Publications

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) visits are common at the end-of-life, but the identification of patients with life-limiting illness remains a key challenge in providing timely and resource-sensitive advance care planning (ACP) and palliative care services. To date, there are no validated, automatable instruments for ED end-of-life screening. Here, we developed a novel electronic health record (EHR) prognostic model to screen older ED patients at high risk for 6-month mortality and compare its performance to validated comorbidity indices.

METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study of ED visits from adults aged ≥65 years who visited any of 9 EDs across a large regional health system between 2014 and 2019. Multivariable logistic regression that included clinical and demographic variables, vital signs, and laboratory data was used to develop a 6-month mortality predictive model-the Geriatric End-of-life Screening Tool (GEST) using five-fold cross-validation on data from 8 EDs. Performance was compared to the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices using area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration, and decision curve analyses. Reproducibility was tested against data from the remaining independent ED within the health system. We then used GEST to investigate rates of ACP documentation availability and code status orders in the EHR across risk strata.

RESULTS: A total of 431,179 encounters by 123,128 adults were included in this study with a 6-month mortality rate of 12.2%. Charlson (AUROC (95% CI): 0.65 (0.64-0.69)) and Elixhauser indices (0.69 (0.68-0.70)) were outperformed by GEST (0.82 (0.82-0.83)). GEST displayed robust performance across demographic subgroups and in our independent validation site. Among patients with a greater than 30% mortality risk using GEST, only 5.0% had ACP documentation; 79.0% had a code status previously ordered, of which 70.7% were full code. In decision curve analysis, GEST provided greater net benefit than the Charlson and Elixhauser scores.

CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic models using EHR data robustly identify high mortality risk older adults in the ED for whom code status, ACP, or palliative care interventions may be of benefit. Although all tested methods identified patients approaching the end-of-life, GEST was most performant. These tools may enable resource-sensitive end-of-life screening in the ED.

Background. Clinicians need to find decision aids (DAs) useful for their successful implementation. Therefore, we aimed to conduct an exploratory study to learn primary care clinicians' (PCPs) perspectives on a mammography DA for women ≥75 to inform its implementation. Methods. We sent a cross-sectional survey to 135 PCPs whose patients had participated in a randomized trial of the DA. These PCPs practiced at 1 of 11 practices in Massachusetts or North Carolina. PCPs were asked closed-ended and open-ended questions on shared decision making (SDM) around mammography with women ≥75 and on the DA's acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Results. Eighty PCPs participated (24 [30%] from North Carolina). Most (n = 69, 86%) thought that SDM about mammography with women ≥75 was extremely/very important and that they engaged women ≥75 in SDM around mammography frequently/always (n = 49, 61%). Regarding DA acceptability, 60% felt the DA was too long. Regarding appropriateness, 70 (89%) thought it was somewhat/very helpful and that it would help patients make more informed decisions; 55 (70%) would recommend it. Few (n = 6, 8%) felt they had other resources to support this decision. Regarding feasibility, 53 (n = 67%) thought it would be most feasible for patients to receive the DA before a visit from medical assistants rather than during or after a visit or from health educators. Most (n = 62, 78%) wanted some training to use the DA. Limitations. Sixty-nine percent of PCPs in this small study practiced in academic settings. Conclusions. Although PCPs were concerned about the DA's length, most found it helpful and informative and felt it would be feasible for medical assistants to deliver the DA before a visit. Implications. Study findings may inform implementation of this and other DAs.

