Erin J. Aiello Bowles

Background: Cancer Research Network (CRN) sites use administrative data to populate their Virtual Data Warehouse (VDW). However, information on VDW chemotherapy data validity is limited. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of VDW chemotherapy data. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of women ≥18 years with incident, invasive breast cancer diagnosed between January 1999 and December 2007. Pharmacy and procedure chemotherapy data were extracted from each site's VDW. Random samples of 50 patients stratified on trastuzumab, anthracyclines, and no chemotherapy exposure was selected from each site for detailed chart abstraction. Weighted sensitivities and specificities of VDW compared with abstracted data were calculated. Cumulative doses calculated from VDW data were compared with doses obtained from the medical chart review. Results: The cohort included 13,497 patients with 6,456 (48%) chart review eligible. Patients in the sample (N = 400) had a mean age of 65 years. Trastuzumab, anthracycline, and other chemotherapy weighted sensitivities were 95%, 97%, and 100%, respectively; specificities were 99%, 99%, and 93%, respectively; positive predictive values were 96%, 99%, and 55%, respectively; and negative predictive values were 99%, 96%, and 100%. Trastuzumab and anthracyclines VDW mean doses were 873 and 386 mg, respectively, whereas abstracted mean doses were 1,734 and 369 mgs, respectively (R² = 0.14, P < 0.01 and R² = 0.05, P = 0.03, respectively). Conclusions: Sensitivities and specificities for CRN chemotherapy VDW data were high and dosages were correlated with chart information. Impact: The findings support the use of CRN data in evaluating chemotherapy exposures and related outcomes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(4); 673–80. ©2012 AACR.

Breast density tends to decrease when women stop taking hormone therapy (HT). Some women find HT cessation difficult to tolerate, possibly because of fluctuations in endogenous hormone levels and vasomotor symptoms. We hypothesized that women with dense breasts might have lower tolerance for short-term HT suspension than do women with fatty breasts. As part of the Radiologic Evaluation And breast Density (READ) trial, we randomly assigned 881 women aged 45-80 with a prior screening (index) mammogram to suspend HT for 1 or 2 months before their next screening (study) mammogram. We measured continuous breast density on index mammograms using computer-assisted thresholding. At study mammograms, women indicated tolerance for stopping HT from 1 (extremely difficult) to 7 (very easy). Using linear regression, we evaluated the association between index breast density and tolerance after cessation, adjusting for age, body mass index (BMI), HT type, randomization group, and vasomotor symptoms. A higher percentage of breast density was associated with lower unadjusted mean tolerance scores (tolerance 4.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.77-4.77 for women with > or =50% density, and 4.73, 95% CI 4.45-5.01 for women with <10% density, not a statistically significant difference). In adjusted analyses, neither percent breast density nor dense breast area was associated with tolerance for HT suspension. Although HT use affects breast density, tolerance for suspending HT is not associated with breast density. Women with dense breasts have the greatest potential for decreases in density after HT cessation; they should tolerate stopping HT as well as women with fatty breasts.

OBJECTIVE. American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidance suggests that women with a probably benign finding on mammography receive a management recommendation for short-interval follow-up; historically, radiologists in community practice have not consistently linked this assessment with short-interval follow-up. We evaluated predictors of discordance between probably benign assessments and short-interval follow-up recommendations.MATERIALS AND METHODS. We linked data on 196 radiologists who completed a survey on demographic and practice patterns to 15,515 diagnostic mammograms they interpreted with probably benign assessments between 2001 and 2006. Patient characteristics were collected at the time of the mammography. Using logistic regression, we examined whether patient and radiologist characteristics were associated with the odds of short-interval follow-up recommendations (relative to a recommendation for normal follow-up, additional imaging evaluation, or biopsy or surgical consultation).RESULTS. Ov...

Background: Chemotherapy data are important to almost any study on cancer prognosis and outcomes. However, chemotherapy data obtained from tumor registries may be incomplete, and abstracting chemotherapy directly from medical records can be expensive and time consuming. Methods: We evaluated the accuracy of using automated clinical data to capture chemotherapy administrations in a cohort of 757 ovarian cancer patients enrolled in 7 health plans in the HMO Cancer Research Network. We calculated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals of chemotherapy administrations extracted from 3 automated clinical data sources (Health Care Procedure Coding System, National Drug Codes, and International Classification of Diseases) compared with tumor registry data and medical chart data. Results: Sensitivity of all 3 data sources varied across health plans from 79.4% to 95.2% when compared with tumor registries, and 75.0% to 100.0% when compared with medical charts. The sensitivities using a combination of 3 data sources were 88.6% (95% confidence intervals: 85.7–91.1) compared with tumor registries and 89.5% (78.5–96.0) compared with medical records; specificities were 91.5% (86.4–95.2) and 90.0% (55.5–99.7), respectively. There was no difference in accuracy between women aged <65 and ≥65 years. Using one set of codes alone (eg, Health Care Procedure Coding System alone) was insufficient for capturing chemotherapy data at most health plans. Conclusions: While automated data systems are not without limitations, clinical codes used in combination are useful in capturing chemotherapy more comprehensively than tumor registry and without the need for costly medical record abstraction.

