Search

Background: As outcomes improve in early-stage breast cancer, clinical trials are undergoing a paradigm shift from intensification trials (more therapy) to improve survival to optimization trials, which assess the potential for using less toxic therapy while preserving survival outcomes. However, little is known about physician perspectives in community and academic settings about possible barriers and facilitators that could impact accrual to optimization clinical trials and about the generalizability of future findings. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study with semi-structured interviews of medical oncologists from different academic and community practices to assess their perspectives on optimization trials. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Three independent coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. Results: Forty-six physicians were approached from 3/31/21-11/5/21; 39 oncologists from different oncology practices across 17 states completed interviews, 7 either declined or did not respond to email requests. Physician characteristics were balanced: men vs. women (49% vs 51%) and community oncologist vs. academic oncologist (49% vs 51%); and time practicing as medical oncologist (31% 0-9 years; 33% 10-19 years; 36% 20+ years). All 39 physicians reported that they would enroll patients in optimization clinical trials. Oncologists reported the need for treatment optimization, with one oncologist noting “historically, we’ve given way too much treatment to patients.” Oncologists highlighted specific reasons to consider optimization trials. They included quality of life improvement by reducing toxicity; reduction in financial toxicity; fertility preservation; ability to avoid chemotherapy; minimization of overtreatment in patients with comorbid conditions; personalized treatment; opportunities to test novel therapies; and leveraging the availability of targeted therapies. At the same time, there was hesitancy amongst some oncologists with this approach, “All my life I’ve worked to try to improve things and so I am not totally philosophically comfortable with the notion that I’m going to be happy with a result that says, we haven’t improved it but we can get by with less.” In addition, oncologists also identified accrual barriers, like tumor-specific biology, individual (host) factors (e.g. disease characteristics, patient demographics, patient psychological state, patient preferences), prognostic markers of risk, access to therapies, provider experience, and system constraints. They voiced recommendations regarding preliminary data, trial design, and tools to support communication about and enrollment in optimization trials. Conclusions: While optimization clinical trials are generally accepted to be beneficial by oncologists, barriers impact their acceptance. Scientifically robust design and education to overcome barriers are needed to support future enrollment on trials tailoring therapy based on risk and potential benefit to allow true personalization of treatment. Citation Format: Gabrielle B. Rocque, Andrews Courtney, Rachel M. Frazier, Lawhon Valerie, Stacey A. Ingram, Mary Lou Smith, Lynne I. Wagner, Lisa Zubkoff, Nadine Tung, Lauren P. Wallner, Antonio C. Wolff. Oncologist-reported Barriers and Facilitators to enrolling patients in optimization trials that test less intense cancer treatment [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-09-04.

PURPOSE: As outcomes improve in early-stage breast cancer, clinical trials are undergoing a paradigm shift from intensification trials (more therapy) to improve survival to optimization trials, which assess the potential for using less toxic therapy while preserving survival outcomes. However, little is known about physician perspectives in community and academic settings about possible barriers and facilitators that could affect accrual to optimization clinical trials and the generalizability of future findings. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with semistructured interviews of medical oncologists from different academic and community practices to assess their perspectives on optimization trials. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Three independent coders used a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. RESULTS: All 39 physicians reported that they would enroll patients in optimization clinical trials. Oncologists highlighted specific reasons to consider optimization trials. These included quality-of-life improvement by reducing toxicity, reduction in financial toxicity, fertility preservation, ability to avoid chemotherapy, minimization of overtreatment in patients with comorbid conditions, personalized treatment, opportunities to test novel therapies, and leveraging the availability of targeted therapies. Oncologists also identified accrual barriers, such as tumor-specific biology, individual (host) factors, prognostic markers of risk, access to therapies, provider experience, and system constraints. They voiced recommendations regarding preliminary data, trial design, and tools to support enrollment in optimization trials. CONCLUSION: Although oncologists are generally willing to enroll patients on optimization clinical trials, barriers affect their acceptance. A scientific focus on overcoming these barriers is needed to support future enrollment on trials tailoring therapy on the basis of risk and potential benefit to allow true personalization of treatment.

Men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer do not receive all the recommended testing. Reasons for variation in receipt are unknown.We combined prospective registry data from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, a collaborative of 46 academic and community urology practices across Michigan, with insurance claims from 2014 to 2018 for men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer. We defined receipt of recommended surveillance according to the collaborative's low-intensity criteria as: annual prostate specific antigen testing and either magnetic resonance imaging or prostate biopsy every 3 years. We assessed receipt of recommended surveillance among men with ≥36 months of followup (246). We conducted multilevel analyses to examine the influence of the urologist, urologist and primary care provider visits, and patient demographic and clinical factors on variation in receipt.During 3 years of active surveillance, just over half of men (56.5%) received all recommended surveillance testing (69.9% annual prostate specific antigen testing, 72.8% magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy). We found 19% of the variation in receipt was attributed to individual urologists. While increasing provider visits were not significantly associated with receipt, older men were less likely to receive magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy (≥75 vs55 years, adjusted odds ratio 0.07; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.81).Nearly half of men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer did not receive all recommended surveillance. While urologists substantially influenced receipt of recommended testing, exploring how to leverage patients and their visits with their primary care providers to positively influence receipt appears warranted.

Background: The influence of common medical comorbidities on mortality and racial/ethnic disparities in mortality among women with metastatic breast cancer remains largely unknown. Methods: In this longitudinal study, women with newly diagnosed stage IV breast cancer were identified in a large, diverse, integrated healthcare delivery system from January 2009 to December 2017 (n = 995) and followed through December 31, 2018, for all-cause (overall) and breast cancer–specific mortality via electronic health records. We computed overall and breast cancer–specific mortality rates by race/ethnicity and Elixhauser comorbidity index (ECI). Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) assessing the influence of race/ethnicity and comorbidity status on overall and breast cancer–specific mortality were estimated using proportional hazards regression adjusted for age, breast cancer subtype, geocoded income, and palliative cancer treatments. Results: Nearly 17% of this cohort had diabetes and 45% had hypertension. Overall, 644 deaths occurred in the cohort (median follow-up time of 1.8 years), of which 88% were breast cancer related. The risk of overall mortality was increased in Asian/Pacific Islander (PI; adjusted HR = 1.45; 95% CI, 1.10–1.92) and African American/Black women (adjusted HR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.02–1.76) when compared with white women. Women with more comorbidities (ECI ≥ 5) had more than 3-fold higher overall mortality rate than those without any comorbidities [602/1,000 person-year (PY) vs. 175/1,000 PY]. Similar associations were found for breast cancer–specific mortality. Conclusions: Medical comorbidities are associated with an increased risk of overall mortality among women with de novo metastatic disease and may influence racial/ethnic disparities in mortality. Impact: Optimizing the management of medical comorbidities in metastatic breast cancer patients may also help reduce disparities in breast cancer–related mortality.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether completing a decision aid, Personal Patient Profile – Prostate (P3P), prior to prostatectomy, affects self-reported bother from post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis included data from men with newly diagnosed clinically localized, very low to intermediate risk prostate cancer who elected for prostatectomy within the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) between 2018–21. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between P3P use and bother from post prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26). RESULTS: Among the 3987 patients included, 7% used P3P (n=266). Men who used P3P reported significantly less bother from erectile dysfunction at 6 months vs non-users (aOR 0.42 [95% CI 0.27–0.66]). At 12 months, the effect of P3P on bother from erectile dysfunction was not statistically significant (aOR 0.62 [95% CI 0.37–1.03]). Men who used P3P did not have a statistically significant difference in bother from urinary incontinence (3-month: aOR 0.56 [95% CI 0.30–1.06]; 6-month; aOR 0.79 [95% CI 0.31–1.97]). CONCLUSION: Within the stated limitations of this study, we find that use of a decision aid for localized prostate cancer was associated with decreased odds of men being bothered from sexual dysfunction but not urinary incontinence at 6 months post prostatectomy.

