OBJECTIVES: To explore the relationship between level and type of comorbidity and guideline-concordant care for early-stage breast cancer. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: National Program of Cancer Registry (NPCR) Breast and Prostate Cancer Patterns of Care study, which re-abstracted medical records from 2004 in seven cancer registries. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with stage 0-III breast cancer. MEASUREMENTS: Multicomponent guideline-concordant management was modeled based on tumor size, node status, and hormone receptor status, according to consensus guidelines. Comorbid conditions and severity were measured using the Adult Comorbidity Evaluation Index (ACE-27). Multivariate logistic regression models determined factors associated with guideline-concordant care and included overall ACE-27 scores and 26 separate ACE comorbidity categories, age, race, stage, and source of payment. RESULTS: The study sample included 6,439 women (mean age 58.7, range 20-99; 76% white; 44% with no comorbidity; 70% estrogen- or progesterone-receptor positive, or both; 31% human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive). Care was guideline concordant in 60%. Guideline concordance varied according to overall comorbidity burden (70% for none; 61% for minor; 58% for moderate, 43% for severe; P < .05). In multivariate analysis, the presence of hypertension (odds ratio (OR) = 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.01-1.30) predicted guideline concordance, whereas dementia (OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.24-0.82) predicted lack of guideline concordance. Older age (≥ 50) and black race were associated with less guideline concordance, regardless of comorbidity level. CONCLUSION: When reporting survival outcomes in individuals with breast cancer with comorbidity, adherence to care guidelines should be among the covariates.
OBJECTIVES: To explore the relationship between level and type of comorbidity and guideline-concordant care for early-stage breast cancer. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: National Program of Cancer Registry (NPCR) Breast and Prostate Cancer Patterns of Care study, which re-abstracted medical records from 2004 in seven cancer registries. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with stage 0-III breast cancer. MEASUREMENTS: Multicomponent guideline-concordant management was modeled based on tumor size, node status, and hormone receptor status, according to consensus guidelines. Comorbid conditions and severity were measured using the Adult Comorbidity Evaluation Index (ACE-27). Multivariate logistic regression models determined factors associated with guideline-concordant care and included overall ACE-27 scores and 26 separate ACE comorbidity categories, age, race, stage, and source of payment. RESULTS: The study sample included 6,439 women (mean age 58.7, range 20-99; 76% white; 44% with no comorbidity; 70% estrogen- or progesterone-receptor positive, or both; 31% human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive). Care was guideline concordant in 60%. Guideline concordance varied according to overall comorbidity burden (70% for none; 61% for minor; 58% for moderate, 43% for severe; P < .05). In multivariate analysis, the presence of hypertension (odds ratio (OR) = 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.01-1.30) predicted guideline concordance, whereas dementia (OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.24-0.82) predicted lack of guideline concordance. Older age (≥ 50) and black race were associated with less guideline concordance, regardless of comorbidity level. CONCLUSION: When reporting survival outcomes in individuals with breast cancer with comorbidity, adherence to care guidelines should be among the covariates.
Authors: Steven T Fleming; Susan A Sabatino; Gretchen Kimmick; Rosemary Cress; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Bin Huang; Wenke Hwang; Jonathan Liff Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Terry S Field; Jaclyn L F Bosco; Marianne N Prout; Heather T Gold; Sarah Cutrona; Pamala A Pawloski; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Virginia P Quinn; Soe Soe Thwin; Rebecca A Silliman Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2011-10-19 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: W J Louwman; M L G Janssen-Heijnen; S Houterman; A C Voogd; M J C van der Sangen; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; J W W Coebergh Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Suzanne C O'Neill; Kathryn L Taylor; Jonathan Clapp; Jinani Jayasekera; Claudine Isaacs; Deena Mary Atieh Graham; Stuart L Goldberg; Jeanne Mandelblatt Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2018-08-21
Authors: Gabrielle B Rocque; Courtney P Williams; Bradford E Jackson; Audrey S Wallace; Karina I Halilova; Kelly M Kenzik; Edward E Partridge; Maria Pisu Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Courtney P Williams; Kelly M Kenzik; Andres Azuero; Grant R Williams; Maria Pisu; Karina I Halilova; Stacey A Ingram; Supriya K Yagnik; Andres Forero; Smita Bhatia; Gabrielle B Rocque Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-08-17
Authors: Lindsay J Collin; Alyssa N Troeschel; Yuan Liu; Keerthi Gogineni; Kylee Borger; Kevin C Ward; Lauren E McCullough Journal: Ann Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2020-03-31
Authors: Changchuan Jiang; Lei Deng; Matthew A Karr; Yumeng Wen; Qian Wang; Stuthi Perimbeti; Charles L Shapiro; Xuesong Han Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-10-27 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Marloes G M Derks; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Daniele Giardiello; Caroline Seynaeve; Hein Putter; Johan W R Nortier; Luc Y Dirix; Esther Bastiaannet; Johanneke E A Portielje; Gerrit-Jan Liefers Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-01-03
Authors: Ryan A Denu; John M Hampton; Adam Currey; Roger T Anderson; Rosemary D Cress; Steven T Fleming; Joseph Lipscomb; Susan A Sabatino; Xiao-Cheng Wu; J Frank Wilson; Amy Trentham-Dietz Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2015-11-21 Impact factor: 2.984