PURPOSE: Breast cancer chemotherapy decisions in patients > or = 65 years old (older) are complex because of comorbidity, toxicity, and limited data on patient preference. We examined relationships between preferences and chemotherapy use. METHODS: Older women (n = 934) diagnosed with invasive (> or = 1 cm), nonmetastatic breast cancer from 2004 to 2008 were recruited from 53 cooperative group sites. Data were collected from patient interviews (87% complete), physician survey (93% complete), and charts. Logistic regression and multiple imputation methods were used to assess associations between chemotherapy and independent variables. Chemotherapy use was also evaluated according to the following two groups: indicated (estrogen receptor [ER] negative and/or node positive) and possibly indicated (ER positive and node negative). RESULTS: Mean patient age was 73 years (range, 65 to 100 years). Unadjusted chemotherapy rates were 69% in the indicated group and 16% in the possibly indicated group. Women who would choose chemotherapy for an increase in survival of < or = 12 months had 3.9 times (95% CI, 2.4 to 6.3 times; P < .001) higher odds of receiving chemotherapy than women with lower preferences, controlling for covariates. Stronger preferences were seen when chemotherapy could be indicated (odds ratio [OR] = 7.7; 95% CI, 3.8 to 16; P < .001) than when treatment might be possibly indicated (OR = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.0 to 3.8; P = .06). Higher patient rating of provider communication was also related to chemotherapy use in the possibly indicated group (OR = 1.9 per 5-point increase in communication score; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.8; P < .001) but not in the indicated group (P = .15). CONCLUSION: Older women's preferences and communication with providers are important correlates of chemotherapy use, especially when benefits are more equivocal.
PURPOSE:Breast cancer chemotherapy decisions in patients > or = 65 years old (older) are complex because of comorbidity, toxicity, and limited data on patient preference. We examined relationships between preferences and chemotherapy use. METHODS: Older women (n = 934) diagnosed with invasive (> or = 1 cm), nonmetastatic breast cancer from 2004 to 2008 were recruited from 53 cooperative group sites. Data were collected from patient interviews (87% complete), physician survey (93% complete), and charts. Logistic regression and multiple imputation methods were used to assess associations between chemotherapy and independent variables. Chemotherapy use was also evaluated according to the following two groups: indicated (estrogen receptor [ER] negative and/or node positive) and possibly indicated (ER positive and node negative). RESULTS: Mean patient age was 73 years (range, 65 to 100 years). Unadjusted chemotherapy rates were 69% in the indicated group and 16% in the possibly indicated group. Women who would choose chemotherapy for an increase in survival of < or = 12 months had 3.9 times (95% CI, 2.4 to 6.3 times; P < .001) higher odds of receiving chemotherapy than women with lower preferences, controlling for covariates. Stronger preferences were seen when chemotherapy could be indicated (odds ratio [OR] = 7.7; 95% CI, 3.8 to 16; P < .001) than when treatment might be possibly indicated (OR = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.0 to 3.8; P = .06). Higher patient rating of provider communication was also related to chemotherapy use in the possibly indicated group (OR = 1.9 per 5-point increase in communication score; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.8; P < .001) but not in the indicated group (P = .15). CONCLUSION: Older women's preferences and communication with providers are important correlates of chemotherapy use, especially when benefits are more equivocal.
Authors: Carol Smigal; Ahmedin Jemal; Elizabeth Ward; Vilma Cokkinides; Robert Smith; Holly L Howe; Michael Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2006 May-Jun Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Soonmyung Paik; Steven Shak; Gong Tang; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Michael G Walker; Drew Watson; Taesung Park; William Hiller; Edwin R Fisher; D Lawrence Wickerham; John Bryant; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: S J T Jansen; W Otten; M C M Baas-Thijssen; C J H van de Velde; J W R Nortier; A M Stiggelbout Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sharon H Giordano; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Shu-Wan C Kau; Richard L Theriault; Melissa L Bondy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: V M Duric; M R Stockler; S Heritier; F Boyle; J Beith; A Sullivan; N Wilcken; A S Coates; R J Simes Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-08-26 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Hyman B Muss; Susan Woolf; Donald Berry; Constance Cirrincione; Raymond B Weiss; Daniel Budman; William C Wood; I Craig Henderson; Clifford Hudis; Eric Winer; Harvey Cohen; Judith Wheeler; Larry Norton Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Linda C Harlan; Limin X Clegg; Jeffrey Abrams; Jennifer L Stevens; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-02-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Simon Smith; Muhammad Arsyad Bin Nordin; Tom Hinchy; Patrick Henn; Colm M P O'Tuathaigh Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2020-07-26 Impact factor: 1.710
Authors: Vanessa B Sheppard; Robin Walker; Winifred Phillips; Victoria Hudson; Hanfei Xu; Mark L Cabling; Jun He; Arnethea L Sutton; Jill Hamilton Journal: J Relig Health Date: 2018-10
Authors: Chalanda N Evans; Noel T Brewer; Susan T Vadaparampil; Marc Boisvert; Yvonne Ottaviano; M Catherine Lee; Claudine Isaacs; Marc D Schwartz; Suzanne C O'Neill Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Regina Gironés; Dolores Torregrosa; José Gómez-Codina; Inma Maestu; Jose María Tenias; Rafael Rosell Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Joan M Neuner; Nathan Zokoe; Emily L McGinley; Liliana E Pezzin; Tina W F Yen; Marilyn M Schapira; Ann B Nattinger Journal: Breast Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Vanessa B Sheppard; Claudine Isaacs; George Luta; Shawna C Willey; Marc Boisvert; Felicity W K Harper; Karen Smith; Sara Horton; Minetta C Liu; Yvonne Jennings; Fikru Hirpa; Felicia Snead; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Vanessa B Sheppard; Leigh Anne Faul; George Luta; Jonathan D Clapp; Rachel L Yung; Judy Huei-Yu Wang; Gretchen Kimmick; Claudine Isaacs; Michelle Tallarico; William T Barry; Brandelyn N Pitcher; Clifford Hudis; Eric P Winer; Harvey J Cohen; Hyman B Muss; Arti Hurria; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 44.544