Helping patients navigate the immediate release of medical records: MedEd, a novel patient engagement technology.

BACKGROUND: Through online health portals, patients receive complex medical reports without interpretation from their healthcare provider. This study evaluated the usability of MedEd, a patient engagement tool providing definitions of medical terminology in breast pathology and radiology reports. METHODS: Individuals who underwent a normal screening mammogram were invited to complete semi-structured interviews where they downloaded MedEd and discussed their download experience. Acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of MedEd were evaluated. RESULTS: 143 individuals were invited to participate, and 14 semi-structured interviews were completed. Participants reported ease of downloading and navigating MedEd with concerns about privacy and others' abilities to download. Participants demonstrated high acceptability (mean 4.48/5, SD 0.95), appropriateness (mean 4.66/5, SD 0.83), and feasibility (mean 4.48/5, SD 1.04) scores. CONCLUSION: Participants expressed excitement for future use of MedEd and provided suggestions for improvements. Next steps include evaluating comprehension of real breast reports while using MedEd and expanding patient access.

Interpretation of immediately released health information: Informing patient medical education in breast oncology.

BACKGROUND: The Cures Act mandated immediately released health information. In this study, we investigated patient comprehension of mammography reports and the utility of online resources to aid report interpretation. METHODS: Patients who received a normal mammogram from February to April 2022 were invited to complete semi-structured interviews paired with health literacy questionnaires to assess patient's report comprehension before and after internet search. RESULTS: Thirteen selected patients via purposeful sampling completed interviews. Most patients described their initial understanding of the mammography report as "good" and improved to between "good" and "very good" after an internet search. Patients suggested "a little column on the side" for medical terminology, "an extra prompt" for making an appointment, or a recommendation for "good sites" to improve mammography reports. CONCLUSION: Patients varied in their ability to independently interpret medical reports and seek additional resources. While online resources marginally improved patient understanding, actionable and clear resources are needed.

Information transparency with immediate release: Oncology clinician and patient perceptions.

INTRODUCTION: As part of the 21st Century Cures Act (April 2021), electronic health information (EHI) must be immediately released to patients. In this study, we sought to evaluate clinician and patient perceptions regarding this immediate release. METHODS: After surveying 33 clinicians and 30 patients, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subset of the initial sample, comprising 8 clinicians and 12 patients. Open-ended questions explored clinicians' and patients' perceptions of immediate release of EHI and how they adjusted to this change. RESULTS: Ten themes were identified: Interpreting Results, Strategies for Patient Interaction, Patient Experiences, Communication Strategies, Provider Limitations, Provider Experiences, Health Information Interfaces, Barriers to Patient Understanding, Types of Results, and Changes due to Immediate Release. Interviews demonstrated differences in perceived patient distress and comprehension, emphasizing the impersonal nature of electronic release and necessity for therapeutic clinician-patient communication. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and patients have unique insights on the role of immediate release. Understanding these perspectives will help improve communication and develop patient-centered tools (glossaries, summary pages, additional resources) to aid patient understanding of complex medical information.

Are Diagnostic Delays Associated with Distress in Breast Cancer Patients?

Introduction: Receiving a new breast cancer diagnosis can cause anxiety and distress, which can lead to psychologic morbidity, decreased treatment adherence, and worse clinical outcomes. Understanding sources of distress is crucial in providing comprehensive care. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between delays in breast cancer diagnosis and patient-reported distress. Secondary outcomes include assessing patient characteristics associated with delay. Methods: Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients who completed a distress screening tool at their initial evaluation at an academic institution between 2014 and 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. The tool captured distress levels in the emotional, social, health, and practical domains with scores of "high distress" defined by current clinical practice guidelines. Delay from mammogram to biopsy, whether diagnostic or screening mammogram, was defined as >30 days. Result: 745 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients met inclusion criteria. Median time from abnormal mammogram to core biopsy was 12 days, and 11% of patients experienced a delay in diagnosis. The non-delayed group had higher emotional (p = 0.04) and health (p = 0.03) distress than the delayed group. No statistically significant differences in social distress were found between groups. Additionally, patients with higher practical distress had longer time interval between mammogram and surgical intervention compared to those with lower practical distress. Older age, diagnoses of invasive lobular carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ, and clinical anatomic stages 0-I were associated with diagnostic delay. Conclusion: Patients with higher emotional or health-related distress were more likely to have timely diagnoses of breast cancer, suggesting that patients with higher distress may seek healthcare interventions more promptly. Improved understanding of sources of distress will permit early intervention regarding the devastating impact of breast cancer diagnosis.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis provide health care providers with a practical, consistent framework for screening and evaluating a spectrum of clinical presentations and breast lesions. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel is composed of a multidisciplinary team of experts in the field, including representation from medical oncology, gynecologic oncology, surgical oncology, internal medicine, family practice, preventive medicine, pathology, diagnostic and interventional radiology, as well as patient advocacy. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel meets at least annually to review emerging data and comments from reviewers within their institutions to guide updates to existing recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's decision-making and discussion surrounding the most recent updates to the guideline's screening recommendations.

