Travel, Treatment Choice, and Survival Among Breast Cancer Patients: A Population-Based Analysis.

Background: Travel distance to care facilities may shape urban-rural cancer survival disparities by creating barriers to specific treatments. Guideline-supported treatment options for women with early stage breast cancer involves considerations of breast conservation and travel burden: Mastectomy requires travel for surgery, whereas breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) requires travel for both surgery and RT. This provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the impact of travel distance on surgical decisions and receipt of guideline-concordant treatment. Materials and Methods: We included 61,169 women diagnosed with early stage breast cancer between 2004 and 2013 from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Driving distances to the nearest radiation facility were calculated by using Google Maps. We used multivariable regression to model treatment choice as a function of distance to radiation and Cox regression to model survival. Results: Women living farthest from radiation facilities (>50 miles vs. <10 miles) were more likely to undergo mastectomy versus BCS (odds ratio [OR]: 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22-1.79). Among only those who underwent BCS, women living farther from radiation facilities were less likely to receive guideline-concordant RT (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.32-2.23). These guideline-discordant women had worse overall (hazards ratio [HR]: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.42-1.57) and breast-cancer specific survival (HR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.29-1.60). Conclusions: We report two breast cancer treatments with different clinical and travel implications to show the association between travel distance, treatment decisions, and receipt of guideline-concordant treatment. Differential access to guideline-concordant treatment resulting from excess travel burden among rural patients may contribute to rural-urban survival disparities among cancer patients.

Genomic expression assay testing among American Indian and Alaska Native women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer mortality for all women, including American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) women. The use of the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) appears to be predictive of the benefit of chemotherapy for women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. The objective of the current study was to compare RS testing between AI/AN and non-Hispanic White (NHW) women with breast cancer. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program was used to identify women with ER-positive breast cancer from 2004 through 2015. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with RS use, with high-risk RS, and with chemotherapy use among those with a high-risk RS. RESULTS: A total of 363,387 NHW patients and 1951 AI/AN patients with ER-positive breast cancer were identified. AI/AN women were found to be less likely to undergo RS testing and, when tested, were more likely to have a high-risk RS. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, AI/AN women were found to be significantly more likely to have a high-risk RS (odds ratio,1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.66). Among untested women, chemotherapy use was higher for AI/AN women; however, the use of chemotherapy was not found to be significantly different between the groups with a high-risk RS. Using Cox proportional hazards models, AI/AN race was found to be significantly associated with worse overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: AI/AN women were less likely to undergo RS testing compared with NHW women and were more likely to have a high-risk RS. Reversing the disparity in genomic expression assay testing is critical to ensure guideline-based breast cancer treatment and improve survival rates for AI/AN women with breast cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of the Collaborative Care to Preserve Performance in Cancer (COPE) trial tele-rehabilitation interventions for patients with advanced cancers.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a Collaborative Care Model (CCM)-based, centralized telecare approach to delivering rehabilitation services to late-stage cancer patients experiencing functional limitations. METHODS: Data for this analysis came from the Collaborative Care to Preserve Performance in Cancer (COPE) trial, a randomized control trial of 516 patients assigned to: (a) a control group (arm A), (b) tele-rehabilitation (arm B), and (c) tele-rehabilitation plus pharmacological pain management (arm C). Patient quality of life was measured using the EQ-5D-3L at baseline, 3-month, and 6-month follow-up. Direct intervention costs were measured from the experience of the trial. Participants' hospitalization data were obtained from their medical records, and costs associated with these encounters were estimated from unit cost data and hospital-associated utilization information found in the literature. A secondary analysis of total utilization costs was conducted for the subset of COPE trial patients for whom comprehensive cost capture was possible. RESULTS: In the intervention-only model, tele-rehabilitation (arm B) was found to be the dominant strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $15 494/QALY. At the $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold, this tele-rehabilitation was the cost-effective strategy in 95.4% of simulations. It was found to be cost saving compared to enhanced usual care once the downstream hospitalization costs were taken into account. In the total cost analysis, total inpatient hospitalization costs were significantly lower in both tele-rehabilitation (arm B) and tele-rehabilitation plus pain management (arm C) compared to control (arm A), (P = .048). CONCLUSION: The delivery of a CCM-based, centralized tele-rehabilitation intervention to patients with advanced stage cancer is highly cost-effective. Clinicians and care teams working with this vulnerable population should consider incorporating such interventions into their patient care plans.

Patterns of Treatment and Survival among American Indian and Alaska Native Women with Breast Cancer, 2000-2015.

We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program to examine trends in breast cancer treatment and survival among a large sample of American Indian and Alaska Native women diagnosed from 2000-2015. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate survival. Alaska Natives were more likely to undergo mastectomy (48% compared with 39% of American Indians and 36% of non-Hispanic Whites) and were less likely to receive breast reconstruction following mastectomy (9% compared with 17% of American Indians and 28% of non-Hispanic Whites). Alaska Natives had both lower overall (HR: 1.40 95% CI: 1.19-1.65) and breast-cancer specific (HR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.63) survival compared with non-Hispanic Whites. Survival differences across the three racial groups varied significantly by age. Efforts to improve survival among American Indian and Alaska Native populations will need to address barriers to access among these vulnerable populations.

Evaluating Travel Distance to Radiation Facilities Among Rural and Urban Breast Cancer Patients in the Medicare Population.

PURPOSE: The distance patients travel for specialty care is an important barrier to health care access, particularly for those living in rural areas. This study characterizes the actual distance older breast cancer patients traveled to radiation treatment and the minimum distance necessary to reach radiation care, and examines whether any patient demographic or clinical factors are associated with greater travel distance. METHODS: We used data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Our cohort included 52,317 women diagnosed with breast cancer between 2004 and 2013. Driving distances were calculated using Google Maps. We used generalized estimating equations to estimate associations between patient demographic and disease variables and travel distance. FINDINGS: Patients living in rural areas traveled on average nearly 3 times as far as those from urban areas (40.8 miles vs 15.4 miles), and their nearest facility was more than 4 times farther away (21.9 miles vs 4.8 miles). Older age, being single or widowed, and lower household income were significantly associated with shorter actual travel distance, while increasing rurality was significantly associated with greater actual and minimum travel distance to radiation treatment. Disease severity (stage, grade, etc) was not significantly associated with actual or minimum travel distance. CONCLUSIONS: In this insured population, travel distance to radiation facilities may pose a significant burden for breast cancer patients, particularly among those living in rural areas. Policymakers and patient advocates should explore service delivery models, reimbursement models, and social supports aimed at reducing the impact of travel to radiation treatment for breast cancer patients.