Search

101 Background: Health risks and outcomes among Asian American patients are not adequately understood when Asians are treated as a homogenous ethnic group. This work is the first to explore trends in time to surgical treatment for breast cancer amongst Asian American ethnic subgroups. Methods: We used data from the population-based California Cancer Registry to identify a cohort of females diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2012-2017 in California. Time to surgical treatment was defined as the time elapsed between definitive diagnosis of breast cancer and receipt of surgery. Covariates included individual patient sociodemographic, health history, and tumor characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the odds of receiving surgery within 30 and 90 days of breast cancer diagnosis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to analyze the likelihood of shorter time to surgery. A Bonferroni corrected alpha level was used to account for multiple racial/ethnic group comparisons. Results: Of 106,441 breast cancer patients, 57% were non-Hispanic white (NHW), 21% were Hispanic, 14% were Asian (4% Filipino; 3% Chinese; 1% each of Asian Indian or Pakistani (AIP), Vietnamese, Japanese, and Korean; 3% other Asian), and 6% were non-Hispanic black (NHB). Compared to NHWs, Hispanics (OR = 0.86, 99.5% CI = 0.82-0.92) and NHBs (OR = 0.82, 99.5% CI = 0.76-0.90) were less likely to receive surgery within 30 days of breast cancer diagnosis, while Chinese (OR = 1.30, 99.5% CI = 1.17-1.45) and AIPs (OR = 1.24, 99.5% CI = 1.04-1.48) were more likely to receive surgery within 30 days. These trends persisted for Hispanic (OR = 0.87, 99.5% CI = 0.79-0.96), NHB (OR = 0.73, 99.5% CI = 0.63-0.85), and Chinese patients (OR = 1.33, 99.5% CI = 1.04-1.71) when analyzing the likelihood of receiving surgery within 90 days of diagnosis. Compared to NHWs, Hispanics (OR = 0.94, 99.5% CI = 0.92-0.97), NHBs (OR = 0.88, 99.5% CI = 0.85-0.91), and Vietnamese (OR = 0.90, 99.5% CI = 0.83-0.98) were less likely to experience shorter time to surgical treatment, while Chinese (OR = 1.15, 99.5% CI = 1.09-1.21) and AIPs (OR = 1.09, 99.5% CI = 1.01-1.18) were more likely to have shorter time to surgery. Conclusions: In this population-based study of the California Cancer Registry, trends in time to surgical treatment for breast cancer were not consistent for patients belonging to different Asian ethnic subgroups. While Chinese and AIP patients tended to receive surgery sooner than NHW patients, Vietnamese patients face a disparity in receiving timely surgical treatment relative to NHW patients. Further research is needed to fully understand and appropriately target disparities in breast cancer treatment for patients of different Asian American ethnic subgroups.

1510 Background: Machine learning (ML) algorithms based on electronic health record (EHR) data have been shown to accurately predict mortality risk among patients with cancer, with areas under the curve (AUC) generally greater than 0.80. While patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may also predict mortality among patients with cancer, it is unclear whether routinely-collected PROs improve the predictive performance of EHR-based ML algorithms. Methods: This cohort study included 8600 patients with cancer who had an outpatient encounter at one of 18 medical oncology practices in a large academic health system between July 1st, 2019 and January 1st, 2020. 4692 (54.9%) patients completed assessments of symptoms, performance status, and quality of life from the PRO version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global v.1.2 scales. We hypothesized that ML models predicting 180-day all-cause mortality based on EHR + PRO data would improve AUC compared to ML models based on EHR data alone. We assessed univariate and adjusted associations between each PRO and 180-day mortality. To train the EHR-only model, we fit a Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression using 192 EHR demographic, comorbidity, and laboratory variables. To train the EHR + PRO model, we used a two-phase approach to fit a model using EHR data for all patients and PRO data for those who completed assessments. To test our hypothesis, we compared the bootstrapped AUC, area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), and sensitivity at a 20% risk threshold for both models. Results: 464 (5.4%) patients died within 180 days of the encounter. Decreased quality of life, functional status, and appetite were associated with greater 180-day mortality (Table). Compared to the EHR-only model, the EHR + PRO model significantly improved AUC (0.86 [95% CI 0.85-0.86] vs. 0.80 [95% CI 0.80-0.81]), AUPRC (0.40 [95% CI 0.37-0.42] vs. 0.30 [95% CI 0.28-0.32]), and sensitivity (0.45 [95% CI 0.42-0.48] vs. 0.33 [95% CI 0.30-0.35]). Conclusions: Routinely collected PROs augment EHR-based ML mortality risk algorithms. ML algorithms based on EHR and PRO data may facilitate earlier supportive care for patients with cancer. Association of PROs with 180-day mortality.[Table: see text]