The global population of older cancer survivors is growing. However, the intersections of aging-related health risks across the cancer control continuum are poorly understood, limiting the integration of aging into cancer control research and practice. The objective of this study was to review the state of science and provide future directions to improve the quality of evidence in 6 priority research areas in cancer and aging.The authors identified priority research areas in cancer and aging through an evidence-based Research Jam process involving 32 investigators and trainees from multiple disciplines and research centers in aging and cancer; then, they conducted a narrative review of the state of the science and future directions to improve the quality of evidence in these research areas. Priority research areas were defined as those in which gaps in scientific evidence or clinical practice limit the health and well-being of older adults with cancer.Six priority research areas were identified: cognitive and physical functional outcomes of older cancer survivors, sampling issues in studies of older cancer survivors, risk and resilience across the lifespan, caregiver support and well-being, quality of care for older patients with cancer, and health disparities. Evidence in these areas could be improved through the incorporation of bias reduction techniques into longitudinal studies of older cancer survivors, novel data linkage, and improved representation of older adults in cancer research.The priority research areas and methodologies identified here may be used to guide interdisciplinary research and improve the quality of evidence on cancer and aging.

PURPOSE: Decision aids have been found to improve patients’ knowledge of treatments and decrease decisional regrets. Despite these benefits, there is not widespread use of decision aids for newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa). This analysis investigates factors that impact men’s choice to use a decision aid for newly diagnosed prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a PCa registry from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC). We included data from men with newly diagnosed, clinically localized PCa seen from 2018-21 at practices offering a PCa decision aid (Personal Patient Profile-Prostate; P3P). The primary outcome was men’s registration to use P3P. We fit a multilevel logistic regression model with patient-level factors and included urologist specific random intercepts. We estimated the intra-class correlation (ICC) and predicted the probability of P3P registration among urologists. RESULTS: A total of 2629 men were seen at practices that participated in P3P and 1174 (45%) registered to use P3P. Forty-one percent of the total variance of P3P registration was attributed to clustering of men under a specific urologist’s care. In contrast, only 1.5% of the variance of P3P registration was explained by patient factors. Our model did not include data on socioeconomic, literacy or psychosocial factors, which limits the interpretation of the results. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that urologists’ effect far outweighs patient factors in a man’s decision to enroll in P3P. Strategies that encourage providers to increase decision aid adoption in their practices are warranted.

PURPOSE: We developed and tested a multi-level intervention, ConnectedCancerCare (CCC), which includes a tailored website and appointment reminder system for women with early-stage breast cancer and a provider summary letter sent to their medical oncologist and primary care provider to improve the delivery of team-based survivorship care. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to establish the feasibility and acceptability of CCC. Women diagnosed with stages 0-II breast cancer within one year of completing primary treatment were randomized to CCC (intervention), or a static online survivorship care plan (control). Participants completed baseline and 3 month follow-up surveys online. Post-trial interviews with 5 PCPs, 6 oncology providers, and 8 intervention patients were conducted. RESULTS: Of the 160 eligible women invited to participate, 66 completed the baseline survey and were randomized (41%), and 54 completed a follow-up survey (83%). Participants in the intervention arm found the CCC content to be acceptable, with 82% reporting it was easy to use, and 86% reporting they would recommend it to other patients. Women randomized to CCC (vs. control) more often reported scheduling a PCP follow-up visit (64% vs. 42%), communicating with their PCP about provider roles (67% vs. 18%), and higher mean team-based cancer care knowledge scores (3.7 vs. 3.4). CONCLUSIONS: Deploying CCC in medical oncology practices was feasible, and the intervention content was acceptable. CCC shows promise for improving patient knowledge and patient-provider communication about provider roles in team-based cancer care, and encouraging patients to engage with their PCP early in the survivorship period.

Objective To evaluate the association between post-diagnosis continuity of care and receipt of aggressive end of life care among women dying of ovarian cancer. Methods This retrospective claims analysis included 6680 Medicare beneficiaries over age 66 with ovarian cancer who survived at least one year after diagnosis, had at least 4 outpatient evaluation and management visits and died between 2000 and 2016. We calculated the Bice-Boxerman Continuity of Care Index (COC) for each woman, and split COC into tertiles (high, medium, low). We compared late or no hospice use, >1 emergency department (ED) visit, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, >1 hospitalization, terminal hospitalization, chemotherapy, and invasive and/or life extending procedures among women with high or medium vs. low COC using multivariable adjusted logistic regression. Results In this sample, 49.8% of women received aggressive care in the last month of life. Compared to women with low COC, women with high COC had 66% higher odds of chemotherapy (adjusted OR 1.66 CI 1.23–2.24) in the last two weeks of life. Women with high COC also had 16% greater odds of not enrolling in hospice compared to women with low COC (adjusted OR 1.16 CI 1.01–1.33). COC was not associated with late enrollment in hospice, hospital utilization, or aggressive procedures. Conclusions COC at the end of life is complicated and may pose unique challenges in providing quality end of life care. Future work exploring the specific facets of continuity associated with quality end of life care is needed.

12025 Background: Prior studies suggest that decision support persons (DSPs) involvement in breast cancer promotes greater deliberation and decision quality. Despite having the highest level of involvement, Latinx DSPs report the lowest satisfaction with their involvement. The reasons for this remain unknown. We examined the treatment decision-making experiences of Latinx DSPs, their influence on treatment deliberation, subjective decision quality (SDQ), and treatment received. Methods: Women with newly diagnosed early-stage breast cancer as reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County in 2014-2015 were surveyed. Participants identified the DSPs who played a key role in treatment decisions, who were also surveyed. We examined: (1) bivariate associations of DSP characteristics (e.g type, age, race/ethnicity, education, acculturation level) with DSP-reported level of engagement (informed about decisions, involvement (extent and satisfaction), and aware of patient preferences), (2) DSP engagement with patient-reported SDQ and treatment deliberation using multivariable linear regression with standardized scales (3), and treatment received by DSPs preferred treatment. Results: 2502 patients (68%) and 1203 eligible DSPs (70%) responded, resulting in 1,173 dyads, 292 where the patient identified as Latina, and 881 as non-Latina. Among Latina dyads, 78%, 17%, and 5% DSPs identified as Latinx, White, and Asian/Black/Other, respectively. Latinx DSPs within Latina/Latinx dyads were younger, had lower educational attainment and acculturation when compared to other dyads. The proportion of married/partnered status was not different across dyads, but the key DSP for the Latina-Latinx dyads was more often a daughter (37%), over a husband/partner (21%), compared to the other dyads. Latinx DSPs reported being more informed (adjusted mean 4.26, p = 0.058) compared to the other dyads, and being more informed was positively associated with higher patient SDQ (adjusted mean difference 0.176, p = 0.034), despite no difference in treatment deliberation. Overall, Latinx DSP had a higher preference for mastectomy, especially with reconstruction when compared to non-Latinx (40% vs 28%). Overall, 27% of Latinas (vs 13% non-Latina) underwent lumpectomy despite their DSP’s preference for mastectomy. Conclusions: These findings reveal that the key DSP for many married Latinas is often a daughter over spouse/partner. Our results suggest that including daughter/DSPs in treatment decisions and tailoring strategies to meet their information needs may positively impact Latina SDQ. Potential areas of improvement include surgical options preferences, where notable discrepancy was seen between Latinas and non-Latinas. Awareness of these differences can minimize treatment regret, improve decision quality, and ultimately outcomes in Latinas.

Introduction:Shared decision making balances the best available evidence with patients’ preferences and values in order to make a medical decision. The use of shared decision making and its...

