Candyce H Kroenke1, Dawn L Hershman2, Scarlett L Gomez3,4,5, Sara R Adams6, Elizabeth H Eldridge6, Marilyn L Kwan6, Isaac J Ergas6, Ai Kubo6, Lawrence H Kushi6. 1. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 2000 Broadway, 5th floor, Oakland, CA, USA. Candyce.H.Kroenke@kp.org. 2. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA, USA. 5. Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA. 6. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 2000 Broadway, 5th floor, Oakland, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated associations between personal and clinical social support and non-adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) in a large, Northern California breast cancer (BC) cohort from an integrated healthcare network. METHODS: This study included 3382 women from the Pathways Study diagnosed from 2005 to 2013 with stages I-III hormone receptor-positive BC and who responded to the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support and Interpersonal Processes of Care surveys, approximately 2 months post-diagnosis. We used logistic regression to evaluate associations between tertiles of social support and non-initiation (< 2 consecutive prescription fills within a year after diagnosis). Among those who initiated treatment, we used proportional hazards regression to evaluate associations with discontinuation (≥ 90 day gap) and non-adherence (< 80% medical possession ratio). RESULTS: Of those who initiated AET (79%), approximately one-fourth either discontinued AET or were non-adherent. AET non-initiation was more likely in women with moderate (adjusted OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.96-1.46) or low (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05-1.62) versus high personal social support (P trend = 0.02). Women with moderate (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.99-1.45) or low (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.60) personal social support were also more likely to discontinue treatment (P trend = 0.01). Furthermore, women with moderate (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.53) or low (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.12-1.70) personal social support had higher non-adherence (P trend = 0.007). Associations with clinical social support and outcomes were similar. Notably, high clinical social support mitigated the risk of discontinuation when patients' personal support was moderate or low (P value = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Women with low personal or clinical social support had higher AET non-adherence. Clinician teams may need to fill support gaps that compromise treatment adherence.
PURPOSE: We evaluated associations between personal and clinical social support and non-adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) in a large, Northern California breast cancer (BC) cohort from an integrated healthcare network. METHODS: This study included 3382 women from the Pathways Study diagnosed from 2005 to 2013 with stages I-III hormone receptor-positive BC and who responded to the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support and Interpersonal Processes of Care surveys, approximately 2 months post-diagnosis. We used logistic regression to evaluate associations between tertiles of social support and non-initiation (< 2 consecutive prescription fills within a year after diagnosis). Among those who initiated treatment, we used proportional hazards regression to evaluate associations with discontinuation (≥ 90 day gap) and non-adherence (< 80% medical possession ratio). RESULTS: Of those who initiated AET (79%), approximately one-fourth either discontinued AET or were non-adherent. AET non-initiation was more likely in women with moderate (adjusted OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.96-1.46) or low (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05-1.62) versus high personal social support (P trend = 0.02). Women with moderate (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.99-1.45) or low (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.60) personal social support were also more likely to discontinue treatment (P trend = 0.01). Furthermore, women with moderate (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.53) or low (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.12-1.70) personal social support had higher non-adherence (P trend = 0.007). Associations with clinical social support and outcomes were similar. Notably, high clinical social support mitigated the risk of discontinuation when patients' personal support was moderate or low (P value = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS:Women with low personal or clinical social support had higher AET non-adherence. Clinician teams may need to fill support gaps that compromise treatment adherence.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adjuvant endocrine therapy; Breast cancer; Non-adherence; Social support; Women
Authors: Candyce H Kroenke; Marilyn L Kwan; Alfred I Neugut; Isaac J Ergas; Jaime D Wright; Bette J Caan; Dawn Hershman; Lawrence H Kushi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: C Cluze; D Rey; L Huiart; M K BenDiane; A D Bouhnik; C Berenger; M P Carrieri; R Giorgi Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-07-25 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Marilyn L Kwan; Christine B Ambrosone; Marion M Lee; Janice Barlow; Sarah E Krathwohl; Isaac Joshua Ergas; Christine H Ashley; Julie R Bittner; Jeanne Darbinian; Keren Stronach; Bette J Caan; Warren Davis; Susan E Kutner; Charles P Quesenberry; Carol P Somkin; Barbara Sternfeld; John K Wiencke; Shichun Zheng; Lawrence H Kushi Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Rachel C Shelton; Grace Clarke Hillyer; Dawn L Hershman; Nicole Leoce; Dana H Bovbjerg; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Lawrence H Kushi; Lois Lamerato; S David Nathanson; Christine B Ambrosone; Alfred I Neugut Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-12-22 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Jacquie H Chirgwin; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Alan S Coates; Karen N Price; Bent Ejlertsen; Marc Debled; Richard D Gelber; Aron Goldhirsch; Ian Smith; Manuela Rabaglio; John F Forbes; Patrick Neven; István Láng; Marco Colleoni; Beat Thürlimann Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eric P Winer; Clifford Hudis; Harold J Burstein; Antonio C Wolff; Kathleen I Pritchard; James N Ingle; Rowan T Chlebowski; Richard Gelber; Stephan B Edge; Julie Gralow; Melody A Cobleigh; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Lori J Goldstein; Timothy J Whelan; Trevor J Powles; John Bryant; Cheryl Perkins; Judy Perotti; Susan Braun; Amy S Langer; George P Browman; Mark R Somerfield Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-11-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Molly E Ream; Emily A Walsh; Jamie M Jacobs; Chloe Taub; Marc Lippman; Natasha Schaefer-Solle; Steven A Safren; Michael H Antoni Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Leah K Lambert; Lynda G Balneaves; A Fuchsia Howard; Stephen L K Chia; Carolyn C Gotay Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Erin J Aiello Bowles; Cody Ramin; Diana S M Buist; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Sheila Weinmann; Lene H S Veiga; Clara Bodelon; Rochelle E Curtis; Jacqueline B Vo; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Rebecca A Nelson; Zeynep Bostanci; Veronica Jones; Joanne Mortimer; Amy Polverini; Lesley Taylor; Lisa Yee; John H Yim; Laura Kruper Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Zerko Wako; Daniel Mengistu; Negalign Getahun Dinegde; Tseganesh Asefa; Mulugeta Wassie Journal: Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) Date: 2021-06-09
Authors: Hannah M Fisher; Joseph G Winger; Shannon N Miller; Arianna N Wright; Jennifer C Plumb Vilardaga; Catherine Majestic; Sarah A Kelleher; Tamara J Somers Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jamie M Jacobs; Emily A Walsh; Chelsea S Rapoport; Michael H Antoni; Elyse R Park; Kathryn Post; Amy Comander; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Steven A Safren; Jennifer S Temel; Joseph A Greer Journal: J Clin Psychol Med Settings Date: 2020-11-21