e12589 Background: Surgical delays for invasive breast cancer have been increasing over time and are associated with an increased risk of mortality. Black and Hispanic breast cancer patients are more likely to experience surgical delays than white patients; however, surgical delays among Asian ethnic subgroups remain unstudied. Methods: We used data from the population-based California Cancer Registry to identify all females diagnosed with stage I-III invasive breast cancer from 2012-2017. Our main independent variable was patient race/ethnicity, including five Asian ethnic subgroups. Covariates captured tumor, treatment-related, and patient sociodemographic characteristics. We conducted multivariable logistic regression to determine the odds of receiving surgery within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to determine the risk of shorter time to surgical treatment. Results: Of 106,441 breast cancer patients, 57.5% were non-Hispanic white (NHW), 20.7% were Hispanic, 5.9% were non-Hispanic black (NHB), and 12.6% were Asian (consisting of 33.7% Filipino, 24.6% Chinese, 8.1% Asian Indian or Pakistani (AIP), 7.7% Japanese, 6.7% Korean, and 19.2% other Asian (OA) patients). Compared to NHWs, Hispanics and NHBs were less likely to receive surgical treatment within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis (Hispanic, 30-day: OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.89-0.98; Hispanic, 90-day: 0.89, 0.85-0.92; NHB, 30-day: 0.91, 0.85-0.98; NHB, 90-day: 0.86, 0.80-0.92). However, Chinese and AIP patients were more likely than NHWs to receive surgery within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis (Chinese, 30 day: OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.19-1.41; Chinese 90-day: 1.26, 1.08-1.47; AIP 30-day: 1.29, 1.11-1.50; AIP 90-day: 1.34, 1.17-1.53). In addition, Koreans were more likely than NHWs to receive surgery within 90 days of diagnosis (OR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.08-1.47). Hispanics, NHBs, and OAs were less likely to receive timely treatment compared to NHWs (Hispanic: HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.94-0.97; NHB: 0.91, 0.89-0.94; OA: 0.95, 0.92-0.99), while Chinese, AIP, and Korean patients were more likely to receive timely treatment compared to NHWs (Chinese: HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.11-1.20; AIP: 1.10, 1.04-1.17; Korean: 1.10, 1.03-1.17). Lastly, patients diagnosed in 2017 were 14% less likely to receive timely treatment than those diagnosed in 2012 (HR: 0.86, 95% CI = 0.84-0.88). Conclusions: In this population-based cohort of female breast cancer patients in California, Hispanics and NHBs continue to experience surgical treatment delays and Asian American minority subgroups experience similar delays compared to NHWs. In addition, increasing delays over time could potentially exacerbate racial/ethnic disparities in breast cancer mortality. Continued work investigating the causes of breast cancer treatment delays among Asian ethnic subgroups is necessary to fully elucidate and target racial/ethnic treatment disparities.

Despite almost two decades of intensive tobacco control efforts, nearly one quarter of Americans continue to smoke. The two United States Food and Drug Administration–approved medications used to treat tobacco dependence, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy, are effective for only a fraction of smokers. Investigations of medications approved for affective disorders and other forms of substance abuse, such as fluoxetine and naltrexone, have yielded mixed results as tobacco dependence treatments. A particular challenge in tobacco dependence treatment is the development of effective approaches for smokers with unique needs, such as cancer patients and pregnant women. Despite new developments in these areas, significant gaps in knowledge and practice remain. Basic research in the neurobiologic and genetic basis of nicotine dependence offers promise for the development of novel and more effective treatment approaches. For example, emerging research in pharmacogenetics explores how genetic variation in drug-metabolizing enzymes and drug targets modifies response to pharmacotherapy. These discoveries could someday help practitioners to individualize the type, dosage, and duration of tobacco dependence treatment based on genotype, and maximize the efficacy.

PURPOSE: To compare genetic test results for deleterious mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 with estimated probabilities of carrying such mutations; to assess sensitivity of genetic testing; and to assess the relevance of other susceptibility genes in familial breast and ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data analyzed were from six high-risk genetic counseling clinics and concern individuals from families for which at least one member was tested for mutations at BRCA1 and BRCA2. Predictions of genetic predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer for 301 individuals were made using BRCAPRO, a statistical model and software using Mendelian genetics and Bayesian updating. Model predictions were compared with the results of genetic testing. RESULTS: Among the test individuals, 126 were Ashkenazi Jewish, three were male subjects, 243 had breast cancer, 49 had ovarian cancer, 34 were unaffected, and 139 tested positive for BRCA1 mutations and 29 for BRCA2 mutations. BRCAPRO performed well: for the 150 probands with the smallest BRCAPRO carrier probabilities (average, 29.0%), the proportion testing positive was 32.7%; for the 151 probands with the largest carrier probabilities (average, 95.2%), 78.8% tested positive. Genetic testing sensitivity was estimated to be at least 85%, with false-negatives including mutations of susceptibility genes heretofore unknown. CONCLUSION: BRCAPRO is an accurate counseling tool for determining the probability of carrying mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 is highly sensitive, missing an estimated 15% of mutations. In the populations studied, breast cancer susceptibility genes other than BRCA1 and BRCA2 either do not exist, are rare, or are associated with low disease penetrance.