Background: The Gail, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk prediction models are recommended for use in primary care. Calculating breast cancer risk is particularly important for women in their 40s when deciding on mammography, with some guidelines recommending screening for those with 5-year risk similar to women age 50 (≥1.1%). Yet, little is known about risk estimate agreement among models for these women. Materials and Methods: Four hundred nine Boston-area women 40-49 years of age completed a risk questionnaire before a primary care visit to compute their breast cancer risk. The kappa statistic was used to examine when (1) Gail and BCSC agreed on 5-year risk ≥1.1%; (2) Gail estimated 5-year risk ≥1.7% and Tyrer-Cuzick estimated 10-year risk ≥5% (guideline thresholds for recommending prevention medications); and when (3) Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick agreed on lifetime risk ≥20% (threshold for breast MRI using Tyrer-Cuzick). Results: Participant mean age was 44.1 years, 56.7% were non-Hispanic white, and 7.8% had a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Of 266 with breast density information to estimate both Gail and BCSC, the models agreed on 5-year risk being ≥1.1% for 36 women, kappa = 0.34 (95% confidence interval: 0.23-0.45). Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick estimates led to agreement about prevention medications for 8 women, kappa 0.41 (0.20-0.61), and models agreed on lifetime risk ≥20% for 3 women, kappa 0.08 (-0.01 to 0.16). Conclusions: There is weak agreement on breast cancer risk estimates generated by risk models recommended for primary care. Using different models may lead to different clinical recommendations for women in their 40s.

To learn how to improve telemedicine for adults >65, we asked primary care clinicians ("PCPs") affiliated with one large Boston-area health system their views on using telemedicine (which included phone-only or video visits) with adults >65 during the COVID-19 pandemic. In open-ended questions, we asked PCPs to describe any challenges or useful experiences with telemedicine and suggestions for improving telemedicine as part of a larger web-based survey conducted between September 2020 and February 2021. Overall, 163/383 (42%) PCPs responded to the survey. Of these, 114 (70%) completed at least one open-ended question, 85% were non-Hispanic white, 59% were female, 75% were community-based, and 75% were in practice >20 years. We identified three major themes in participants' comments including the need to optimize telemedicine; integrate telemedicine within primary care; and that PCPs had disparate attitudes towards telemedicine for older adults. To optimize telemedicine, PCPs recommended more effective digital platforms, increased utilization of home medical equipment (e.g., blood pressure cuffs), and better coordination with caregivers. For integration, PCPs recommended targeting telemedicine for certain types of visits (e.g., chronic disease management), enabling video access, and reducing administrative burdens on PCPs. As for PCP attitudes, some felt telemedicine enhanced the doctor-patient relationship, improved the patient experience, and improved show rates. Others felt that telemedicine visits were incomplete without a physical exam, were less rewarding, and could be frustrating. Overall, PCPs saw a role for telemedicine in older adults' care but felt that more support is needed for these visits than currently offered.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials show that certain axillary surgical practices can be safely deescalated in older adults with early-stage breast cancer. Hospital volume is often equated with surgical quality, but it is unclear whether this includes performance of low-value surgeries. We sought to describe how utilization of two low-value axillary surgeries has varied by time and hospital volume.

METHODS: Women aged ≥ 70 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2013 to 2016 were identified in the National Cancer Database. The outcomes of interest were sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in cT1N0 hormone receptor-positive cancer patients and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in cT1-2N0 patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery with ≤ 2 pathologically positive nodes. Time trends in procedure use and multivariable regression with restricted cubic splines were performed, adjusting for patient, disease, and hospital factors.

RESULTS: Overall, 83.4% of 44,779 women eligible for omission of SLNB underwent SLNB and 20.0% of 7216 patients eligible for omission of ALND underwent ALND. SLNB rates did not change significantly over time and remained significantly different by age group (70-74 years: 93.5%; 75-79 years: 89.7%, 80-84 years: 76.7%, ≥ 85 years: 48.9%; p < 0.05). ALND rates decreased over the study period across all age groups included (22.5 to 16.9%, p < 0.001). In restricted cubic splines models, lower hospital volume was associated with higher likelihood of undergoing SLNB and ALND.

CONCLUSIONS: ALND omission has been more widely adopted than SLNB omission in older adults, but lower hospital volume is associated with higher likelihood of both procedures. Practice-specific deimplementation strategies are needed, especially for lower-volume hospitals.

