Who Gets Genomic Testing for Breast Cancer Recurrence Risk?

Our study examined whether patient characteristics, beliefs, and decision-making styles were associated with uptake of genomic testing for breast cancer recurrence risk

Disparities in Breast Cancer Treatment and Outcomes: Biological, Social, and Health System Determinants and Opportunities for Research

Racial disparities in breast cancer mortality have been widely documented for several decades and persist despite advances in receipt of mammography across racial groups. This persistence leads to questions about the roles of biological, social, and health system determinants of poor outcomes. Cancer outcomes are a function not only of innate biological factors but also of modifiable characteristics of individual behavior and decision making as well as characteristics of patient-health system interaction and the health system itself. Attempts to explain persistent racial disparities have mostly been limited to discussion of differences in insurance coverage, socioeconomic status, tumor stage at diagnosis, comorbidity, and molecular subtype of the tumor. This article summarizes existing literature exploring reasons for racial disparities in breast cancer mortality, with an emphasis on treatment disparities and opportunities for future research. Because breast cancer care requires a high degree of multidisciplinary team collaboration, ensuring that guideline recommended treatment (such as endocrine therapy for hormone receptor positive patients) is received by all racial/ethnic groups is critical and requires coordination across multiple providers and health care settings. Recognition that variation in cancer care quality may be correlated with race (and socioeconomic and health system factors) may assist policy makers in identifying strategies to more equally distribute clinical expertise and health infrastructure across multiple user populations

Health Disparities Across the Breast Cancer Continuum

To provide a brief overview of disparities across the spectrum of breast cancer incidence, treatment, and long-term care during the survivorship period

Examining racial variation in antiemetic use and post-chemotherapy health care utilization for nausea and vomiting among breast cancer patients

Racial minority cancer patients may experience underuse of antiemetic medications to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). In addition to its adverse implications for quality of life, antiemetic underuse may contribute to observed disparities in acute illness during chemotherapy. To understand the potential contribution of CINV prophylaxis to breast cancer disparities, we assessed racial variation in potent antiemetic use and post-chemotherapy utilization related to CINV, and the relationship between the two

Parenting while living with advanced cancer: A qualitative study

Patients with advanced cancer who have dependent children are an important population with a life-limiting illness and high levels of psychological distress. Few studies have addressed the experience of being a parent with advanced cancer and their potential palliative needs

Race, response to chemotherapy, and outcome within clinical breast cancer subtypes

The effect of race on breast cancer outcome is confounded by tumor and treatment heterogeneity. We examined a cohort of women with stage II–III breast cancer treated uniformly with neoadjuvant chemotherapy to identify factors associated with racial differences in chemotherapeutic response and long-term survival. Using a prospective database, we identified women with stage II-III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy from 1998 to 2011. Race was categorized as African-American (AA) or non-AA. Preplanned subtype analyses were stratified by hormone receptor (HR) and HER2. Pathologic response to chemotherapy (pCR), time to recurrence (TTR), and overall survival (OS) were assessed using logistic regression, Kaplan–Meier method, and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Of 349 women identified, 102 (29 %) were AA, who were younger (p = 0.03), more obese (p < 0.001), and less likely to have HR+/HER2–tumors (p = 0.01). No significant differences in pCR rate by race were found. At median follow-up of 6.5 years, AA had worse TTR (hazard ratio 1.51, 95 % CI 1.02–2.24), which was attenuated in multivariable modeling, and there was no significant difference in OS. When stratified by HR, worse outcomes were limited to HR+AA (TTR hazard ratio 1.85, 95 % CI 1.09–3.14; OS hazard ratio 2.42 95 % CI 1.37–4.28), which remained significant in multivariable analysis including pCR rate and BMI. With long-term follow-up, racial disparity in outcome was limited to HR+ breast cancer, with no apparent contribution of chemotherapy sensitivity. This suggests that disparity root causes may be driven by HR+ factors such as unmeasured molecular differences, endocrine therapy sensitivity, or adherence

Comparative toxicity and effectiveness of trastuzumab-based chemotherapy regimens in older women with early-stage breast cancer

