IMPORTANCE Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) have markedly increased but we know little about the influence of surgeons on variability of the procedure in the community. OBJECTIVE To quantify the influence of the attending surgeon on rates of CPM and clinician attitudes that explained it. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this population-based survey study, we identified 7810 women with stages 0 to II breast cancer treated in 2013 to 2015 through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. Surveys were sent approximately 2 months after surgery. Surveys were also sent to 488 attending surgeons identified by the patients. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES We conducted multilevel analyses to examine the impact of surgeon influence on variations in patient receipt of CPM using information from patient and surgeon surveys merged to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. RESULTS A total of 5080 women responded to the survey (70%response rate), and 377 surgeons responded (77% response rate). The mean (SD) age of responding women was 61.9 (11) years; 28%had an increased risk of second primary cancer, and 16%received CPM. Half of surgeons (52%) practiced for more than 20 years and 30% treated more than 50 new patients with breast cancer annually. Attending surgeon explained a large amount (20%) of the variation in CPM, controlling for patient factors. The odds of a patient receiving CPM increased almost 3-fold (odds ratio, 2.8; 95%CI, 2.1-3.4) if she saw a surgeon with a practice approach 1 SD above a surgeon with the mean CPM rate (independent of age, diagnosis date, BRCA status, and risk of second primary). One-quarter (25%) of the surgeon influence was explained by attending attitudes about initial recommendations for surgery and responses to patient requests for CPM. The estimated rate of CPM was 34%for surgeons who least favored initial breast conservation and were least reluctant to perform CPM vs 4%for surgeons who most favored i nitial breast conservation and were most reluctant to perform CPM. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this study, attending surgeons exerted influence on the likelihood of receipt of CPM after a breast cancer diagnosis. Variations in surgeon attitudes about recommendations for surgery and response to patient requests for CPM explain a substantial amount of this influence.Grant: Funding/Support: Thisworkwas supported by grant P01 CA163233 to the University of Michigan from the National Cancer Institute. The collection of Los Angeles County cancer incidence data used in this studywas supported by the California Department of Public Health pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 103885; US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Program of Cancer Registries, under cooperative agreement 5NU58DP003862-04/DP003862; and the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program under contract HHSN261201000140C awarded to the Cancer Prevention Institute of California, contract HHSN261201000035C awarded to the University of Southern California, and contract HHSN261201000034C awarded to the Public Health Institute. The collection of cancer incidence data in Georgia was supported by contract HHSN261201300015I and Task Order HHSN26100006 from the National Cancer Institute and cooperative agreement 5NU58DP003875-04-00 from the CDC.

Background: Population-based state cancer registries are an authoritative source for cancer statistics in the United States. They routinely collect a variety of data, including patient demographics, primary tumor site, stage at diagnosis, first course of treatment, and survival, on every cancer case that is reported across all U.S. states and territories. The goal of our project is to enrich NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry data with high-quality population-based biospecimen data in the form of digital pathology, machine-learning-based classifications, and quantitative histopathology imaging feature sets (referred to here as Pathomics features). Materials and Methods: As part of the project, the underlying informatics infrastructure was designed, tested, and implemented through close collaboration with several participating SEER registries to ensure consistency with registry processes, computational scalability, and ability to support creation of population cohorts that span multiple sites. Utilizing computational imaging algorithms and methods to both generate indices and search for matches makes it possible to reduce inter- and intra-observer inconsistencies and to improve the objectivity with which large image repositories are interrogated. Results: Our team has created and continues to expand a well-curated repository of high-quality digitized pathology images corresponding to subjects whose data are routinely collected by the collaborating registries. Our team has systematically deployed and tested key, visual analytic methods to facilitate automated creation of population cohorts for epidemiological studies and tools to support visualization of feature clusters and evaluation of whole-slide images. As part of these efforts, we are developing and optimizing advanced search and matching algorithms to facilitate automated, content-based retrieval of digitized specimens based on their underlying image features and staining characteristics. Conclusion: To meet the challenges of this project, we established the analytic pipelines, methods, and workflows to support the expansion and management of a growing repository of high-quality digitized pathology and information-rich, population cohorts containing objective imaging and clinical attributes to facilitate studies that seek to discriminate among different subtypes of disease, stratify patient populations, and perform comparisons of tumor characteristics within and across patient cohorts. We have also successfully developed a suite of tools based on a deep-learning method to perform quantitative characterizations of tumor regions, assess infiltrating lymphocyte distributions, and generate objective nuclear feature measurements. As part of these efforts, our team has implemented reliable methods that enable investigators to systematically search through large repositories to automatically retrieve digitized pathology specimens and correlated clinical data based on their computational signatures.

