Search

Purpose Little is known about the extent to which genetic counseling is integrated into community practices for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer. We examined the receipt of clinically indicated genetic counseling in these patients. Patients and Methods We surveyed 5,080 patients between the ages of 20 and 79 years, diagnosed from July 2013 to August 2015 with early-stage breast cancer and reported to the SEER registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. Surveys were linked to SEER clinical data and genetic test results. The study sample (N = 1,711) comprised patients with indications for formal genetic risk evaluation. Results Overall, 47.4% did not get tested, 40.7% tested negative, 7.4% had a variant of uncertain significance only, and 4.5% had a pathogenic mutation. Three quarters (74.6%) received some form of genetic counseling (43.5%, formal counseling and 31.1%, physician-directed discussion). Virtually all tested patients (96.1%) reported some form of genetic discussion (62.2%, formal counseling and 33.9%, physician-directed discussion). However, only one half (50.6%) of those not tested received any discussion about genetics. Younger women were more likely to report some type of counseling, controlling for other factors: odds ratio, 4.5 (95% CI, 2.6 to 8.0); 1.9 (95% CI, 1.1 to 3.3); and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0 to 2.3) for women younger than 50 years of age, 50 to 59 years of age, and 60 to 69 years of age versus those 70 years of age and older. Patients' assessments of the amount of information they received about whether to get tested were similarly high whether they were counseled by a genetics expert or by a physician only (80.8% v 79.4% stated information was just right, P = .59). Conclusion Less than one half (43.5%) of patients with clinical indications received formal genetic counseling. There is a large gap between mandates for timely pretest formal genetic counseling in higher-risk patients and the reality of practice today.

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.

Purpose Collaborative care between cancer specialists and primary care providers (PCPs) may improve the delivery of high-quality cancer care. Yet, patient perspectives about how involved the PCPs were in their breast cancer care and treatment decisions remain unknown. Patients and Methods A weighted random sample of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer in 2013 to 2014, as reported to the SEER registries in Los Angeles, California, and Georgia, were sent a survey approximately 6 months after diagnosis (N = 2,279, 71% response rate). The distributions of patient-perceived PCP quality (six questions about PCP access and awareness of values) and the following three measures of patient-reported PCP involvement were assessed: how informed the respondent felt her PCP was about her breast cancer (engagement); how often the respondent talked with her PCP (communication); and how often the respondent felt the PCP participated in treatment decisions (participation). Adjusted mean scores of patient-reported satisfaction with and deliberation about the surgical treatment decision were then compared across levels of PCP engagement, communication, and participation using multivariable linear regression. Results The majority of women in this sample perceived high PCP quality (63.6%), high PCP breast cancer engagement (66.2%), and high PCP communication (69.1%). More than a third of women (35.4%) reported that their PCP participated in their treatment decisions. Higher PCP engagement was associated with higher decision satisfaction when compared with low PCP engagement (adjusted P = .003). Conclusion Patient perceptions of PCP quality and PCP involvement in breast cancer care during treatment are high for most women, and PCPs often participate in breast cancer treatment decisions. However, PCP involvement did not lead to meaningful improvements in patients' appraisals of their decision making.