Purpose The combination of chemotherapy and trastuzumab is the standard of care for adjuvant treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer. Two regimens have been widely adopted in the United States: doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and trastuzumab (ACTH) and docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab (TCH). No head-to-head comparison of these regimens has been conducted in a clinical trial, and existing trial data have limited generalizability to older patients. Methods We used SEER-Medicare data from 2005 to 2013 to compare outcomes of ACTH versus TCH among patients age older than 65 years. Propensity score matching was used to balance cohort characteristics between treatment arms. Outcomes included toxicity-related hospitalization, survival, and trastuzumab completion. Data from 1,077 patients receiving ACTH or TCH were analyzed, and the propensity-matched subsample included 416 women. Results There was a significant shift toward TCH over time, with 88% of patients receiving ACTH in 2005 compared with 15% by 2011. Among propensity score-matched patients, we found no difference between regimens in health care use overall or for chemotherapy-related adverse events (ACTH, 34% v TCH, 36.5%; P = .46). Patients receiving TCH were significantly more likely to complete trastuzumab (89% v 77%; P = .001). There was no difference in 5-year breast cancer-specific survival (ACTH, 92% v TCH, 96%; hazard ratio, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.90 to 4.82) or overall survival. Conclusion Among a matched sample of older patients, ACTH compared with TCH was not associated with a higher rate of serious adverse events or hospitalizations, but it was associated with less completion of adjuvant trastuzumab.Wedid not detect a difference in 5-year survival outcomes for ACTH compared with TCH. In the context of limited evidence in older patients, selection between these two regimens on the basis of concerns about differential toxicity or efficacy may not be appropriate

The project data sphere initiative: accelerating cancer research by sharing data

Background. In this paper, we provide background and context regarding the potential for a new data-sharing platform, the Project Data Sphere (PDS) initiative, funded by financial and in-kind contributions from the CEO Roundtable on Cancer, to transform cancer research and improve patient outcomes. Given the relatively modest decline in cancer death rates over the past several years, a new research paradigm is needed to accelerate therapeutic approaches for oncologic diseases. Phase III clinical trials generate large volumes of potentially usable information, often on hundreds of patients, including patients treated with standard of care therapies (i.e., controls). Both nationally and internationally, a variety of stakeholders have pursued data-sharing efforts to make individual patient-level clinical trial data available to the scientific research community. Potential Benefits and Risks of Data Sharing. For researchers, shared data have the potential to foster a more collaborative environment, to answer research questions in a shorter time frame than traditional randomized control trials, to reduce duplication of effort, and to improve efficiency. For industry participants, use of trial data to answer additional clinical questions could increase research and development efficiency and guide future projects through validation of surrogate end points, development of prognostic or predictive models, selection of patients for phase II trials, stratification in phase III studies, and identification of patient subgroups for development of novel therapies. Data transparency also helps promote a public image of collaboration and altruism among industry participants. For patient participants, data sharing maximizes their contribution to public health and increases access to information that may be used to develop better treatments. Concerns about data-sharing efforts include protection of patient privacy and confidentiality. To alleviate these concerns, data sets are deidentified to maintain anonymity. To address industry concerns about protection of intellectual property and competitiveness, we illustrate several models for data sharing with varying levels of access to the data and varying relationships between trial sponsors and data access sponsors. The Project Data Sphere Initiative. PDS is an independent initiative of the CEO Roundtable on Cancer Life Sciences Consortium, built to voluntarily share, integrate, and analyze comparator arms of historical cancer clinical trial data sets to advance future cancer research. The aim is to provide a neutral, broad-access platform for industry and academia to share raw, deidentified data from late-phase oncology clinical trials using comparator-arm data sets. These data are likely to be hypothesis generating or hypothesis confirming but, notably, do not take the place of performing a well-designed trial to address a specific hypothesis. Prospective providers of data to PDS complete and sign a data sharing agreement that includes a description of the data they propose to upload, and then they follow easy instructions on the website for uploading their deidentified data. The SAS Institute has also collaborated with the initiative to provide intrinsic analytic tools accessible within the website itself. As of October 2014, the PDS website has available data from 14 cancer clinical trials covering 9,000 subjects, with hopes to further expand the database to include more than 25,000 subject accruals within the next year. PDS differentiates itself from other data-sharing initiatives by its degree of openness, requiring submission of only a brief application with background information of the individual requesting access and agreement to terms of use. Data from several different sponsors may be pooled to develop a comprehensive cohort for analysis. In order to protect patient privacy, data providers in the U.S. are responsible for deidentifying data according to standards set forth by the Privacy Rule of the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Using Data Sharing to Improve Outcomes in Cancer: The “Prostate Cancer Challenge.” Control-arm data of several studies among patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are currently available through PDS. These data sets have multiple potential uses. The “Prostate Cancer Challenge” will ask the cancer research community to use clinical trial data deposited in the PDS website to address key research questions regarding mCRPC. General themes that could be explored by the cancer community are described in this article: prognostic models evaluating the influence of pretreatment factors on survival and patient-reported outcomes; comparative effectiveness research evaluating the efficacy of standard of care therapies, as illustrated in our companion article comparing mitoxantrone plus prednisone with prednisone alone; effects of practice variation in dose, frequency, and duration of therapy; level of patient adherence to elements of trial protocols to inform the design of future clinical trials; and age of subjects, regional differences in health care, and other confounding factors that might affect outcomes. Potential Limitations and Methodological Challenges. The number of data sets available and the lack of experimental arm data limit the potential scope of research using the current PDS. The number of trials is expected to grow exponentially over the next year and may include multiple cancer settings, such as breast, colorectal, lung, hematologic malignancy, and bone marrow transplantation. Other potential limitations include the retrospective nature of the data analyses performed using PDS and its generalizability, given that clinical trials are often conducted among younger, healthier, and less racially diverse patient populations. Methodological challenges exist when combining individual patient data from multiple clinical trials; however, advancements in statistical methods for secondary database analysis offer many tools for reanalyzing data arising from disparate trials, such as propensity score matching. Despite these concerns, few if any comparable data sets include this level of detail across multiple clinical trials and populations. Conclusion. Access to large, late-phase, cancer-trial data sets has the potential to transform cancer research by optimizing research efficiency and accelerating progress toward meaningful improvements in cancer care. This type of platform provides opportunities for unique research projects that can examine relatively neglected areas and that can construct models necessitating large amounts of detailed data.The full potential of PDS will be realized only when multiple tumor types and larger numbers of data sets are available through the website