Background: Trust in physicians is an essential part of therapeutic relationships. Complications are common after colorectal cancer procedures, but little is known of their effect on patient-surgeon relationships. We hypothesized that unexpected complications impair trust and communication between patients and surgeons. Methods: We performed a population-based survey of surgically diagnosed stage III colorectal cancer patients in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registries for Georgia and Metropolitan Detroit between August 2011 and October 2012. Using published survey instruments, we queried subjects about trust in and communication with their surgeon. The primary predictor was the occurrence of an operative complication. We examined patient factors associated with trust and communication then compared the relationship between operative complications and patient-reported trust and communication with their surgeons. Results: Among 622 preliminary respondents (54% response rate), 25% experienced postoperative complications. Those with complications were less likely to report high trust (73% vs 81%, P =.04) and high-quality communication (80% vs 95%, P <.001). Complications reduced trust among only 4% of patient-surgeon dyads with high-quality communication, whereas complications diminished patients' trust in 50% with poorer communication (P <.001). After controlling for communication ratings, we found there was no residual effect of complications on trust (P =.96). Conclusion: Most respondents described trust in and communication with their surgeons as high. Complications were common and were associated with lower trust and poorer communication. However, the relationship between complications and trust was modified by communication. Trust remained high, even in the presence of complications, among respondents who reported high levels of patient-centered communication with their surgeons.

Background: Within the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer, variations exist in the reconstructive options offered and care provided. The authors evaluated plastic surgeon perspectives on important issues related to breast cancer management and reconstruction and provide some insight into factors that influence these perspectives. Methods: Women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer (stages 0 to II) between July of 2013 and September of 2014 were identified through the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. These women were surveyed and identified their treating plastic surgeons. Surveys were sent to the identified plastic surgeons to collect data on specific reconstruction practices. Results: Responses from 134 plastic surgeons (74.4 percent response rate) were received. Immediate reconstruction (79.7 percent) was the most common approach to timing, and expander/implant reconstruction (72.6 percent) was the most common technique reported. Nearly one-third of respondents (32.1 percent) reported that reimbursement influenced the proportion of autologous reconstructions performed. Most (82.8 percent) reported that discussions about contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were initiated by patients. Most surgeons (81.3 to 84.3 percent) felt that good symmetry is achieved with unilateral autologous reconstruction with contralateral symmetry procedures in patients with small or large breasts; a less pronounced majority (62.7 percent) favored unilateral implant reconstructions in patients with large breasts. In patients requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy, one-fourth of the surgeons (27.6 percent) reported that they seldom recommend delayed reconstruction, and 64.9 percent reported recommending immediate expander/implant reconstruction. Conclusions: Reconstructive practices in a modern cohort of plastic surgeons suggest that immediate and implant reconstructions are performed preferentially. Respondents perceived a number of factors, including surgeon training, time spent in the operating room, and insurance reimbursement, to negatively influence the performance of autologous reconstruction.

Background: Chemotherapy information in the population-based cancer registries is underascertained and lacks detail. We conducted a pilot study in the Georgia SEER Cancer Registry (GCR) to investigate the feasibility of supplementing chemotherapy information using billing claims from six private oncology practices (OP). Methods: To assess cancer patients' representativeness from OP, we compared individuals with invasive first primary cancers diagnosed during 2013-2015 in the GCR (cohort 1) with those who had at least one OP claim in the 12 months after diagnosis (cohort 2). To assess completeness of OP claims to capture chemotherapy (yes or no), we further restricted cohort 2 to patients ages 65 years and older enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare Part A and B from the diagnosis date through 12 months follow-up or to the date of death. With Medicare data serving as the gold standard, sensitivity, specificity, and kappa statistics for the receipt of chemotherapy per OP claims were calculated by demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Cancer patients seeking care in the OP included in our analysis were not representative of the underlying patient population in the GCR. The practices underrepresented minorities and uninsured while overrepresenting females, persons with high socioeconomic status, patients residing outside the metropolitan Atlanta area, and persons with advance staged disease. The ability of practice claims to identify chemotherapy receipt was moderate (76.1% sensitivity) but varied by demographic and clinical characteristics (76.1-83.0%). Conclusions: Given the limited ability of OP claims to identify chemotherapy receipt, we suggest analyzing these data for hypothesis generation, but inference should be limited to this patient cohort.

