patients were referred for genetic testing. 67 patients received genetic testing after referral, while 22 patients did not receive the testing despite being referred. 29 patients met criteria for testing but were never referred. Statistical significance existed (P = 0.019) for the insurance status variable, those with private insurance being more likely to receive testing after being referred, and those without insurance being less likely to show up for genetic testing after being referred. There was no statistical significance for age(P = 0.787), race(P = 0.555), or education (P = 0.322). Conclusions: Being covered by private insurance was associated with increased completion of genetic testing after being referred by an oncologist. Age, race, and education did not impact the likelihood of receiving testing if referred. Further investigations will be made into reasons for non-referral in patients who met NCCN guidelines for testing.

scholarly journals 964. Opt-Out HIV- Hepatitis C (HCV) Testing at a Primary Care Resident Clinic in Columbia, SC: Who Gets Tested and Who Opts Out of Testing?

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S512-S512
Author(s):  
Jodian Pinkney ◽  
Divya Ahuja ◽  
Caroline Derrick ◽  
Martin Durkin
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Hiv Testing ◽  
Demographic Variables ◽  
Demographic Characteristics ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Opting Out ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Primary Care Resident ◽  
Hcv Testing

Abstract Background South Carolina (SC) remains one of the most heavily affected states for both HIV and HCV infections. Males account for the majority of cases. Implementation of universal opt-out testing has improved screening rates but not much has been published describing the characteristics of those who opt out of testing. This becomes important as 10-50% of patients have opted out in previous studies. Methods Between February and August 2019, we conducted a quality improvement (QI) project which implemented opt- out HIV-HCV testing at a single primary care resident clinic in SC with the primary aim of increasing screening rates for HIV-HCV by 50%. Secondary aims included describing the demographic characteristics of the opt-out population. Persons were considered eligible for testing if they were between the ages of 18-65 years for HIV and 18-74 years for HCV. This was prior to the USPSTF 2020 guidelines which recommend HCV screening for adults aged 18-79 years. A retrospective chart review was used to obtain screening rates, opt status and demographic data. Logistic regression and the firth model were used to determine linkages between categorical variables. We present 3-month data. Results 1253 patients were seen between May 1, 2019- July 31, 2019 (See Table 1). 985 (78%) were eligible for HIV testing. 482 (49%) were tested for HIV as a result of our QI project and all tests were negative. 212 (22%) of eligible patients opted out of HIV testing. Males were 1.59 times more likely to opt out (p=0.008). (see Table 2,3) Regarding HCV, 1136 (90.7%) were deemed eligible for testing. 503 (44%) were tested for HCV as a result of our QI project. 12 (2.4%) were HCV antibody positive with viremia. 11 (90%) of antibody positive with viremia cases were in the 1945-1965 birth cohort (see Table 4). 244 (21%) opted out of HCV testing. Males and persons without a genitourinary chief complaint were more likely to opt out (p=0.02). Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the population seen at the internal medicine resident clinic between May- July 2019 Table 2: Relationship between demographic variables and the odds of being tested for HIV or HCV within the last 12 months. Logistic Model. Table 3: Relationship between demographic variables and the odds of opting out of testing for HIV or HCV. Firth Model. Conclusion Although implementation of routine HIV-HCV opt-out testing led to increased screening rates for both HIV and HCV, roughly 1 in 5 eligible patients chose to opt out of testing. Males were more likely to opt out despite accounting for the majority of newly diagnosed HCV cases. Future studies investigating drivers for opting-out in the male population could improve testing and assist with early diagnosis. Table 4: Characteristics of patients newly diagnosed with HCV positive with viremia. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals Recommendation and Acceptance of Counselling for Familial Cancer Risk in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Cases

Breast Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Karin Kast ◽  
Julia Häfner ◽  
Evelin Schröck ◽  
Arne Jahn ◽  
Carmen Werner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Genetic Counselling ◽  
Primary Breast Cancer ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma ◽  
Familial Cancer ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Familial Cancer Risk

<b><i>Background:</i></b> In clinical routine, not every patient who is offered genetic counselling and diagnostics in order to investigate a familial cancer risk predisposition opts for it. Little is known about acceptance of counselling and testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer cases in Germany. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> All primary breast cancer cases and patients with DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) treated at the University Hospital of Dresden between 2016 and 2019 were included. The number of tumor board recommendations for genetic counselling on the basis of the GC-HBOC risk criteria was recorded. Acceptance was analyzed by number of cases with counselling in the GC-HBOC-Center Dresden. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Of 996 primary breast cancer and DCIS cases, 262 (26.3%) were eligible for genetic counselling. Recommendation for genetic counselling was accepted by 64.1% (168/262). Of these 90.5% (152/168) opted for molecular genetic analysis. The acceptance rate for counselling increased between 2016 and 2019 from 58.3 to 72.6%. Altogether, 20.4% (31/152) patients were found to carry a pathogenic variant in the breast cancer genes <i>BRCA1</i> or <i>BRCA2</i>. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Acceptance of recommendation is increasing as clinical consequences augment. Optimization in providing information about hereditary cancer risk and in accessibility of counselling and testing is required to further improve acceptance of recommendation.

scholarly journals Prospective comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/MRI, MRI, CT, and bone scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in the initial staging of primary breast cancer patients

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nils Martin Bruckmann ◽  
Julian Kirchner ◽  
Lale Umutlu ◽  
Wolfgang Peter Fendler ◽  
Robert Seifert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Bone Metastases ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Bone Scintigraphy ◽  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Primary Breast Cancer ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Initial Staging

Abstract Objectives To compare the diagnostic performance of [18F]FDG PET/MRI, MRI, CT, and bone scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in the initial staging of primary breast cancer patients. Material and methods A cohort of 154 therapy-naive patients with newly diagnosed, histopathologically proven breast cancer was enrolled in this study prospectively. All patients underwent a whole-body [18F]FDG PET/MRI, computed tomography (CT) scan, and a bone scintigraphy prior to therapy. All datasets were evaluated regarding the presence of bone metastases. McNemar χ2 test was performed to compare sensitivity and specificity between the modalities. Results Forty-one bone metastases were present in 7/154 patients (4.5%). Both [18F]FDG PET/MRI and MRI alone were able to detect all of the patients with histopathologically proven bone metastases (sensitivity 100%; specificity 100%) and did not miss any of the 41 malignant lesions (sensitivity 100%). CT detected 5/7 patients (sensitivity 71.4%; specificity 98.6%) and 23/41 lesions (sensitivity 56.1%). Bone scintigraphy detected only 2/7 patients (sensitivity 28.6%) and 15/41 lesions (sensitivity 36.6%). Furthermore, CT and scintigraphy led to false-positive findings of bone metastases in 2 patients and in 1 patient, respectively. The sensitivity of PET/MRI and MRI alone was significantly better compared with CT (p < 0.01, difference 43.9%) and bone scintigraphy (p < 0.01, difference 63.4%). Conclusion [18F]FDG PET/MRI and MRI are significantly better than CT or bone scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Both CT and bone scintigraphy show a substantially limited sensitivity in detection of bone metastases. Key Points • [18F]FDG PET/MRI and MRI alone are significantly superior to CT and bone scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. • Radiation-free whole-body MRI might serve as modality of choice in detection of bone metastases in breast cancer patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document