ObjectiveTo evaluate trends, racial disparities, and opportunities to improve the timing and location of hospice referral for women dying of ovarian cancer.MethodsThis retrospective claims analysis included 4258 Medicare beneficiaries over age 66 diagnosed with ovarian cancer who survived at least 6 months after diagnosis, died between 2007 and 2016, and enrolled in a hospice. We examined trends in timing and clinical location (outpatient, inpatient hospital, nursing/long-term care, other) of hospice referrals and associations with patient race and ethnicity using multivariable multinomial logistic regression.ResultsIn this sample, 56% of hospice enrollees were referred to a hospice within a month of death, and referral timing did not vary by patient race. Referrals were most commonly inpatient hospital (1731 (41%) inpatient, 703 (17%) outpatient, 299 (7%) nursing/long-term care, 1525 (36%) other), with a median of 6 inpatient days prior to hospice enrollment. Only 17% of hospice referrals were made in an outpatient clinic, but participants had a median of 1.7 outpatient visits per month in the 6 months prior to hospice referral. Referral location varied by patient race, with non-Hispanic black people experiencing the most inpatient referrals (60%). Hospice referral timing and location trends did not change between 2007 and 2016. Compared with individuals referred to a hospice in an outpatient setting, individuals referred from an inpatient hospital setting had more than six times the odds of a referral in the last 3 days of life (OR=6.5, 95% CI 4.4 to 9.8) versus a referral more than 90 days before death.ConclusionTimeliness of hospice referral is not improving over time despite opportunities for earlier referral across multiple clinical settings. Future work delineating how to capitalize on these opportunities is essential for improving the timeliness of hospice care.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the association of ED use in the first year of diagnosis and patient experiences in care among older adults with hematologic malignancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional design using SEER-CAHPS® data from 2002-2015 to study Medicare fee-for-service enrollees with a primary diagnosis of leukemia or lymphoma. We linked the CAHPS survey data (patient-reported experiences with health services) to patients’ cancer registry information and Medicare outpatient claims from the SEER-CAHPS resource. We estimated associations of ED use and clinical characteristics with two CAHPS outcomes – “getting care quickly” (timeliness) and “getting needed care” (access) – with bivariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The analytic sample included 751 patients, 125 of whom had an ED claim in the first year of cancer diagnosis. The most frequent ED diagnosis clusters were fever and infection (n=17, 13.6%), orthopedic and injury (16, 12.8%) and pain (16, 12.8%). Significantly more enrollees with an ED claim were diagnosed with lymphoma (p < 0.01), lived in rural areas (p < 0.01), and lived in areas with many families living in poverty (p < 0.01). In adjusted models, enrollees with an ED claim reported significantly worse access to care (β −4.83; 95%CI −9.29,−.38; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The management of urgent care concerns for adults with hematologic malignancies remains an important clinical and quality improvement imperative. Further study is warranted to enhance the management of emergent complications in older adults receiving care for hematologic malignancies, with efforts that enhance coordination of ambulatory oncology care.

Objective To establish the rates of self-reported shared decision-making (SDM) and decision aid use among practicing urologists. Additionally, we aim to determine the practice factors that influence SDM use. Materials and Methods This study uses data from the 2019 American Urological Association Annual Census SDM module. Urologists were presented with a rubric of 7 preference sensitive clinical situations and asked to choose the elements of SDM that they regularly use for the diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to evaluate factors contributing to the use of SDM. Results Two thousand two hundred and nineteen urologists responded. Of these, 77% reported that they regularly use SDM in at least 1 preference sensitive clinical scenario. Between 40% and 58% regularly gave patients decision aids. Urologists who reported barriers to SDM had a decreased odds of reporting SDM (adjusted odds ratio OR [aOR] 0.80 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-0.91]). Those practicing in academic settings (aOR 0.78 [95% CI 0.69-0.88]) were less likely than those in private practice to report SDM use. The number of patient visits per week was inversely associated with SDM use, with greater than 76 visits per week having decreased odds (aOR 0.65 [95% CI 0.57-0.74]). Conclusion In this sample of practicing urologists in the United States, the majority report regularly using SDM. However, rates of SDM varied by training, practice setting and clinical volume. Our findings highlight specific opportunities to improve in SDM in urology.

BACKGROUND: Primary care provider’s (PCP) role in cancer care is expanding and may include supporting patients in their treatment decisions. However, the degree to which PCPs engage in this role for low-risk prostate cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Characterize PCP perceptions regarding their role in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, national survey. MAIN MEASURES: For men with low-risk prostate cancer, PCP reports of (1) confidence in treatment decision-making (high vs. low); (2) intended participation in key aspects of active surveillance treatment decision-making (more vs. less). KEY RESULTS: A total of 347 from 741 eligible PCPs responded (adjusted response rate 56%). Half of respondent PCPs (50.3%) reported high confidence about engaging in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making. The odds of PCPs reporting high confidence were greater among those in solo practice (vs working with > 1 PCP) (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.14–4.17) and with higher volume of prostate cancer patients (> 15 vs. 6–10 in past year) (OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.02–4.61). PCP report of their intended participation in key aspects of active surveillance treatment decision-making varied: discussing worry (62.4%), reviewing benefits (48.5%) and risks (41.8%), and reviewing all treatment options (34.2%). PCPs who reported high confidence had increased odds of more participation in all aspects of active surveillance decision-making: reviewing all treatment options (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.82–5.32), discussing worry (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.28–3.51), and reviewing benefits (OR 3.13; 95% CI 1.89–5.16) and risks (OR 3.20; 95% CI 1.91–5.36). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of PCPs were confident about engaging with patients in low-risk prostate cancer treatment decision-making, though their intended participation varied widely across four key aspects of active surveillance care. With active surveillance being considered for other low-risk cancers (such as breast and thyroid), understanding factors influencing PCP involvement will be instrumental to supporting team-based cancer care.

Background Historically, clinical trials involved adding novel agents to standard of care to improve survival. There has been a shift to an individualized approach with testing less intense treatment, particularly in breast cancer where risk of recurrence is low. Little is known about physician perspectives on delivering less intense treatment for patients who are not well represented in clinical trials. Methods Open-ended, individual qualitative interviews with medical oncologists explored their perspectives on trials that test less intense treatment for patients with cancer, with a focus on breast cancer. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Four independent coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. Results Of the 39 participating physicians, 61.5% felt comfortable extrapolating, 30.8% were hesitant, and 7.7% would not feel comfortable extrapolating trial outcomes to underrepresented populations. Facilitators of comfort included the sentiment that “biology is biology” (such that the cancer characteristics were what mattered), the strength of the evidence, inclusion of subset analysis on underrepresented populations, and prior experience making decisions with limited data. Barriers to extrapolation included potential harm over the patient’s lifetime, concerns about groups that had minimal participants, application to younger patients, and extending findings to diverse populations. Universally, broader inclusion in trials testing lowering chemotherapy was desired. Conclusions The majority (92%) of physicians reported that they would de-implement treatment for patients poorly represented in clinical trials testing less treatment, while expressing concerns about applicability to specific subpopulations. Further work is needed to increase clinical trial representation of diverse populations to safely and effectively optimize treatment for patients with cancer. Trial registration NCT03248258

Background: Biomarkers with robust analytical and clinical validity can help optimize therapy decisions within clinical trials for patients with breast cancer, particularly if some data on clinical utility also exist. However, little is known about how physicians enrolling in clinical trials view them. Physician comfort with the integral use of conventional and investigational biomarkers for reducing chemotherapy intensity within clinical trials is explored in this study. Method: A convenience sample of academic and community oncologists from across the United States were invited to participate in qualitative interviews that explored their perspectives on the use of biomarkers for the de-escalation of chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Purposive sampling techniques were used to identify participants, ensuring even distribution of gender, work setting, and time practicing medical oncology. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed by two independent coders to identify major themes and exemplary quotes in NVivo. A framework for understanding how providers conceptualize biomarkers was created. Results: There was a total of 39 physicians with a median age of 50; 51% of physicians were academic and 49% were community-based. 44% of oncologists have been in practice for less than 15 years, and 36% and 20% of oncologists were in practice for 15-30 years and over 30 years, respectively. The model on physician level of comfort for biomarker use consisted of 1) standard of care biomarkers, 2) standard biomarkers in newer contexts, and 3) experimental biomarkers with inclusion of additional related subthemes. There was a shared theme among physicians that historical experience with a biomarker made them more comfortable in de-escalation of chemotherapy. The greatest level of physician comfort with biomarker for de-escalation of chemotherapy came with biomarkers used in standard of care (e.g., MammaPrint, Oncotype DX). Themes related to these biomarkers included: strong level of evidence, agreement with NCCN guidelines, and widespread use in the community. For example, one physician stated, “for me to use a prognostic biomarker … typically it’s going to have to at least be within the NCCN guidelines or out there”. Secondly, physicians expressed reasonable confidence with some reluctance in the use of standard of care biomarkers in contexts that differ from where they were initially tested (i.e., use of biomarker in patients with different features or disease biology). These themes included the use of biomarkers in specific subtypes of cancer and when there is less supportive evidence. One physician commented, “It’s just hard to analyze and really know whether [pathCR in ER+ setting] actually holds like it does for other tumor biologies”. There was more hesitation and least comfort with experimental biomarkers (e.g., tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, circulating tumor DNA). For experimental biomarkers, physicians were primarily concerned with the quality and quantity of evidence supporting their use. Prospective trials were favored over retrospective; however, physicians were accepting if the retrospective study included a large sample, other biomarkers were used in conjunction, or multiple studies confirmed the results. Other themes that emerged regarding experimental biomarkers were their testing in diverse populations and reproducibility. Physicians expressed contentment with experimental biomarkers that were proven in “multiple big enough studies”, were “reproducible and not subjective”, and “demonstrate utility in the patient population that’s relevant”. Conclusion: Biomarkers can be divided into 3 successive levels: 1) standard of care biomarkers, 2) standard biomarkers in newer contexts, and 3) experimental biomarkers. Level of comfort concerning the use of biomarkers for de-escalation of chemotherapy is related to level of evidence for experimental biomarkers. Citation Format: Noon Eltoum, Halle thannickal, Nicole L. Henderson, Lynne I. Wagner, Lauren P. Wallner, Antonio C. Wolff, Gabrielle B. Rocque. The Hierarchy of Biomarkers [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-01-04.

