Does structural racism impact receipt of NCCN guideline-concordant breast cancer treatment?

PURPOSE: Disparities in breast cancer survival remain a challenge. We aimed to analyze the effect of structural racism, as measured by the Index of Concentration at the Extremes (ICE), on receipt of National Cancer Center Network (NCCN) guideline-concordant breast cancer treatment. METHODS: We identified patients treated at two institutions from 2005 to 2017 with stage I-IV breast cancer. Census tracts served as neighborhood proxies. Using 5-year estimates from the American Community Survey, 5 ICE variables were computed to create 5 models, controlling for economic segregation, non-Hispanic Black (NHB) segregation, NHB/economic segregation, Hispanic segregation, and Hispanic/economic segregation. Multi-level logistic regression models were used to determine the association between individual and neighborhood-level characteristics on receipt of NCCN guideline-concordant breast cancer treatment. RESULTS: 5173 patients were included: 55.2% were Hispanic, 27.5% were NHW, and 17.3% were NHB. Regardless of economic or residential segregation, a NHB patient was less likely to receive appropriate treatment [(OR)Model1 0.58 (0.45-0.74); ORModel2 0.59 (0.46-0.78); ORModel3 0.62 (0.47-0.81); ORModel4 0.53 (0.40-0.69); ORModel5 0.59(0.46-0.76); p < 0.05]. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first analysis assessing receipt of NCCN guideline-concordant treatment by ICE, a validated measure for structural racism. While much literature emphasizes neighborhood-level barriers to treatment, our results demonstrate that compared to NHW patients, NHB patients are less likely to receive NCCN guideline-concordant breast cancer treatment, independent of economic or residential segregation. Our study suggests that there are potential unaccounted individual or neighborhood barriers to receipt of appropriate care that go beyond economic or residential segregation.

Neighborhood Disadvantage and Breast Cancer-Specific Survival.

Importance: Neighborhood-level disadvantage is an important factor in the creation and persistence of underresourced neighborhoods with an undue burden of disparate breast cancer-specific survival outcomes. Although studies have evaluated neighborhood-level disadvantage and breast cancer-specific survival after accounting for individual-level socioeconomic status (SES) in large national cancer databases, these studies are limited by age, socioeconomic, and racial and ethnic diversity. Objective: To investigate neighborhood SES (using a validated comprehensive composite measure) and breast cancer-specific survival in a majority-minority population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective multi-institutional cohort study included patients with stage I to IV breast cancer treated at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center and sister safety-net hospital from January 10, 2007, to September 9, 2016. Mean (SD) follow-up time was 60.3 (41.4) months. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to March 2023. Exposures: Neighborhood SES was measured using the Area Deprivation Index (tertiles), a validated comprehensive composite measure of neighborhood SES. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was breast cancer-specific survival. Random effects frailty models for breast cancer-specific survival were performed controlling for individual-level sociodemographic, comorbidity, breast cancer risk factor, access to care, tumor, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment characteristics. The Area Deprivation Index was calculated for each patient at the census block group level and categorized into tertiles (T1-T3). Results: A total of 5027 women with breast cancer were included: 55.8% were Hispanic, 17.5% were non-Hispanic Black, and 27.0% were non-Hispanic White. Mean (SD) age was 55.5 (11.7) years. Women living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (T3) had shorter breast cancer-specific survival compared with those living in the most advantaged neighborhoods (T1) after controlling for individual-level sociodemographic, comorbidity, breast cancer risk factor, access to care, tumor, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment characteristics (T3 vs T1: hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01-1.65; P < .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, a shorter breast cancer-specific survival in women from disadvantaged neighborhoods compared with advantaged neighborhoods was identified, even after controlling for individual-level sociodemographic, comorbidity, breast cancer risk factor, access to care, tumor, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment characteristics. The findings suggest potential unaccounted mechanisms, including unmeasured social determinants of health and access to care measures. This study also lays the foundation for future research to evaluate whether social adversity from living in a disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with more aggressive tumor biologic factors, and ultimately shorter breast cancer-specific survival, through social genomic and/or epigenomic alterations.

Radiation-Associated Sarcoma of the Breast in a Patient With a Germline Tumor Protein p53 Mutation.

