Allison W Kurian1, Irina Bondarenko2, Reshma Jagsi3, Christopher R Friese4, M Chandler McLeod2, Sarah T Hawley5,6,7, Ann S Hamilton8, Kevin C Ward9, Timothy P Hofer10, Steven J Katz5,6. 1. Department of Medicine and Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine. 4. Department of Systems, Populations, and Leadership, School of Nursing. 5. Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health. 6. Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine. 7. Veterans Administration Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor VA Health Care System, Ann Arbor, MI. 8. Department of Preventive Medicine in the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. 9. Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Atlanta, GA. 10. Veterans Administration Center for Clinical Management Research, Health Services Research and Development Service Center of Innovation, and Department of Internal Medicine.
Abstract
Background: There is growing concern about overtreatment of breast cancer as outcomes have improved over time. However, little is known about how chemotherapy use and oncologists' recommendations have changed in recent years. Methods: We surveyed 5080 women (70% response rate) diagnosed with breast cancer between 2013 and 2015 and accrued through two Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries (Georgia and Los Angeles) about chemotherapy receipt and their oncologists' chemotherapy recommendations. We surveyed 504 attending oncologists (60.3% response rate ) about chemotherapy recommendations in node-negative and node-positive case scenarios. We conducted descriptive statistics of chemotherapy use and patients' report of oncologists' recommendations and used a generalized linear mixed model of chemotherapy use according to time and clinical factors. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The analytic sample was 2926 patients with stage I-II, estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer. From 2013 to 2015, keeping other factors constant, chemotherapy use was estimated to decline from 34.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 30.8% to 38.3%) to 21.3% (95% CI = 19.0% to 23.7%, P < .001). Estimated decline in chemotherapy use was from 26.6% (95% CI = 23.0% to 30.7%) to 14.1% (95% CI = 12.0% to 16.3%) for node-negative/micrometastasis patients and from 81.1% (95% CI = 76.6% to 85.0%) to 64.2% (95% CI = 58.6% to 69.6%) for node-positive patients. Use of the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) did not change among node-negative/micrometastasis patients, and increasing RS use in node-positive patients accounted for one-third of the chemotherapy decline. Patients' report of oncologists' recommendations for chemotherapy declined from 44.9% (95% CI = 40.2% to 49.7%) to 31.6% (95% CI = 25.9% to 37.9%), controlling for other factors. Oncologists were much more likely to order RS if patient preferences were discordant with their recommendations (67.4%, 95% CI = 61.7% to 73.0%, vs 17.5%, 95% CI = 13.1% to 22.0%, concordant), and they adjusted recommendations based on patient preferences and RS results. Conclusions: For both node-negative/micrometastasis and node-positive patients, chemotherapy receipt and oncologists' recommendations for chemotherapy declined markedly over time, without substantial change in practice guidelines. Results of ongoing trials will be essential to confirm the quality of this approach to breast cancer care.
Background: There is growing concern about overtreatment of breast cancer as outcomes have improved over time. However, little is known about how chemotherapy use and oncologists' recommendations have changed in recent years. Methods: We surveyed 5080 women (70% response rate) diagnosed with breast cancer between 2013 and 2015 and accrued through two Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries (Georgia and Los Angeles) about chemotherapy receipt and their oncologists' chemotherapy recommendations. We surveyed 504 attending oncologists (60.3% response rate ) about chemotherapy recommendations in node-negative and node-positive case scenarios. We conducted descriptive statistics of chemotherapy use and patients' report of oncologists' recommendations and used a generalized linear mixed model of chemotherapy use according to time and clinical factors. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The analytic sample was 2926 patients with stage I-II, estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer. From 2013 to 2015, keeping other factors constant, chemotherapy use was estimated to decline from 34.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 30.8% to 38.3%) to 21.3% (95% CI = 19.0% to 23.7%, P < .001). Estimated decline in chemotherapy use was from 26.6% (95% CI = 23.0% to 30.7%) to 14.1% (95% CI = 12.0% to 16.3%) for node-negative/micrometastasis patients and from 81.1% (95% CI = 76.6% to 85.0%) to 64.2% (95% CI = 58.6% to 69.6%) for node-positive patients. Use of the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) did not change among node-negative/micrometastasis patients, and increasing RS use in node-positive patients accounted for one-third of the chemotherapy decline. Patients' report of oncologists' recommendations for chemotherapy declined from 44.9% (95% CI = 40.2% to 49.7%) to 31.6% (95% CI = 25.9% to 37.9%), controlling for other factors. Oncologists were much more likely to order RS if patient preferences were discordant with their recommendations (67.4%, 95% CI = 61.7% to 73.0%, vs 17.5%, 95% CI = 13.1% to 22.0%, concordant), and they adjusted recommendations based on patient preferences and RS results. Conclusions: For both node-negative/micrometastasis and node-positive patients, chemotherapy receipt and oncologists' recommendations for chemotherapy declined markedly over time, without substantial change in practice guidelines. Results of ongoing trials will be essential to confirm the quality of this approach to breast cancer care.