Background: Being an oncologist means accepting that some patients will have disease recurrence despite the most expert treatments. The universality of that experience, however, does not negate the potential for decisional regret and emotional distress on the part of the physician. The broad scale movement towards treatment optimization in medicine likely complicates this experience, as enrollment in de-escalation clinical trials inevitably means that the patient will receive less than the current standard of care. The objective of this study was to assess physician perceptions of potential emotional distress and decisional regret following patient recurrence through exploring the broad range of factors that either moderate or exacerbate those experiences. Methods: Physicians who treat breast cancer in academic and community settings across the United States participated in a qualitative interview designed to assess physician perspectives regarding patient enrollment in de-escalation clinical trials. Purposive sampling techniques were utilized to construct a balanced sample (sex, time in practice) of 39 participants. A subsection of the interview schedule centered on the experiences of decisional regret and distress surrounding patient recurrence. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in order to identify shared themes. Two independent coders performed a content analysis, identifying and recording factors that impact the level of distress that the physician may feel. Results: Thirty-six physicians provided in depth responses regarding their experience when a patient recurs. A total of 21 factors that affected recurrence stress were identified and spanned broad categories including patient features, disease biology, the design of the clinical trial, and characteristics of the physician. All participants expressed willingness to enroll patients in de-escalation-focused clinical trials. However, approximately half of the sample indicated that the experience would be worse after enrollment in a de-escalation trial than after a traditional intensification trial, and a quarter admitted that patient recurrence after a de-escalation trial would impact their decision making regarding future patient enrollment. Individuals not likely to experience distress emphasized having a strong trial rationale, informed patient consent, and engaging in shared decision-making, while greater distress centered on the fear of “not doing enough” and the patient missing out on necessary treatment. Conclusions: Many factors contribute to the experience of physician decisional regret and emotional distress after patient recurrence. Although most physicians recognize the importance of de-escalation focused clinical trials, a significant proportion indicated a greater potential for distress following patient recurrence in such trials and offered insight into how trial design and the process of patient enrollment can be improved to minimize potential distress. Citation Format: Nicole L. Henderson, Andrews Courtney, Lawhon Valerie, Stacey A. Ingram, Lisa Zubkoff, Nadine Tung, Lynne Wagner, Lauren P. Wallner, Antonio C. Wolff, Gabrielle B. Rocque. "Clinical Trials are Space Travel": Moderators of Recurrence Stress among Breast Cancer Oncologists [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-05-54.

Importance Surveillance imaging and visits are costly and have not been shown to improve oncologic outcomes for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). However, the benefit of surveillance visits may extend beyond recurrence detection. To better understand surveillance and potentially develop protocols to tailor current surveillance paradigms, it is important to elicit the perspectives of the clinicians who care for patients with HNC. Objective To characterize current surveillance practices and explore clinician attitudes and beliefs on deintensifying surveillance for patients with HNC. Design, Setting, and Participants This qualitative study was performed from January to March 2021. Guided by an interpretive description approach, interviews were analyzed to produce a thematic description. Data analysis was performed from March to April 2021. Otolaryngologists and radiation oncologists were recruited using purposive and snowball sampling strategies. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcomes were current practice, attitudes, and beliefs about deintensifying surveillance and survivorship as well as patients’ values and perspectives collected from interviews of participating physicians. Results Twenty-one physicians (17 [81%] men) were interviewed, including 13 otolaryngologists and 8 radiation oncologists with a median of 8 years (IQR, 5-20 years) in practice. Twelve participants (57%) stated their practice comprised more than 75% of patients with HNC. Participants expressed that there was substantial variation in the interpretation of the surveillance guidelines. Participants were open to the potential for deintensification of surveillance or incorporating symptom-based surveillance protocols but had concerns that deintensification may increase patient anxiety and shift some of the burden of recurrence monitoring to patients. Patient and physician peace of mind, the importance of maintaining the patient-physician relationship, and the need for adequate survivorship and management of treatment-associated toxic effects were reported to be important barriers to deintensifying surveillance. Conclusions and Relevance In this qualitative study, clinicians revealed a willingness to consider altering cancer surveillance but expressed a need to maintain patient and clinician peace of mind, maintain the patient-clinician relationship, and ensure adequate monitoring of treatment-associated toxic effects and other survivorship concerns. These findings may be useful in future research on the management of posttreatment surveillance.

170 Background: Despite recommendations from numerous clinical bodies (e.g., ASCO), less than 20% of NCORP-affiliated practices regularly collect SOGI data. This gap compromises the ability to identify and correct care inequities experienced by sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals. Therefore, we evaluated provider- and clinic- level barriers and facilitators to SOGI collection at NCORP practices across the US. Methods: We conducted 14 interviews across seven NCORP oncology practices via Zoom. We purposefully sampled to ensure geographic, racial, and ethnic diversity of patient populations. We interviewed one clinician (oncologist, advanced practice provider) and one clinic staff member per practice. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) informed thematic analysis that identified barriers and facilitators to SOGI data collection. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded by two coders who adjudicated any discordance. Analyses were conducted in NVivo. Results: Thematic saturation occurred after interviews at six practices, with interviews at the seventh practice confirming saturation. Participants represented five geographic regions and included three Minority Underserved practices and two rural practices. Several organizational context characteristics influenced SOGI data collection: access to knowledge, information technology infrastructure, staff processes, and perceived relative priority of SOGI for an oncology visit. All oncologists expressed a low relative priority of sexual orientation data for oncology care. Gender identity had higher priority because it influences how clinicians should address patients. At the clinic level, this low relative priority coincides with a lack of processes and policies for collecting SOGI from all patients. At the oncology care team level, perceived irrelevance to oncology care was related to discomfort in asking SOGI, fear of patient discomfort, and limited awareness of SOGI in electronic health records. Suggested solutions included: normalizing asking SOGI questions, giving patients privacy to complete SOGI, and clarifying relevance of SOGI for clinical purposes. Understanding how SOGI improves patient experiences was a facilitator for collection. Conclusions: Within this NCORP practice sample, SOGI data collection barriers included clinician-perceived low relative priority for collection, and perceptions that SOGI disclosure does not influence care quality, despite most interviewees expressing a strong desire to show respect to patients and provide high quality cancer care. Oncology teams may benefit from training on culturally sensitive SOGI collection, education on SOGI data relevance to oncology practices, and support for implementing SOGI data collection policies.

349 Background: Biomarkers are regularly utilized to select treatment within cancer clinical trials. However, there remains a lack of understanding regarding physician perspectives on what data is needed for physicians to comfortably use these markers to escalate or de-escalate chemotherapy. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with medical oncologists from different academic and community-based cancer centers were conducted to investigate perspectives on the utilization of biomarkers to de-escalate chemotherapy. Key topics explored included: (1) physician preference for biology-based (e.g. genomic profiles) vs. response-based (e.g. complete pathologic response) biomarkers, and (2) importance of personal familiarity with biomarkers. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two independent coders analyzed transcripts using a constant comparative method in NVivo to identify major themes. Analysis was stratified by practice-type to elucidate differences between oncologists at academic and community practices. Results: Of the 39 participating physicians, 51% practiced in an academic setting and 49% practiced in a community setting. The majority of physicians (67% overall, 77% community, 59% academic) did not have a preference for biology-based vs. response-based biomarkers, if the data is equally strong and clinical use is appropriate for the clinical context (e.g. patient subtype). Many physicians were reassured by achieving a real-time therapeutic response, with 23% of physicians preferring response-based biomarkers. One physician stated, “I am still more comfortable with a real-time, well-validated biomarker, response marker, than I am with an overall predictive marker for a population”. In contrast, 10% (all academic) preferred biology-based biomarkers. One physician commented “I think the biology is probably more attractive because that potentially allows you to avoid treatment, whereas pathCR they've already had to get treatment to get there”. The majority of academic physicians (55%) felt that strong data was more important than personal familiarity with regards to implementation of novel biomarkers, as noted by one who stated, “As long as there's good data, I don't care.” 15% of community physicians shared a similar view. The majority of community physicians (54%) voiced familiarity to be more important in their comfort with biomarker use as noted by one physician who stated, “I think things I’m already familiar with, I'm more inclined to feel good about”. 18% of academic physicians held a similar perspective. Conclusions: Academic and community physicians’ perspectives regarding use of novel biomarkers overlap, with multiple factors playing a role in how these biomarkers are used in decision-making. Future research is needed to understand the impact of biomarker selection on clinical trial enrollment.