Patient comprehension of breast pathology report terminology: The need for patient-centered resources.

BACKGROUND: As health care continues to evolve toward information transparency, an increasing number of patients have access to their medical records, including result reports that were not originally designed to be patient-facing. Previous studies have demonstrated that patients have poor understanding of medical terminology. However, patient comprehension of terminology specific to breast pathology reports has not been well studied. We assessed patient understanding of common medical terms found in breast pathology reports. METHODS: A survey was administered electronically to patients scheduled for a screening mammogram within a multisite health care system. Participants were asked to objectively define and interpret 8 medical terms common to breast biopsy pathology reports. Patient perception of the utility of various educational tools was also assessed. Demographic information including health literacy, education level, previous cancer diagnosis, and primary language was collected. RESULTS: In total, 527 patients completed the survey. Terms including "malignant" and "benign" were the most correctly defined at 80% and 73%, respectively, whereas only 1% correctly defined "high grade." Factors including race/ethnicity and education level were correlated with more correct scores. Patients preferred educational tools that were specific to their diagnosis and available at the time they were reviewing their results. CONCLUSION: Patient comprehension of common medical terminology is poor. Potential assumptions of understanding based on patient factors including education, past medical history, and occupation are misinformed. With the newly mandated immediate release of information to patients, there is a pressing need to develop and integrate educational tools to support patients through all aspects of their care.

Patient and clinician perceptions of the immediate release of electronic health information.

OBJECTIVES: The 21st Century Cures Act requires that institutions release all electronic health information (EHI) to patients immediately. We aimed to understand patient and clinician attitudes toward the immediate release of EHI to patients. METHODS: Patients and clinicians representing distinct specialties at a single academic medical center completed a survey to assess attitudes toward the immediate release of results. Differences between patient and clinician responses were compared using chi-square and student's t-test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all statistical tests. RESULTS: 69 clinicians and 57 patients completed the survey. Both patients (89.7%) and clinicians (80.6%) agreed or strongly agreed-here after referred to as agreed, that providing patients with access to their health information is necessary in delivering high-quality care. However, 62.7% of clinicians agreed that results released immediately would be more confusing than helpful, whereas the minority of patients agreed with this statement (15.8%) (p < 0.05). Providers were also more likely to disagree that patients are comfortable independently interpreting blood work results (p < 0.05), radiology results (p < 0.05) and pathology reports (p < 0.05). With regard to timing, the majority of patients (75.1%) felt their provider should contact them within 24 h of the release of an abnormal result, whereas only 9.0% of clinicians agreed with this timeframe (p < 0.05). DISCUSSIONS: Patients and clinicians value information transparency. However, the immediate release of results is controversial, especially among clinicians. The discrepancy between patient and clinician perceptions underlines the importance of setting expectations about the communication of results. Additionally, our results emphasize the need to implement strategies to help improve patient comprehension, decrease patient distress and improve clinician workflows.

Breast MRI during Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Lack of Background Parenchymal Enhancement Suppression and Inferior Treatment Response.