OBJECTIVE. The Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 required a minimum performance audit of radiologists performing mammography. Since then, no studies have evaluated radiologists' perceptions of their audit reports, such as which performance measures are the most or least useful, or what the best formats are to present performance data.MATERIALS AND METHODS. We conducted a qualitative study with focus groups and interviews of 25 radiologists currently practicing mammography. All radiologists practiced at one of three sites in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). The discussion guide included open-ended questions to elicit opinions on the following subjects: the most useful performance outcome measures, examples of reports and formats that are easiest to understand (e.g., graphs or tables), thoughts about comparisons between individual-level and aggregate data, and ideas about additional performance measures they would find useful. All discussions were tape-recorded and transcribed. We d...

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to examine the accuracy of short-interval follow-up mammograms and evaluate patient and radiologist characteristics associated with accuracy.MATERIALS AND METHODS. We evaluated 45,007 initial short-interval follow-up mammograms from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium interpreted 3–9 months after a probably benign assessment on a screening or diagnostic examination between 1994 and 2004. We linked these mammograms with patient characteristics and breast cancer diagnoses within 12 months. A subset of short-interval follow-up examinations (n = 13,907) was merged with radiologist characteristics collected from survey data from 130 interpreting radiologists. Using logistic regression, we fit generalized estimating equations to model sensitivity and specificity of short-interval follow-up mammograms by patient and radiologist characteristics.RESULTS. For every 1,000 women, 8.0 women (0.8%) were diagnosed with breast cancer within 6 months and 11.3 (1.1%) within 12 ...

Objective Many studies that have estimated the breast cancer risk attributable to family history have been based on data collected within family units. Use of this study design has likely overestimated risks for the general population. We provide population-based estimates of breast cancer risk and different tumor subtypes in relation to the degree, number, and age at diagnosis of affected relatives. Methods Cox Proportional Hazards to calculate risks (hazard ratios; 95% confidence interval) of breast cancer and tumor subtypes for women with a family history of breast cancer relative to women without a family history among a cohort of 75,189 women age ≥40 years of whom 1,087 were diagnosed with breast cancer from June 1, 2001–December 31, 2005 (median follow-up 3.16 years). Results Breast cancer risk was highest for women with a first-degree family history (1.54; 1.34–1.77); and did not differ substantially by the affected relative’s age at diagnosis or by number of affected first-degree relatives. A second-degree family history only was not associated with a significantly increased breast cancer risk (1.15; 0.98–1.35). There was a suggestion that a positive family history was associated with risk of triple positive (Estrogen+/Progesterone+/HER2+) and HER2-overexpressing tumors. Conclusions While a family history of breast cancer in first-degree relatives is an important risk factor for breast cancer, gathering information such as the age at diagnosis of affected relatives or information on second-degree relative history may be unnecessary in assessing personal breast cancer risk among women age ≥40 years.

BACKGROUND.: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report Crossing the Quality Chasm proposed 6 aims for high‐quality healthcare: effective, safe, timely, efficient, equitable, and patient‐centered, and emphasized care coordination. Through interviews with nationally recognized experts in healthcare quality, perspectives on barriers and facilitators to achieving these aims for cancer patients were elicited.METHODS.: In all, 23 peer‐nominated experts with diverse backgrounds in policy, healthcare, patient advocacy, and research were individually interviewed. They were asked about barriers and facilitators to achieving high‐quality cancer care, and information technology or other innovations that might improve the quality of cancer diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance. Interviews were tape‐recorded and transcribed. Two analysts independently reviewed and coded each transcript using ethnographic software to elucidate key themes.RESULTS.: The major perceived barrier to providing high‐quality cancer care was unnecessary variation in cancer care because of lack of standardization or adherence to guidelines during diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance. Additional barriers included insufficient teamwork and communication among multidisciplinary care teams, lack of patient awareness and empowerment, diagnostic delays during provider transitions, and excessive reimbursement for treatment. Experts suggested improving cancer patients' experiences by standardizing care, adhering to guidelines, and using “patient navigators” and an interoperable electronic medical record accessible to patients and providers at multiple facilities.CONCLUSIONS.: Some of these solutions have been developed and tested, whereas others have not. It is hoped that these suggestions provide impetus for new research, accelerating progress toward achieving the IOM's vision for high‐quality cancer care. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.

Clinical trials demonstrated adjuvant aromatase inhibitor treatment is superior for decreasing breast cancer recurrence risk over adjuvant tamoxifen treatment as early as 2001. Yet clinical use for adjuvant treatment was not recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology until 2004. Aromatase inhibitor uptake after the first public presentation of randomized trial results but before the release of national guidelines is unclear. We evaluated diffusion of aromatase inhibitor dispensings for breast cancer treatment in integrated healthcare delivery systems across the United States.

To evaluate whether the association between hormone therapy (HT) and breast density differs by levels of breast cancer risk factors. We evaluated 80,867 screening mammograms from 39,296 postmenopausal women from Washington State. We estimated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for dense breasts (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories 3 “heterogeneously dense” and 4 “extremely dense”) compared to fatty breasts (categories 1 “almost entirely fat” and 2 “scattered fibroglandular”) among HT users compared to never users. We separately examined former HT use and current HT use by type (estrogen plus progestin therapy (EPT) and estrogen-only therapy (ET)). We stratified the associations by age, BMI, race, family history, and reproductive and menopausal factors. Current EPT users had a 98% (1.87–2.09) greater odds of having dense breasts and current ET users had a 71% (1.56–1.87) greater odds compared to never users. Current HT users were more likely to have dense breasts if they were older, had more children, or younger at first birth compared to never users; these associations were stronger among EPT users than ET users. HT, particularly EPT, may reduce protective effects of older age, parity, and younger age at first birth on mammographic density.