254 Background: As the combination of systemic and targeted chemotherapies is associated with severe adverse side effects and long-term health complications, there is interest in reducing treatment intensity for patients with early-stage breast cancer (EBC). Currently, this approach is being described as “de-escalation,” though there is some concern that this language and framing are not well understood or preferred by patients. Methods: We collected qualitative interview data from twenty-four patients with Stage II-III breast cancer and sixteen patient advocates. Interviews explored interest in participation in clinical trials testing reduced amounts of chemotherapy, reactions to the word “de-escalation,” and preferred ways to describe this approach and its anticipated benefits. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and researchers used qualitative content analysis to code for dominant themes. Results: Twenty-three participants (57.5%) expressed interest in participating in a trial of reduced chemotherapy. However, 60% of participants had a negative response to the word “de-escalation,” including 78% of respondents that said they were interested in the concept. To describe this approach, respondents tend to prefer words like “personalization,” “optimization,” or “reduced chemotherapy.” Participants also expressed the importance of provider-patient communication, clear and simple language, sharing the decision-making process, and continued support throughout and after treatment in their consideration of trials testing lower amounts of chemotherapy. Conclusions: Among individuals with EBC, there is significant interest in alleviating treatment-related toxicity by reducing chemotherapeutic intensity. Patients are more apt to feel comfortable participating in trials testing this approach if they are framed in terms of customizing treatment to the individual patient and added benefit—reduced toxicities, higher quality of life during treatment and lower risk of long-term complications—rather than in terms of taking treatments away or doing less than the standard of care. “De-escalation” is not an ideal word to describe these trials as many associate this word with giving up in the war against cancer. Instead, participants prefer positive, patient-centered language. This information will be useful to providers in considering how best to describe de-escalation clinical trials to eligible patients in ways that avoid therapeutic misconception and facilitate the shared decision-making process regarding treatment.

99 Background: Optimization clinical trials testing less intense treatments are becoming more prominent in oncology due to the availability of better prognostic tools and targeted therapies. In addition to previously documented barriers, these trials are likely to face new barriers from engaging racially diverse populations due to the potential of an increased recurrence risk with reducing treatment. However, little is known about the role of race in decision-making for optimization clinical trials amongst physicians and patients. Methods: This qualitative study included a subset analysis on the influence of race in decision-making for participation in trials testing less chemotherapy. This analysis is part of a larger study, which included semi-structured interviews with patients, patient advocates, and physicians assessing barriers and facilitators to trial participation. Interviews were transcribed, and four coders evaluated transcripts for key themes and exemplary quotes using NVivo. Results: 79 participants (24 patients with breast cancer, 16 patient advocates, and 39 physicians) participated; 30% of patients and patient advocates and 26% of physicians were BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color). Several key barriers traditionally associated with Black race were noted amongst both patients and physicians, including aggressive biology (e.g. triple negative breast cancer), younger age, socioeconomic challenges, and lack of trust in physicians and clinical trials. One physician noted, “Taking someone who already has a mistrust of medical care and talking to them about a trial of cutting medical care back, it’s challenging.” While some physicians explicitly acknowledged the role of race in decision-making, often linking race to these barriers, the majority of physicians independently highlighted these barriers while denying the explicit impact of race. Black patients noted similar barriers including emphasizing the role of having triple negative breast cancer, being young, the influence of financial strain, and medical mistrust. One Black patient commented, “I was a triple negative, and that kind was more prone to African American women, usually we don’t really survive from it as well as other races do.” Another Black woman commented, “I had a lot of family and friends that were worried that I was going to be a “guinea pig”. In contrast, White patients heavily emphasized the role of trust in their physicians when making decisions. A White woman stated the following, “I would have done whatever they (doctors) told me was the best thing to do.”. Conclusions: Factors associated with Black race can play both an overt and subconscious role in patient and provider decision-making about participation in optimization clinical trials. Multi-level interventions are needed to address these specific barriers to ensure representative participation in clinical trials for all patient populations.

PURPOSE: End-of-life care for women with ovarian cancer is persistently aggressive, but factors associated with overuse are not well understood. We evaluated physician-level variation in receipt of aggressive end-of-life care and examined physician-level factors contributing to this variation in the SEER-Medicare data set. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries with ovarian cancer who died between 2000 and 2016 were included if they were diagnosed after age 66 years, had complete Medicare coverage between diagnosis and death, and had outpatient physician evaluation and management for their ovarian cancer. Using multilevel logistic regression, we examined physician variation in no hospice enrollment, late hospice enrollment (≤ 3 days), > 1 emergency department visit, an intensive care unit stay, terminal hospitalization, > 1 hospitalization, receiving a life-extending or invasive procedure, and chemotherapy (in the last 2 weeks). RESULTS: In this sample of 6,288 women, 51% of women received at least one form of aggressive end-of-life care. Most common were no hospice enrollment (28.9%), an intensive care unit stay (18.6%), and receipt of an invasive procedure (20.7%). For not enrolling in hospice, 9.9% of variation was accounted for by physician clustering ( P < .01). Chemotherapy had the highest physician variation (12.4%), with no meaningful portion of the variation explained by physician specialty, volume, region, or patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: In this study, a meaningful amount of variation in aggressive end-of-life care among women dying of ovarian cancer was at the physician level, suggesting that efforts to improve the quality of this care should include interventions aimed at physician practices and decision making in end-of-life care.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:Decision aids (DA) have been found to improve patients’ knowledge of treatment and decrease decisional regrets. Despite their many benefits, there is not widespread use o...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:The association between decision aids (DA) use and clinically-meaningful patient reported outcomes is not well established. We evaluated whether completing a DA, Personal...

Context Little is known about provider specialties involved in thyroid cancer diagnosis and management. Objective Characterize providers involved in diagnosing and treating thyroid cancer. Design/Setting/Participants We surveyed patients with differentiated thyroid cancer from the Georgia and Los Angeles County Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registries (N = 2632, 63% response rate). Patients identified their primary care physicians (PCPs), who were also surveyed (N = 162, 56% response rate). Main outcome measures (1) Patient-reported provider involvement (endocrinologist, surgeon, PCP) at diagnosis and treatment; (2) PCP-reported involvement (more vs less) and comfort (more vs less) with discussing diagnosis and treatment. Results Among thyroid cancer patients, 40.6% reported being informed of their diagnosis by their surgeon, 37.9% by their endocrinologist, and 13.5% by their PCP. Patients reported discussing their treatment with their surgeon (71.7%), endocrinologist (69.6%), and PCP (33.3%). Physician specialty involvement in diagnosis and treatment varied by patient race/ethnicity and age. For example, Hispanic patients (vs non-Hispanic White) were more likely to report their PCP informed them of their diagnosis (odds ratio [OR]: 1.68; 95% CI, 1.24-2.27). Patients ≥65 years (vs Conclusions PCPs were involved in thyroid cancer diagnosis and treatment, and their involvement was greater among older patients and patients of minority race/ethnicity. This suggests an opportunity to leverage PCP involvement in thyroid cancer management to improve health and quality of care outcomes for vulnerable patients.