Background Suppression of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) is commonly observed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) at contrast-enhanced breast MRI. It was hypothesized that nonsuppressed BPE may be associated with inferior response to NAC. Purpose To investigate the relationship between lack of BPE suppression and pathologic response. Materials and Methods A retrospective review was performed for women with menopausal status data who were treated for breast cancer by one of 10 drug arms (standard NAC with or without experimental agents) between May 2010 and November 2016 in the Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response with Imaging and Molecular Analysis 2, or I-SPY 2 TRIAL (NCT01042379). Patients underwent MRI at four points: before treatment (T0), early treatment (T1), interregimen (T2), and before surgery (T3). BPE was quantitatively measured by using automated fibroglandular tissue segmentation. To test the hypothesis effectively, a subset of examinations with BPE with high-quality segmentation was selected. BPE change from T0 was defined as suppressed or nonsuppressed for each point. The Fisher exact test and the Z tests of proportions with Yates continuity correction were used to examine the relationship between BPE suppression and pathologic complete response (pCR) in hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HR-negative cohorts. Results A total of 3528 MRI scans from 882 patients (mean age, 48 years ± 10 [standard deviation]) were reviewed and the subset of patients with high-quality BPE segmentation was determined (T1, 433 patients; T2, 396 patients; T3, 380 patients). In the HR-positive cohort, an association between lack of BPE suppression and lower pCR rate was detected at T2 (nonsuppressed vs suppressed, 11.8% [six of 51] vs 28.9% [50 of 173]; difference, 17.1% [95% CI: 4.7, 29.5]; P = .02) and T3 (nonsuppressed vs suppressed, 5.3% [two of 38] vs 27.4% [48 of 175]; difference, 22.2% [95% CI: 10.9, 33.5]; P = .003). In the HR-negative cohort, patients with nonsuppressed BPE had lower estimated pCR rate at all points, but the P values for the association were all greater than .05. Conclusions In hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, lack of background parenchymal enhancement suppression may indicate inferior treatment response. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Philpotts in this issue.

Predicting breast cancer response to neoadjuvant treatment using multi-feature MRI: results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI provides both morphological and functional information regarding breast tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The purpose of this retrospective study is to test if prediction models combining multiple MRI features outperform models with single features. Four features were quantitatively calculated in each MRI exam: functional tumor volume, longest diameter, sphericity, and contralateral background parenchymal enhancement. Logistic regression analysis was used to study the relationship between MRI variables and pathologic complete response (pCR). Predictive performance was estimated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The full cohort was stratified by hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status (positive or negative). A total of 384 patients (median age: 49 y/o) were included. Results showed analysis with combined features achieved higher AUCs than analysis with any feature alone. AUCs estimated for the combined versus highest AUCs among single features were 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76, 0.86) versus 0.79 (95% CI: 0.73, 0.85) in the full cohort, 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.92) versus 0.73 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.84) in HR-positive/HER2-negative, 0.88 (95% CI: 0.79, 0.97) versus 0.78 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.89) in HR-positive/HER2-positive, 0.83 (95% CI not available) versus 0.75 (95% CI: 0.46, 0.81) in HR-negative/HER2-positive, and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.91) versus 0.75 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.83) in triple negatives. Multi-feature MRI analysis improved pCR prediction over analysis of any individual feature that we examined. Additionally, the improvements in prediction were more notable when analysis was conducted according to cancer subtype.

The Waiting Game: How Long Are Breast Cancer Patients Waiting for Definitive Diagnosis?

BACKGROUND: Receiving a new breast cancer (BC) diagnosis can cause significant patient anxiety, which is amplified by delays in diagnosis. There is a lack of defined time periods for delays in the workup of BC. This study aims to evaluate national variations in timing from first abnormal mammogram to first biopsy and to determine independent predictors of delay in diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were derived from SEER-Medicare linked claims database from 2007 to 2013. Time intervals from abnormal mammogram, either screening or diagnostic, to biopsy were assessed. The fourth quartile for timing from first mammogram to first biopsy was utilized to define delay in diagnosis. Multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the association between clinicopathologic variables and delays in diagnosis. RESULTS: We analyzed 53,758 patients with stage 0-II BC who underwent upfront surgery. Significant variations in timing of care were identified, with mean times from mammogram to biopsy, surgeon visit, and breast surgery of 23.3, 31.6, and 52.6 days, respectively. Over the study period, there was a decrease in delays from mammogram to biopsy. Non-White race, Northeast location, and earlier stage disease were found to be independent predictors of delays in the diagnosis of BC (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates significant variations in time to diagnostic biopsy. More efficient processes of care to address these delays should be implemented, and further studies are needed to determine whether improved efficiency decreases patient anxiety. The large variations in time to diagnosis speak to the need for consensus guidelines to establish a standard of care.