PURPOSE To identify members of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families who are at risk for adverse psychologic effects of genetic testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS A prospective cohort study with baseline (preeducation) assessments of predictor variables (ie, sociodemographic factors, cancer history, and cancer-related stress symptoms) was performed. The primary outcome variable (presence of depressive symptoms) was assessed at baseline and at 1- and 6-month follow-up evaluations. Participants were 327 adult male and female members of BRCA1- and BRCA2-linked hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families, who were identified as carriers, noncarriers, or decliners of genetic testing. RESULTS The presence of cancer-related stress symptoms at baseline was strongly predictive of the onset of depressive symptoms in family members who were invited but declined testing. Among persons who reported high baseline levels of stress, depression rates in decliners increased from 26% at baseline to 47% at 1-month follow-up; depression rates in noncarriers decreased and in carriers showed no change (odds ratio [OR] for decliners v noncarriers=8.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9 to 33.5; P=.0004). These significant differences in depression rates were still evident at the 6-month follow-up evaluation (P=.04). CONCLUSION In BRCA1/2-linked families, persons with high levels of cancer-related stress who decline genetic testing may be at risk for depression. These family members may benefit from education and counseling, even if they ultimately elect not to be tested, and should be monitored for potential adverse effects.

PURPOSE To assess preferences for the content and process of genetic counseling and testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility among women at high risk for breast cancer. METHODS Ninety-eight healthy women who had a family history of breast cancer in at least two first-degree relatives participated in a structured telephone survey that evaluated preferences for type of provider and the content and process of pretest education and posttest genetic counseling. RESULTS Forty-two percent of women preferred that pretest education be delivered by a genetic counselor, while 22% preferred an oncologist. This preference was positively associated with a desire to discuss psychosocial issues during the session (P = .001). For posttest counseling, 38% of women preferred an oncologist, while 20% preferred a genetic counselor. However, women who desired supportive counseling during this session were significantly more likely to prefer a genetic counselor to an oncologist (P = .02). Fewer women wished to see a primary care physician or gynecologist for pretest education (11%) or posttest counseling (22%). With regard to the counseling process, 82% of women wished to self-refer for genetic counseling, but 63% desired advice and recommendations about whether to be tested. CONCLUSION When feasible, the optimal approach may be for oncologists to work with genetic counselors to provide pretest education and medical recommendations. Elicitation of patients' preferences may be useful to determine the level of counseling services needed.

PURPOSE In anticipation of the availability of genetic testing for a breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA1), this study examined interest in and expectations about the impact of a potential genetic test. PATIENTS AND METHODS The subjects were 121 first-degree relatives (FDRs) of ovarian cancer patients. The design was cross-sectional. Subjects completed a structured telephone interview of attitudes about cancer and genetic testing, and self-report psychologic questionnaires to assess coping style and mood disturbance. RESULTS Overall, 75% of FDRs said that they would definitely want to be tested for BRCA1 and 20% said they probably would. In bivariate analyses, interest was associated positively with education, perceived likelihood of being a gene carrier, perceived risk of ovarian cancer, ovarian cancer worries, and mood disturbance. In logistic regression analysis, perceived likelihood of being a gene carrier was associated strongly with interest (odds ratio, 3.7; P = .006). Results of stepwise linear regression modeling indicated that an anticipated negative impact of genetic testing was associated with being younger (beta = -.66, P = .009), having more mood disturbance (beta = .015, P = .01), and having an information-seeking coping style (beta = .19, P = .002). CONCLUSION These results suggest that the demand for genetic testing for BRCA1 among FDRs of cancer patients may be great. Moreover, those who elect to participate may represent a more psychologically vulnerable subgroup of high-risk women.

Basic and medical science investigations have identified a growing number of risk factors important in carcinogenesis. By communicating cancer risk information in medical practice, we have the potential to motivate high-risk individuals to adhere to cancer prevention and surveillance protocols. However, cancer screening and risk notification might have adverse psychologic and social consequences as well. In this review, we address the psychosocial and ethical implications of cancer risk notification. The literature on the psychosocial impact of cancer screening programs and programs for notifying workers exposed to occupational carcinogens is reviewed critically. In addition, we examine new concerns and responsibilities raised by the emerging field of cancer genetics. Suggestions for future research and for patient education are addressed.