PURPOSE: To use patient self-report to provide more valid estimates of whether radiotherapy (RT) is underutilized than possible with registry data, as well as to evaluate for disparities and the influence of preferences and provider interactions. METHODS: We considered 2,260 survey respondents who had nonmetastatic breast cancer, were age 20 to 79 years, were diagnosed between July 2005 and February 2007 in Detroit and Los Angeles, and reported to Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries (72% response rate). Survey responses were merged with SEER data. We assessed rates and correlates of RT receipt among all patients with invasive cancer receiving breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and among patients undergoing mastectomy with indications for RT (ie, positive lymph nodes or T3-4 tumors). RESULTS: Among 904 patients undergoing BCS with strong indications for RT, 95.4% received RT, and 77.6% received RT among the 135 patients undergoing mastectomy with strong indications (P < .001). Among 114 patients undergoing BCS with weaker indications (ie, elderly) for RT, 80.0% received treatment, and 47.5% received RT among the 164 patients undergoing mastectomy with weaker indications (T1N1, T2N1, or T3N0 disease; P < .001). On multivariate analysis, surgery type (P < .001), indication strength (P < .001), age (P = .005), comorbidity (P < .001), income (P = .03), patient desire to avoid RT (P < .001), level of surgeon involvement in decision to have radiation (P < .001), and SEER site (P < .001) were significantly associated with likelihood of RT receipt. CONCLUSION: RT receipt was consistently high across sociodemographic subgroups after BCS but was lower after mastectomy, even among patients with strong indications for treatment, in whom clinical benefit is similar. Surgeon involvement had a strong influence on RT receipt.
PURPOSE: To use patient self-report to provide more valid estimates of whether radiotherapy (RT) is underutilized than possible with registry data, as well as to evaluate for disparities and the influence of preferences and provider interactions. METHODS: We considered 2,260 survey respondents who had nonmetastatic breast cancer, were age 20 to 79 years, were diagnosed between July 2005 and February 2007 in Detroit and Los Angeles, and reported to Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries (72% response rate). Survey responses were merged with SEER data. We assessed rates and correlates of RT receipt among all patients with invasive cancer receiving breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and among patients undergoing mastectomy with indications for RT (ie, positive lymph nodes or T3-4 tumors). RESULTS: Among 904 patients undergoing BCS with strong indications for RT, 95.4% received RT, and 77.6% received RT among the 135 patients undergoing mastectomy with strong indications (P < .001). Among 114 patients undergoing BCS with weaker indications (ie, elderly) for RT, 80.0% received treatment, and 47.5% received RT among the 164 patients undergoing mastectomy with weaker indications (T1N1, T2N1, or T3N0 disease; P < .001). On multivariate analysis, surgery type (P < .001), indication strength (P < .001), age (P = .005), comorbidity (P < .001), income (P = .03), patient desire to avoid RT (P < .001), level of surgeon involvement in decision to have radiation (P < .001), and SEER site (P < .001) were significantly associated with likelihood of RT receipt. CONCLUSION: RT receipt was consistently high across sociodemographic subgroups after BCS but was lower after mastectomy, even among patients with strong indications for treatment, in whom clinical benefit is similar. Surgeon involvement had a strong influence on RT receipt.
Authors: A Recht; S B Edge; L J Solin; D S Robinson; A Estabrook; R E Fine; G F Fleming; S Formenti; C Hudis; J J Kirshner; D A Krause; R R Kuske; A S Langer; G W Sledge; T J Whelan; D G Pfister Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Recht; R Gray; N E Davidson; B L Fowble; L J Solin; F J Cummings; G Falkson; H C Falkson; S G Taylor; D C Tormey Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer L Malin; Katherine L Kahn; John Adams; Lorna Kwan; Marianne Laouri; Patricia A Ganz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-06-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kevin S Hughes; Lauren A Schnaper; Donald Berry; Constance Cirrincione; Beryl McCormick; Brenda Shank; Judith Wheeler; Lorraine A Champion; Thomas J Smith; Barbara L Smith; Charles Shapiro; Hyman B Muss; Eric Winer; Clifford Hudis; William Wood; David Sugarbaker; I Craig Henderson; Larry Norton Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-09-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Beth A Virnig; Joan L Warren; Gregory S Cooper; Carrie N Klabunde; Nicola Schussler; Jean Freeman Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Richard G Margolese; Melvin Deutsch; Edwin R Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-10-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Nancy K Janz; Sarah E Lillie; Christopher R Friese; Jennifer J Griggs; John J Graff; Ann S Hamilton; Sarika Jain; Steven J Katz Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2010-11-12
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Paul Abrahamse; Sarah T Hawley; John J Graff; Ann S Hamilton; Steven J Katz Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Harriet Eldredge-Hindy; Jianmin Pan; Shesh N Rai; Leonid B Reshko; Anthony Dragun; Elizabeth C Riley; Kelly M McMasters; Nicolas Ajkay Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Anna H Wu; Allison W Kurian; Marilyn L Kwan; Esther M John; Yani Lu; Theresa H M Keegan; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Iona Cheng; Salma Shariff-Marco; Bette J Caan; Valerie S Lee; Jane Sullivan-Halley; Chiu-Chen Tseng; Leslie Bernstein; Richard Sposto; Cheryl Vigen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Gery P Guy; Joseph Lipscomb; Theresa W Gillespie; Michael Goodman; Lisa C Richardson; Kevin C Ward Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Aaron J Feinstein; Pamela R Soulos; Jessica B Long; Jeph Herrin; Kenneth B Roberts; James B Yu; Cary P Gross Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.983