Summary Background Little is known about how patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) experience their symptoms, receive care, and cope with their disease. Patients commonly seek peer support from online communities, which provide insights on unmet needs and barriers to care. We performed a qualitative analysis of electronic health forums to characterize patient-to-patient conversations about EoE symptoms and the experience of disease. Methods We identified three publicly accessible electronic health forums hosting EoE communities. Conversation threads posted between July 2018 and June 2020 were coded using emergent and a priori codes based on the THRIVE conceptual framework of coping with chronic illness. Results Of 659 threads (4,933 posts) collected over two years, a random sample of 240 threads (30 per 3-month quarter) were selected for analysis. Thematic saturation was reached after 172 threads. Patient experience of EoE was driven by their perspectives in four key domains: (i) perception of EoE as episodic rather than chronic, (ii) treatment choices, (iii) personal definitions of success in the disease, and (iv) views of providers. Conclusion Online health communities are a valuable and unfiltered source of patient perspectives that can be used to understand patient needs and goals. EoE patients interpret their disease as sporadic events and lack reliable sources of knowledge, which may influence how patients prioritize treatment. If providers are to succeed in providing high-quality EoE care, they need to equip themselves with evidence-based knowledge, engage in shared decision making, and look outside of clinical settings to recognize barriers to disease management.

Background: The US Health Retirement Study (HRS) is an ongoing population-representative cohort of US adults ages >50 with rich data on health during aging. Self-reported cancer diagnoses have been collected since 1998, but they have not been validated. We compared self-reported cancer diagnoses in HRS interviews against diagnostic claims from linked Medicare records. Methods: Using HRS–Medicare linked data, we examined the validity of first incident cancer diagnoses self-reported in biennial interviews from 2000 to 2016 against ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic claim records as the gold standard. Data were from 8,242 HRS participants ages ≥65 with 90% continuous enrollment in fee-for-service Medicare. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and κ for first incident invasive cancer diagnoses (all cancers combined, and each of bladder, breast, colorectal/anal, uterine, kidney, lung, and prostate cancers) cumulatively over the follow-up and at each biennial study interview. Results: Overall, self-reports of first incident cancer diagnoses from 2000 to 2016 had 73.2% sensitivity and 96.2% specificity against Medicare claims (κ = 0.73). For specific cancer types, sensitivities ranged from 44.7% (kidney) to 75.0% (breast), and specificities ranged from 99.2% (prostate) and 99.9% (bladder, uterine, and kidney). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses restricted to individuals with 100% continuous fee-for-service Medicare enrollment and when restricted to individuals with at least 24 months of Medicare enrollment. Conclusions: Self-reported cancer diagnoses in the HRS have reasonable validity for use in population-based research that is maximized with linkage to Medicare. Impact: These findings inform the use of the HRS for population-based cancer and aging research.

BACKGROUND To the authors' knowledge, studies regarding risk perception among survivors of thyroid cancer are scarce. METHODS The authors surveyed patients who were diagnosed with differentiated thyroid cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County (2632 patients; 63% response rate). The analytic cohort was defined by a ≤5% risk of disease recurrence and mortality (1597 patients). Patients estimated their recurrence and mortality risks separately (increments of 10% and endpoints of ≤5% and ≥95%). Both outcomes were dichotomized between reasonably accurate estimates (risk perception of ≤5% or 10%) versus overestimation (risk perception of ≥20%). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with risk overestimation, and the relationships between overestimation and both worry and quality of life were evaluated. RESULTS In the current study sample, 24.7% of patients overestimated their recurrence risk and 12.5% overestimated their mortality risk. A lower educational level was associated with overestimating disease recurrence (≤high school diploma: odds ratio [OR], 1.64 [95% CI, 1.16-2.31]; and some college: OR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.02-1.81]) and mortality (≤high school diploma: OR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.18-2.93]) risk compared with those attaining at least a college degree. Hispanic ethnicity was found to be associated with overestimating recurrence risk (OR, 1.44, 95% CI 1.02-2.03) compared with their white counterparts. Worry about recurrence and death was found to be greater among patients who overestimated versus those who had a reasonably accurate estimate of their risk of disease recurrence and mortality, respectively (P

BACKGROUND: Gabapentinoid use for cancer-pain control may be problematic, given unclear mechanisms of action and increased concerns for physical dependence. The purpose of this report is to examine trends of gabapentinoid use among US adults with cancer from 2005–2015. METHODS: We conducted a serial, cross-sectional study using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). We performed multiple logistic regression to examine the annual percentages of gabapentinoid users, which were adjusted for age, sex, and US region of residence. RESULTS: The amount of gabapentinoid prescriptions filled in 2015 was also estimated. The adjusted percentage of gabapentinoid users in 2015 was 5.60% (3.79%, 7.41%), 2.39 times greater than the percentage in 2005 (p < .001). By 2015, the number of gabapentinoid prescriptions had grown to approximately 3.52 million (2.40 million, 4.65 million). CONCLUSION: We observed greater than a two-fold increase in the trend of gabapentinoid medication use among US adults with cancer. Investigations on the long-term efficacy of gabapentinoids for complex pain syndromes, and mitigation of risks, is essential to guide informed clinical management and keep patients safe.

PURPOSE For many patients with differentiated thyroid cancer, use of radioactive iodine (RAI) does not improve survival or reduce recurrence risk. Yet there is wide variation in RAI use, emphasizing the importance of understanding patient perspectives regarding RAI decision making. PATIENTS AND METHODS All eligible patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer from 2014 to 2015 from the Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries were surveyed (N = 2,632; response rate, 63%). Patients in whom selective RAI use is recommended were included in this analysis (n = 1,319). Patients were asked whether they felt like they had a choice to receive RAI (yes or no), how strongly their physician recommended RAI (5-point Likert-type scale), whether they received RAI (yes or no), and how satisfied they were with their RAI decision (more [score of 4 or greater] v less). Multivariable, weighted logistic regression with multiple imputation was used to assess the associations between patient characteristics and perception of no RAI choice and between perception of no RAI choice with receipt of RAI and decision satisfaction. RESULTS More than half of respondents (55.8%) perceived they did not have an RAI choice, and the majority of patients (75.9%) received RAI. The odds of perceiving no RAI choice was greater among those whose physician strongly recommended RAI (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.17). Patients who perceived they did not have an RAI choice were more likely to receive RAI (adjusted OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.64 to 3.82) and report lower decision satisfaction (adjusted OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.67 to 3.20). CONCLUSION Many patients did not feel they had a choice about whether to receive RAI. Patients who perceived they did not have a choice were more likely to receive RAI and report lower decision satisfaction, suggesting a need for more shared decision making to reduce overtreatment.

PURPOSE: Patients report strong preferences regarding which provider—oncologist or primary care provider (PCP)—handles their primary care after initial cancer treatment (eg, other cancer screenings, preventive care, comorbidity management). Little is known about associations between provider involvement during initial cancer treatment and patient preferences for provider roles after initial treatment. METHODS: Women who received a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer in 2014 to 2015 were identified from the Georgia and Los Angeles County SEER registries and surveyed (N = 2,502; 68% response rate). Women reported the level of their providers’ involvement in their care during initial cancer treatment. Associations between level of medical oncologist’s participation and PCP’s engagement during initial cancer treatment and patient preferences for oncologist led ( v PCP led) other cancer screenings after initial treatment were examined using multivariable logistic regression models. Results: During their initial cancer treatment, 20% of women reported medical oncologists participated substantially in delivering primary care and 66% reported PCPs were highly engaged in their cancer care. Two-thirds (66%) of women preferred medical oncologists to handle other cancer screenings after initial treatment. Women who reported substantial medical oncologist participation in primary care were more likely (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.91) and those who reported high PCP engagement in cancer care were less likely (adjusted odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.53) to prefer oncologist-led other cancer screenings after initial treatment. Conclusions: Providers’ involvement during initial cancer treatment may affect patient preferences regarding provision of follow-up primary care. Clarifying provider roles as early as during cancer treatment may help to better delineate their roles throughout survivorship.

