RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although historic studies of state registries have demonstrated decreased radiation therapy use for patients with breast cancer living further away from radiation facilities, the association between travel distance and breast cancer treatment in a modern national cohort remains unknown. METHODS: Female patients with estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative pathologic stages I to II breast cancer were identified from the National Cancer Database (2018-2020) and dichotomized by distance ≤20 miles or >20 miles (75th percentile) from the treatment facility. The association between travel distance and type of surgery and treatment administered was analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression and after 1:1 propensity matching. RESULTS: Of the 293,318 patients identified for inclusion, the median age was 63 years, and most patients (n = 190,567, 65%) lived ≤20 miles of the treatment facility. Patients with a travel burden >20 miles were more likely to receive a mastectomy (≤20 miles 30.4% vs >20 miles 34.0%, P < .001; odds ratio 1.14, P = .016), and less likely to receive radiation (≤20 miles 63.3% vs >20% miles 60.1%, P < .001; odds ratio 0.81, P < .001). These findings persisted after propensity score matching (n = 33,544 per cohort), with patients living further being more likely to undergo a mastectomy (≤20 miles 30.3% vs >20 miles 35.3%, P < .001) and less likely to receive radiation (≤ 20 miles 65.4% vs. >20 miles 58.5%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients with hormone receptor-positive stage I to II breast cancer with a larger travel burden are more likely to receive a mastectomy and less likely to undergo radiation therapy to treat their disease.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama , Humanos , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Neoplasias da Mama/cirurgia , Mastectomia , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde , Modelos Logísticos , ViagemRESUMO
PURPOSE: Few cancer centers systematically engage patients with evidence-based tobacco treatment despite its positive effect on quality of life and survival. Implementation strategies directed at patients, clinicians, or both may increase tobacco use treatment (TUT) within oncology. METHODS: We conducted a four-arm cluster-randomized pragmatic trial across 11 clinical sites comparing the effect of strategies informed by behavioral economics on TUT engagement during oncology encounters with cancer patients. We delivered electronic health record (EHR)-based nudges promoting TUT across four nudge conditions: patient only, clinician only, patient and clinician, or usual care. Nudges were designed to counteract cognitive biases that reduce TUT engagement. The primary outcome was TUT penetration, defined as the proportion of patients with documented TUT referral or a medication prescription in the EHR. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the parameters of a linear model. RESULTS: From June 2021 to July 2022, we randomly assigned 246 clinicians in 95 clusters, and collected TUT penetration data from their encounters with 2,146 eligible patients who smoke receiving oncologic care. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the clinician nudge led to a significant increase in TUT penetration versus usual care (35.6% v 13.5%; OR = 3.64; 95% CI, 2.52 to 5.24; P < .0001). Completer-only analysis (N = 1,795) showed similar impact (37.7% clinician nudge v 13.5% usual care; OR = 3.77; 95% CI, 2.73 to 5.19; P < .0001). Clinician type affected TUT penetration, with physicians less likely to provide TUT than advanced practice providers (ITT OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.88; P = .004). CONCLUSION: EHR nudges, informed by behavioral economics and aimed at oncology clinicians, appear to substantially increase TUT penetration. Adding patient nudges to the implementation strategy did not affect TUT penetration rates.