Purpose An examination of multiple primary cancers can provide insight into the etiologic role of genes, the environment, and prior cancer treatment on a cancer patient’s risk of developing a subsequent cancer. Different rules for registering multiple primary cancers (MP) are used by cancer registries throughout the world making data comparisons difficult. Methods We evaluated the effect of SEER and IARC/IACR rules on cancer incidence rates and trends using data from the SEER Program. We estimated age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) and trends (1975–2011) for the top 26 cancer categories using joinpoint regression analysis. Results ASIRs were higher using SEER compared to IARC/IACR rules for all cancers combined (3 %) and, in rank order, melanoma (9 %), female breast (7 %), urinary bladder (6 %), colon (4 %), kidney and renal pelvis (4 %), oral cavity and pharynx (3 %), lung and bronchus (2 %), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (2 %). ASIR differences were largest for patients aged 65+ years. Trends were similar using both MP rules with the exception of cancers of the urinary bladder, and kidney and renal pelvis. Conclusions The choice of multiple primary coding rules effects incidence rates and trends. Compared to SEER MP coding rules, IARC/IACR rules are less complex, have not changed over time, and report fewer multiple primary cancers, particularly cancers that occur in paired organs, at the same anatomic site and with the same or related histologic type. Cancer registries collecting incidence data using SEER rules may want to consider including incidence rates and trends using IARC/IACR rules to facilitate international data comparisons.

Purpose: We conducted a comparative survival analysis between patients with resected pancreatic cancer who received adjuvant treatment with either gemcitabine- or 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy and chemoradiation regimens. Patients and methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database was used to identify patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed from 1998 to 2005 who received curative surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy with either 5-fluorouracil or gemcitabine. These groups were subdivided by treatment with radiotherapy. Patients were followed until death, study end-point or a maximum of 5 years after diagnosis. Results: Three hundred and fifty-nine patients received 5-fluorouracil and 346 received gemcitabine. Compared with chemoradiation with 5-fluorouracil, outcomes for patients who received chemoradiation with gemcitabine did not differ. Patients who received gemcitabine without radiation had increased hazards (poorly differentiated tumours: HR = 1.50, p = 0.01; moderately differentiated tumours, HR = 1.28, p = 0.11). However, outcomes of patients who received 5-fluorouracil without radiation varied with tumour grade. In moderately differentiated tumours, patients had better outcomes with 5-fluorouracil when compared with chemoradiation with 5-fluorouracil (HR = 0.42, p = 0.02). In poorly differentiated tumours, the opposite was true (HR 2.10, p = 0.09). Conclusion: Patients with low-grade resected pancreatic cancer may have better outcomes with 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy without radiation when compared with 5-fluorouracil with radiation.

We conducted a population-based study of biologic, clinical, and sociodemographic factors associated with receipt of multi-agent systemic therapy (MAST) by people living with HIV (PLWH) who were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Building on recent registry-based analyses, we linked records from the Georgia Cancer Registry, Georgia HIV/AIDS Surveillance Registry, and the Georgia Hospital Discharge Database to identify 328 PLWH adults (age ≥ 18) diagnosed with NHL within 2004–2012. Through logistic regression modeling, we examined factors associated with patients receiving MAST for NHL. Robust predictors included CD4 count ≥200 cells/mm3 around the time of cancer diagnosis, an advanced stage (III or IV) diagnosis of NHL, MSM HIV transmission, and having private health insurance. The strongest single predictor of MAST was CD4 count. Because there is now guideline-integrated evidence that PLWH receiving standard-of-care cancer therapy can achieve substantially improved outcomes, it is vital they have access to regimens routinely provided to HIV-negative cancer patients.

Patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer face a series of complex decisions regarding locoregional and systemic treatment. There is a need to improve the quality of locoregional and systemic decisions for breast cancer patients, and to help patients understand the role of evaluative tests in this decision process. We are now conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an online decision tool—called iCanDecide, which we expect will help patients with these difficult decisions. Furthermore, the results of this RCT will be highly relevant to future breast cancer patients making these decisions and to their clinicians. Methods This is a two-arm randomized controlled trial with the target of 222 participants per arm. Participants are recruited from 25 surgical practices (total 40 surgeons) and 2 medical oncology practices (total 2 oncologists) in Michigan, Georgia, Tennessee, and California. Participants are newly-diagnosed female breast cancer patients between 21 and 84 years, with stage I-II invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and who are eligible for and considering either mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation, and who may be eligible for adjuvant systemic treatment. The RCT tests an interactive, tailored website, called iCanDecide (intervention arm), compared to a static version of the website (control arm). The static control arm is designed to include the same basic content as the intervention version, but without tailoring and interactive features. The primary outcome includes the rate of making a high-quality decision. The hypothesis is that patients randomized to the interactive version of iCanDecide will have higher rates of high quality decisions (informed and values-concordant), and will appraise their decision-making process more positively, for both surgical and systemic treatment. Discussion The goal of this study is to evaluate the impact of the iCanDecide interactive website on decision-making for locoregional and systemic breast cancer treatments. The results of this study will be important for future breast cancer patients and their clinicians as we determine how to better individualize decision making across this complex treatment landscape. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01840163.

IMPORTANCE Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) use is increasing among women with unilateral breast cancer, but little is known about treatment decision making or physician interactions in diverse patient populations. OBJECTIVE To evaluate patient motivations, knowledge, and decisions, as well as the impact of surgeon recommendations, in a large, diverse sample of patients who underwent recent treatment for breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A surveywas sent to 3631women with newly diagnosed, unilateral stage 0, I, or II breast cancer between July 2013 and September 2014. Women were identified through the population-based Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registries of Los Angeles County and Georgia. Data on surgical decisions, motivations for those decisions, and knowledge were included in the analysis. Logistic and multinomial logistic regression of the data were conducted to identify factors associated with (1) CPM vs all other treatments combined, (2) CPM vs unilateral mastectomy (UM), and (3) CPM vs breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Associations between CPM receipt and surgeon recommendations were also evaluated. All statistical models and summary estimates were weighted to be representative of the target population. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Receipt of CPMwas the primary dependent variable for analysis and was measured by a woman's self-report of her treatment. RESULTS Of the 3631 women selected to receive the survey, 2578 (71.0%) responded and 2402 of these respondents who did not have bilateral disease and for whom surgery type was known constituted the final analytic sample. The mean (SD) age was 61.8 (12) years at the time of the survey. Overall, 1301 (43.9%) patients considered CPM (601 [24.8%] considered it very strongly or strongly); only 395 (38.1%) of them knew that CPM does not improve survival for all women with breast cancer. Ultimately, 1466 women (61.6%) received BCS, 508 (21.2%) underwent UM, and 428 (17.3%) received CPM. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with CPM included younger age (per 5-year increase: Odds ratio [OR] , 0.71; 95%CI, 0.65-0.77), white race (black vs white: OR, 0.50; 95%CI, 0.34-0.74), higher educational level (OR, 1.69; 95%CI, 1.20-2.40), family history (OR, 1.63; 95%CI, 1.22-2.17), and private insurance (Medicaid vs private insurance: OR, 0.47; 95%CI, 0.28-0.79). Among 1569 patients (65.5%) without high genetic risk or an identified mutation, 598 (39.3%) reported a surgeon recommendation against CPM, of whom only 12 (1.9%) underwent CPM, but among the 746 (46.8%) of these women who received no recommendation for or against CPM from a surgeon, 148 (19.0%) underwent CPM. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Many patients consider CPM, but knowledge about the procedure is low and discussions with surgeons appear to be incomplete. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy use is substantial among patients without clinical indications but is low when patients report that their surgeon recommended against it. More effective physician-patient communication about CPM is needed to reduce potential overtreatment.