INTRODUCTION: Primary care providers can collaborate with urologists to ensure men with low risk prostate cancer on active surveillance receive followup testing and adhere to the management strategy, yet primary care provider attitudes about active surveillance and their roles remain unknown. METHODS: We surveyed 1,000 primary care providers (347/741 eligible primary care providers responded). We assessed primary care provider support for and beliefs about active surveillance, and attitudes about and preferences for their role in various aspects of low risk prostate cancer management. We then examined associations between 1) primary care provider support for and primary care provider beliefs about active surveillance; and 2) primary care provider attitudes and preferences for their role. RESULTS: Nearly 50% of primary care providers strongly supported active surveillance for all low risk men, and 81% strongly agreed that active surveillance allows men to avoid side effects, while 57% strongly agreed it caused worry. Primary care providers who strongly supported active surveillance were less likely to strongly agree that active surveillance contributes to worry (50.3% vs 63.7% respectively, p=0.01). Half of the primary care providers strongly agreed that primary care providers can provide cancer-related care (50.5%), and the majority preferred a shared care model to ordering prostate specific antigen tests (60.1%). Primary care providers who strongly agreed that primary care providers can provide cancer-related care were more likely to prefer a primary care provider-led (79.3% vs 20.7%) or shared care (53.9% vs 46.1%) model vs urologist-led for ordering prostate specific antigen tests (p

BACKGROUND: Older patients (65+) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) receive less guideline-concordant care for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and other conditions than patients with normal cognition (NC). One potential explanation is that patients with MCI want less treatment than patients with NC; however, the treatment preferences of patients with MCI have not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with MCI have different treatment preferences than patients with NC. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted at two academic medical centers from February to December 2019 PARTICIPANTS: Dyads of older outpatients with MCI and NC and patient-designated surrogates. MAIN MEASURES: The modified Life-Support Preferences-Predictions Questionnaire score measured patients’ preferences for life-sustaining treatment decisions in six health scenarios including stroke and acute myocardial infarction (range, 0–24 treatments rejected with greater scores indicating lower desire for treatment). KEY RESULTS: The survey response rate was 73.4%. Of 136 recruited dyads, 127 (93.4%) completed the survey (66 MCI and 61 NC). The median number of life-sustaining treatments rejected across health scenarios did not differ significantly between patients with MCI and patients with NC (4.5 vs 6.0; P=0.55). Most patients with MCI (80%) and NC (80%) desired life-sustaining treatments in their current health (P=0.99). After adjusting for patient and surrogate factors, the difference in mean counts of rejected treatments between patients with MCI and patients with NC was not statistically significant (adjusted ratio, 1.08, 95% CI, 0.80–1.44; P=0.63). CONCLUSION: We did not find evidence that patients with MCI want less treatment than patients with NC. These findings suggest that other provider and system factors might contribute to patients with MCI getting less guideline-concordant care. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06839-w.

The clinical landscape has moved toward less aggressive end-of-life care for women with ovarian cancer. However, whether there has been a decline in the use of aggressive end-of-life services is unknown. The authors evaluated current national trends and racial disparities in end-of-life care among women with ovarian cancer using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-linked data set.In total, 7756 Medicare beneficiaries aged66 years with ovarian cancer who died between 2007 and 2016 were identified. The authors examined trends and racial disparities in late hospice or no hospice use,1 emergency department (ED) visit, intensive care unit admission,1 hospitalization, terminal hospitalization, chemotherapy, and invasive and/or life-extending procedures using multivariable logistic regression.The median hospice length of stay did not change over time; however, women were increasingly admitted to the intensive care unit and had multiple ED visits in the last month of life (P.001). Not enrolling in hospice at the end of life and terminal hospitalizations decreased over time (P.001). Non-White women were more likely to receive aggressive end-of-life care, particularly for hospital-related utilization and life-extending procedures, whereas non-Hispanic Black women were more likely to have1 ED visit (odds ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.57-2.64) or life-extending procedures (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.45-2.48) compared with non-Hispanic White women.Despite clinical guidelines and increasing emphasis on reducing aggressive end-of-life care, the use of aggressive end-of-life care for women with ovarian cancer persists, and care is most aggressive for non-White women.

521 Background: Clinical trials provide the foundation for evidence-based practices, yet trial participants are often not representative of all patients. Historically, clinical trials involved adding novel agents to standard of care to improve survival. There has been a shift to an individualized approach with testing less intense treatment, yet vulnerable patient groups are at risk for underrepresentation. Little is known about physician perspectives on implementing less intense treatment approaches for patients who are not represented in sufficient number to draw conclusions on subpopulations. Methods: Open-ended, individual qualitative interviews with medical oncologists from different cancer centers exploring their perspectives on trials that test less intense treatment for patients with cancer. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Four independent coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. Results: Of the 39 participating physicians, 61.5% felt comfortable extrapolating, 30.8% were hesitant, and 7.7% would not feel comfortable extrapolating trial outcomes to underrepresented populations. One physician noted, “We've been extrapolating for as long as I can remember and certainly that I've been in practice; so we do need to do better there, but extrapolation is only natural with what we have.” Facilitators of comfort included sentiment that “biology is biology”, such that the cancer characteristics were what mattered; the strength of the evidence from the trial overall; inclusion of subset analysis on underrepresented populations; and prior experience making decisions with limited data. Barriers to extrapolation included the potential harm over the patient’s lifetime; concerns about groups that had minimal participants; application specifically to younger patients; and extending findings to racially and ethnically diverse populations. Oncologists highlighted the need for shared decision-making when applying study results to underrepresented populations. They also expressed concerns about study findings being applied to patients who would have been ineligible in the original trials. Universally, broader inclusion in trials testing lowering chemotherapy is desired. Conclusions: The majority (92%) of physicians report that they would extrapolate clinical trial results to patients poorly represented in de-escalation trials, while expressing concerns about applicability to specific subpopulations based on tumor characteristics (e.g. stage, biology) and patient demographics (e.g. age, race). Further work is needed to increase clinical trial representation of diverse populations to safely and effectively optimize treatment for patients with cancer.

Context The use of radioactive iodine (RAI) for low-risk thyroid cancer is common, and variation in its use exists, despite the lack of benefit for low-risk disease and potential harms and costs. Objective To simultaneously assess patient- and physician-level factors associated with patient-reported receipt of RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer. Methods This population-based survey study of patients with newly diagnosed differentiated thyroid cancer identified via the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County included 989 patients with low-risk thyroid cancer, linked to 345 of their treating general surgeons, otolaryngologists, and endocrinologists. We assessed the association of physician- and patient-level factors with patient-reported receipt of RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer. Results Among this sample, 48% of patients reported receiving RAI, and 23% of their physicians reported they would use RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer. Patients were more likely to report receiving RAI if they were treated by a physician who reported they would use RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer compared with those whose physician reported they would not use RAI (adjusted OR: 1.84; 95% CI, 1.29-2.61). The odds of patients reporting they received RAI was 55% lower among patients whose physicians reported they saw a higher volume of patients with thyroid cancer (40+ vs 0-20) (adjusted OR: 0.45; 0.30-0.67). Conclusions Physician perspectives and attitudes about using RAI, as well as patient volume, influence RAI use for low-risk thyroid cancer. Efforts to reduce overuse of RAI in low-risk thyroid cancer should include interventions targeted toward physicians, in addition to patients.

BACKGROUND: Oncology settings increasingly use patient experience data to evaluate clinical performance. Given that older patients with hematologic malignancies are a high-need and high-risk population, this study examined factors associated with patient-reported health care experiences during the first year of their cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using the 2000–2015 SEER-CAHPS® data to examine patient experiences of Medicare enrollees with a primary diagnosis of leukemia or lymphoma. The primary outcomes were three CAHPS assessments: overall care, personal doctor and health plan overall. We estimated case-mix adjusted and fully adjusted associations between factors (i.e., clinical and sociodemographic) and the CAHPS outcomes using bivariate statistical tests and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: The final sample included 1,151 patients, with 431 diagnosed with leukemia and 720 diagnosed with lymphoma (median time from diagnosis to survey 6 months). Patients who completed the survey further apart from the diagnosis date reported significantly higher adjusted ratings of care overall (p=.008) than those closer to diagnosis. American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, and Pacific Islander patients had lower adjusted ratings of care overall (p= .003) than Non-Hispanic White patients. Multimorbidity was significantly associated with higher adjusted personal doctor ratings (p=.003). CONCLUSIONS: Unfavorable patient experience ratings among vulnerable and under-represented older adults diagnosed with hematologic malignancies warrant targeted efforts to measure and improve care quality. Future measurement of experiences of cancer care soon after diagnosis, coupled with careful sampling of high-priority populations, will inform oncology leaders and clinicians on strategies to improve care for high-risk, high-cost populations.