An updated systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of therapies for metastatic breast cancer

Purpose: The goal of this systematic review is to provide an update to the review by Pouwels et al. by conducting a systematic review and an assessment of the reporting quality of the economic analyses conducted since 2014. Methods: This systematic review identified published articles focused on metastatic breast cancer treatment using the Medline/PubMed and Scopus databases and the following search criteria: (((cost effectiveness[MeSH Terms]) OR (cost effectiveness) OR (cost-effectiveness) OR (cost utility) OR (cost–utility) OR (economic evaluation)) AND ((“metastatic breast cancer”) OR (“advanced breast cancer”))). The reporting quality of the included articles was evaluated using the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Results: Of the 256 identified articles, 67 of the articles were published after October 2014 when the prior systematic review stopped its assessment (Pouwels et al. in Breast Cancer Res Treat 165:485–498, 2017). From the 67 articles, we narrowed down to include 17 original health economic analyses specific to metastatic or advanced breast cancer. These articles were diverse with respect to methods employed and interventions included. Conclusion: Although each of the articles contributed their own analytic strengths and limitations, the overall quality of the studies was moderate. The review demonstrated that the vast majority of the reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios exceeded the typically employed willingness to pay thresholds used in each country of analysis. Only three of the reviewed articles studied chemotherapies rather than treatments targeting either HER2 or hormone receptors, demonstrating a gap in the literature

Race and delays in breast cancer treatment across the care continuum in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study

Background: After controlling for baseline disease factors, researchers have found that black women have worse breast cancer survival, and this suggests that treatment differences may contribute to poorer outcomes. Delays in initiating and completing treatment are one proposed mechanism. Methods: Phase 3 of the Carolina Breast Cancer Study involved a large, population-based cohort of women with incident breast cancer. For this analysis, we included black women (n = 1328) and white women (n = 1331) with stage I to III disease whose treatment included surgery with or without adjuvant therapies. A novel treatment pathway grouping was used to benchmark the treatment duration (surgery only, surgery plus chemotherapy, surgery plus radiation, or all 3). Models controlled for the treatment pathway, age, and tumor characteristics and for demographic factors related to health care access. Exploratory analyses of the association between delays and cancer recurrence were performed. Results: In fully adjusted analyses, blacks had 1.73 times higher odds of treatment initiation more than 60 days after their diagnosis in comparison with whites (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.90). Black race was also associated with a longer treatment duration. Blacks were also more likely to be in the highest quartile of treatment duration (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.41-2.02), even after adjustments for demographic and tumor characteristics (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.04-1.64). A nonsignificant trend toward a higher recurrence risk was observed for patients with delayed initiation (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.89-2.33) or the longest duration (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.87-1.59). Conclusions: Black women more often had delayed treatment initiation and a longer duration than whites receiving similar treatment. Interventions that target access barriers may be needed to improve timely delivery of care