Radiation-induced sarcoma of the breast is a rare complication that is primarily treated with surgical resection but in patients with advanced disease, a multimodality treatment approach is often required. This case report discusses a 37-year-old female with a history of a pT3N3M0, estrogen receptor (ER)+, progesterone receptor (PR)+, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)+, right breast cancer, and a germline tumor protein (TP) p53 mutation who underwent right modified radical mastectomy, adjuvant systemic therapy, and radiation therapy, and subsequently developed a radiation-induced sarcoma. The patient is a 37-year-old female who has a history of pT3N3M0, ER/PR+, HER2+, and right breast cancer diagnosed in 2014. At the time of diagnosis, she had locally advanced disease and underwent right modified radical mastectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, radiation, delayed right breast implant-based reconstruction, and left breast augmentation with mastopexy. Upon completion of adjuvant chemotherapy, she was started on hormonal therapy. In February 2020, she underwent genetic testing given her early onset of breast cancer and was found to have a germline TP53 mutation. Routine MRI for breast implant evaluation showed two irregular enhancing masses with an additional satellite lesion in the right breast. Right breast ultrasound (US)-guided biopsy revealed two separate foci of high-grade pleomorphic fibroblastic/myofibroblastic sarcoma. Further staging workup with a whole-body MRI was negative for evidence of metastatic disease. Her case was discussed in multidisciplinary sarcoma tumor board and consensus was for surgical resection. She underwent radical resection of the right chest wall masses and subcutaneous tissue, removal of right breast implant and capsulectomy, and left breast mastectomy with left breast implant removal and capsulectomy. The final pathology revealed two separate foci of high-grade pleomorphic fibroblastic/myofibroblastic sarcoma, 1.2 cm and 1.1 cm in their greatest dimensions with negative margins. Her case was re-discussed in multidisciplinary sarcoma tumor board and due to T1 size of the tumors and the negative resection margins, close surveillance with annual whole-body MRI and quarterly chest MRI imaging was recommended. In patients with a germline TP53 mutation and breast cancer, the utilization of adjuvant radiotherapy should be considered cautiously given the increased risk of radiation-associated sarcoma.

Defining a recovery-oriented cascade of care for opioid use disorder: A community-driven, statewide cross-sectional assessment.

BACKGROUND: In light of the accelerating and rapidly evolving overdose crisis in the United States (US), new strategies are needed to address the epidemic and to efficiently engage and retain individuals in care for opioid use disorder (OUD). Moreover, there is an increasing need for novel approaches to using health data to identify gaps in the cascade of care for persons with OUD. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Between June 2018 and May 2019, we engaged a diverse stakeholder group (including directors of statewide health and social service agencies) to develop a statewide, patient-centered cascade of care for OUD for Rhode Island, a small state in New England, a region highly impacted by the opioid crisis. Through an iterative process, we modified the cascade of care defined by Williams et al. for use in Rhode Island using key national survey data and statewide health claims datasets to create a cross-sectional summary of 5 stages in the cascade. Approximately 47,000 Rhode Islanders (5.2%) were estimated to be at risk for OUD (stage 0) in 2016. At the same time, 26,000 Rhode Islanders had a medical claim related to an OUD diagnosis, accounting for 55% of the population at risk (stage 1); 27% of the stage 0 population, 12,700 people, showed evidence of initiation of medication for OUD (MOUD, stage 2), and 18%, or 8,300 people, had evidence of retention on MOUD (stage 3). Imputation from a national survey estimated that 4,200 Rhode Islanders were in recovery from OUD as of 2016, representing 9% of the total population at risk. Limitations included use of self-report data to arrive at estimates of the number of individuals at risk for OUD and using a national estimate to identify the number of individuals in recovery due to a lack of available state data sources. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that cross-sectional summaries of the cascade of care for OUD can be used as a health policy tool to identify gaps in care, inform data-driven policy decisions, set benchmarks for quality, and improve health outcomes for persons with OUD. There exists a significant opportunity to increase engagement prior to the initiation of OUD treatment (i.e., identification of OUD symptoms via routine screening or acute presentation) and improve retention and remission from OUD symptoms through improved community-supported processes of recovery. To do this more precisely, states should work to systematically collect data to populate their own cascade of care as a health policy tool to enhance system-level interventions and maximize engagement in care.