Authors: Michaela A Dinan; Xiaojuan Mi; Shelby D Reed; Bradford R Hirsch; Gary H Lyman; Lesley H Curtis Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein Journal: Nature Date: 2000-08-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Michael J Hassett; Melissa E Hughes; Joyce C Niland; Stephen B Edge; Richard L Theriault; Yu-Ning Wong; John Wilson; W Bradford Carter; Douglas W Blayney; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-10-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; William E Barlow; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Sean Tunis; Laurence Baker; John Crowley; Patricia Deverka; David Veenstra; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Michael J Hassett; Samuel M Silver; Melissa E Hughes; Douglas W Blayney; Stephen B Edge; James G Herman; Clifford A Hudis; P Kelly Marcom; Jane E Pettinga; David Share; Richard Theriault; Yu-Ning Wong; Jonathan L Vandergrift; Joyce C Niland; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Kent A Griffith; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Monica Morrow; Steven J Katz; Reshma Jagsi Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Christopher R Friese; Yun Li; Irina Bondarenko; Timothy P Hofer; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; Dennis Deapen; Allison W Kurian; Steven J Katz Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Benjamin M Parsons; Jeffrey Landercasper; Angela L Smith; Ronald S Go; Andrew J Borgert; Leah L Dietrich Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Anosheh Afghahi; Maya Mathur; Caroline A Thompson; Aya Mitani; Joseph Rigdon; Manisha Desai; Peter P Yu; Monique A de Bruin; Tina Seto; Cliff Olson; Pragati Kenkare; Scarlett L Gomez; Amar K Das; Harold S Luft; George W Sledge; Amy P Sing; Allison W Kurian Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 3.714
Authors: Lu Zhang; Jessica King; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Mei-Chin Hsieh; Vivien W Chen; Qingzhao Yu; Elizabeth Fontham; Michelle Loch; Lori A Pollack; Tekeda Ferguson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; Dennis M Deapen; Paul Abrahamse; Irina Bondarenko; Yun Li; Sarah T Hawley; Monica Morrow; Reshma Jagsi; Steven J Katz Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Steven J Katz; Irina Bondarenko; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; Monica Morrow; Allison W Kurian; Timothy P Hofer Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Joseph A Sparano; Robert J Gray; Della F Makower; Kathleen I Pritchard; Kathy S Albain; Daniel F Hayes; Charles E Geyer; Elizabeth C Dees; Matthew P Goetz; John A Olson; Tracy Lively; Sunil S Badve; Thomas J Saphner; Lynne I Wagner; Timothy J Whelan; Matthew J Ellis; Soonmyung Paik; William C Wood; Peter M Ravdin; Maccon M Keane; Henry L Gomez Moreno; Pavan S Reddy; Timothy F Goggins; Ingrid A Mayer; Adam M Brufsky; Deborah L Toppmeyer; Virginia G Kaklamani; Jeffrey L Berenberg; Jeffrey Abrams; George W Sledge Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245