Objective To compare the risk of mortality among men treated for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with 5 alpha-reductase inhibitors (5ARI) to those treated with alpha-blockers (AB) in community practice settings. Methods We employed a retrospective matched cohort study in 4 regions of an integrated healthcare system. Men aged 50 years and older who initiated pharmaceutical treatment for BPH and/or lower urinary tract symptoms between 1992 and 2008 and had at least 3 consecutive prescriptions that were eligible and followed through 2010 (N = 174,895). Adjusted hazard ratios were used to estimate the risk of mortality due to all-causes associated with 5ARI use (with or without concomitant ABs) as compared to AB use. Results In this large and diverse sample with 543,523 person-years of follow-up, 35,266 men died during the study period, 18.9% of the 5ARI users and 20.4% of the AB users. After adjustment for age, medication initiation year, race, region, prior AB history, Charlson score, and comorbidities, 5ARI use was not associated with an increased risk of mortality when compared to AB use (Adjusted hazard ratios: 0.64, 95% confidence interval: 0.62, 0.66). Conclusion Among men receiving medications for BPH in community practice settings, 5ARI use was not associated with an increased risk of mortality when compared to AB use. These data provide reassurance about the safety of using 5ARIs in general practice to manage BPH and/or lower urinary tract symptoms.

Background Little is known regarding whether growing awareness of the financial toxicity of a cancer diagnosis and its treatment has increased clinician engagement or changed the needs of current patients. Methods The authors surveyed patients with early-stage breast cancer who were identified through population-based sampling from 2 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) regions and their physicians. The authors described responses from approximately 73% of surgeons (370 surgeons), 61% of medical oncologists (306 medical oncologists), 67% of radiation oncologists (169 radiation oncologists), and 68% of patients (2502 patients). Results Approximately one-half (50.9%) of responding medical oncologists reported that someone in their practice often or always discusses financial burden with patients, as did 15.6% of surgeons and 43.2% of radiation oncologists. Patients indicated that financial toxicity remains common: 21.5% of white patients and 22.5% of Asian patients had to cut down spending on food, as did 45.2% of black and 35.8% of Latina patients. Many patients desired to talk to providers about the financial impact of cancer (15.2% of whites, 31.1% of blacks, 30.3% of Latinas, and 25.4% of Asians). Unmet patient needs for engagement with physicians about financial concerns were common. Of 945 women who worried about finances, 679 (72.8%) indicated that physicians and their staff did not help. Of 523 women who desired to talk to providers regarding the impact of breast cancer on employment or finances, 283 (55.4%) reported no relevant discussion. Conclusions Many patients report inadequate clinician engagement in the management of financial toxicity, even though many providers believe that they make services available. Clinician assessment and communication regarding financial toxicity must improve; cure at the cost of financial ruin is unacceptable. Cancer 2018;000:000-000. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

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.

BACKGROUND The omission of radiotherapy (RT) after lumpectomy is a reasonable option for many older women with favorable-prognosis breast cancer. In the current study, we sought to evaluate patient perspectives regarding decision making about RT. METHODS Women aged 65 to 79 years with AJCC 7th edition stage I and II breast cancer who were reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles County Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries were surveyed (response rate, 70%) regarding RT decisions, the rationale for omitting RT, decision-making values, and understanding of disease recurrence risk. We also surveyed their corresponding surgeons (response rate, 77%). Patient characteristics associated with the omission of RT were evaluated using multilevel, multivariable logistic regression, accounting for patient clustering within surgeons. RESULTS Of 999 patients, 135 omitted RT (14%). Older age, lower tumor grade, and having estrogen receptor-positive disease each were found to be strongly associated with omission of RT in multivariable analyses, whereas the number of comorbidities was not. Non-English speakers were more likely to omit RT (adjusted odds ratio, 5.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-24.5). The most commonly reported reasons for RT omission were that a physician advised the patient that it was not needed (54% of patients who omitted RT) and patient choice (41%). Risk of local disease recurrence was overestimated by all patients: by approximately 2-fold among those who omitted RT and by approximately 8-fold among those who received RT. The risk of distant disease recurrence was overestimated by approximately 3-fold on average. CONCLUSIONS To some extent, decisions regarding RT omission are appropriately influenced by patient age, tumor grade, and estrogen receptor status, but do not appear to be optimally tailored according to competing comorbidities. Many women who are candidates for RT omission overestimate their risk of disease recurrence. Cancer 2018;124:2714-2723. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Background: Despite thyroid cancer being the second most common cancer in Hispanic women, little is known about access to and utilization of medical information resources by Hispanic women with thyroid cancer. Methods: Hispanic women who had diagnoses of thyroid cancer reported to the Los Angeles Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry in 2014-2015, and who had previously completed our thyroid cancer survey in 2017-2018, were offered follow-up surveys in both English and Spanish (N=273; 80% response rate). Acculturation, which is the process by which individuals adopt the language, values, attitudes, and behaviors of a different culture, was assessed with the Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (SASH). Health literacy was assessed with the validated single-item question of “How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?” with response categories based on a five-point Likert scale from “extremely” to “not at all”. Patients were also asked about their internet access, information resources used, and ability to access medical information about thyroid cancer in their preferred language. We generated descriptive statistics for all categorical variables and used Rao-Scott adjusted chi-square tests to test for a relationship between level of acculturation and the following variables: health literacy, internet access, information resources used, and ability to access information. Results: Participants’ median age at diagnosis was 47 years (range 20-79); 49% were low-acculturated, 25% had low health literacy, and 14% reported no internet access at home. Low-acculturated Hispanic women reported using information resources in both English and Spanish whereas high-acculturated women used resources in English only. Hispanic women were more likely to report the ability to access medical information about thyroid cancer all of the time if they preferred information in English compared to if they preferred it in Spanish (89% vs 37%, P

142 Background: Goals of care conversations are associated with less aggressive end of life care and may be most effective in an outpatient setting. Yet, the relationship between initial utilization of care and subsequent hospice enrollment is unknown. We evaluated whether inpatient, outpatient and emergency department (ED) evaluation and management (E/M) visits differed by patient race/ethnicity, and whether less outpatient management was associated with failure to enroll in hospice in a sample of women dying of ovarian cancer. Methods: Women diagnosed with first and only ovarian cancer who died between 2000 and 2016 and had ≥ one inpatient and outpatient ovarian cancer E/M encounter between diagnosis and the last two months of life in SEER-Medicare were included (N = 8,806). Women whose proportion of outpatient E/M encounters fell below the median were classified as having low outpatient management (vs. high). Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression was used to estimate the association of: (1) race/ethnicity with outpatient management, and (2) outpatient management with hospice enrollment, stratified by race/ethnicity. Models were adjusted for stage at diagnosis, histology, survival time, age, Charlson score, geographic region, and year. Results: In this sample, 29.2% of ovarian cancer E/M took place in an inpatient setting, 66.4% outpatient, and 4.4% in the ED. Non-Hispanic Black women had 53.9% of their E/M occur in an outpatient setting, compared to 67.6% in non-Hispanic White women, 60.7% in Hispanic women, and 64.2% in women of other races (p

312 Background: Population aging and improving cancer survival rates are resulting in a growing population of older cancer survivors in the United States (US). As a result, there is an increasing need for longitudinal, population-representative data for interdisciplinary cancer research among older adults. The US Health Retirement Study (HRS) is an ongoing population-representative cohort of US adults over age 50 that contains rich interview and biomarker data on health during aging. Interviews have collected self-reported cancer diagnoses since 1998, but these self-reports have not been validated. We compared first incident cancer diagnoses self-reported in HRS interviews against diagnostic claims from linked Medicare records. Methods: We examined the validity of first incident cancer diagnoses self-reported in biennial HRS interviews from 2000 through 2016 against ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic claim records among 8,242 HRS participants aged ≥65 with 90% continuous enrollment in fee-for-service Medicare, using the claim records as the gold standard. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and k for first incident cancer diagnoses (all cancers combined, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, and each of bladder, breast, colorectal/anal, uterine, kidney/renal, lung/bronchus, and prostate cancers) cumulatively over the follow-up, and at each biennial study interview. Results: Self-reports of first incident cancer diagnosis (agnostic of site) between 2000 and 2016 had 73.2% sensitivity and 96.2% specificity against Medicare claims (k = 0.73). For site-specific self-reports, sensitivities ranged from 44.7% (kidney) to 75.0% (breast), and specificities ranged from 99.2% (prostate) to 99.9% (bladder, uterine, and kidney). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses restricting to individuals with 100% continuous fee-for-service Medicare enrollment and when restricting to individuals with at least 24 months of Medicare enrollment. Conclusions: Self-reported cancer diagnoses in the HRS have reasonable validity for population-based research on cancer and aging across cancer types. Apart from breast cancer, cancer site specific analyses will greatly benefit from the improved validity of self-report with Medicare claim linkage.