IMPORTANCE: Randomized clinical trial data have demonstrated that omission of surgical axillary evaluation does not affect overall survival in women 70 years and older with early-stage (clinical tumor category 1 [cT1] with node-negative [N0] disease) hormone receptor (HR)-positive and erb-B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2; formerly HER2)-negative breast cancer. Therefore, the Choosing Wisely initiative has recommended against routine use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in this population; however, retrospective data have revealed that more than 80% of patients eligible for SLNB omission still undergo the procedure. Multidisciplinary factors involved in these patterns remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE: To describe surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists' perspectives on omission of SLNB in women 70 years and older with cT1N0 HR-positive, ERBB2-negative breast cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This qualitative study used in-depth semi-structured interviews to explore the factors involved in oncologists' perspectives on providing care to older women who were eligible for SLNB omission. Purposive snowball sampling was used to recruit a sample of surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists representing a wide range of practice types and number of years in practice in the US and Canada. A total of 29 oncologists who finished training and were actively treating patients with breast cancer were interviewed. Interviews were conducted between March 1, 2020, and January 17, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Recordings from semi-structured interviews were transcribed and deidentified. Thematic analysis was used to identify emergent themes.

RESULTS: Among 29 physicians (16 women [55.2%] and 13 men [44.8%]) who participated in interviews, 16 were surgical oncologists, 6 were medical oncologists, and 7 were radiation oncologists. Data on race and ethnicity were not collected. Participants had a range of experience (median [range] years in practice, 12.0 [0.5-30.0]) and practice types (14 academic [48.3%], 7 community [24.1%], and 8 hybrid [27.6%]). Interviews revealed that the decision to omit SLNB was based on nuanced patient- and disease-level factors. Wide variation was observed in oncologists' perspectives on SLNB omission recommendations and supporting data. In addition, participants' statements suggested that the multidisciplinary nature of cancer care may increase oncologists' anxiety regarding SLNB omission.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, findings from interviews revealed that oncologists' perspectives may have implications for the largely unsuccessful deimplementation of SLNB in women 70 years and older with cT1N0 HR-positive, ERBB2-negative breast cancer. Interventions aimed at educating physicians, improving patient-physician communication, and facilitating preoperative multidisciplinary conversations may help to successfully decrease SLNB rates in this patient population.

BACKGROUND: Consideration of older adults' 10-year prognosis is necessary for high-quality cancer screening decisions. However, few primary care providers (PCPs) discuss long-term (10-year) prognosis with older adults.

METHODS: To learn PCPs' and older adults' perspectives on and to develop strategies for discussing long-term prognosis in the context of cancer screening decisions, we conducted qualitative individual interviews with adults 76-89 and focus groups or individual interviews with PCPs. We recruited participants from 4 community and 2 academic Boston-area practices and completed a thematic analysis of participant responses to open-ended questions on discussing long-term prognosis.

RESULTS: Forty-five PCPs (21 community-based) participated in 7 focus groups or 7 individual interviews. Thirty patients participated; 19 (63%) were female, 13 (43%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 13 (43%) were non-Hispanic white. Patients and PCPs had varying views on the utility of discussing long-term prognosis. "For some patients and for some families having this information is really helpful," (PCP participant). Some participants felt that prognostic information could be helpful for future planning, whereas others thought the information could be anxiety-provoking or of "no value" because death is unpredictable; still others were unsure about the value of these discussions. Patients often described thinking about their own prognosis. Yet, PCPs described feeling uncomfortable with these conversations. Patients recommended that discussion of long-term prognosis be anchored to clinical decisions, that information be provided on how this information may be useful, and that patient interest in prognosis be assessed before prognostic information is offered. PCPs recommended that scripts be brief. These recommendations were used to develop example scripts to guide these conversations.

CONCLUSIONS: We developed scripts and strategies for PCPs to introduce the topic of long-term prognosis with older adults and to provide numerical prognostic information to those interested. Future studies will need to test the effect of these strategies in practice.

PURPOSE: To support shared decision-making, patient-facing resources are needed to complement recently published guidelines on approaches for surveillance mammography in breast cancer survivors aged ≥ 75 or with < 10-year life expectancy. We created a patient guide to facilitate discussions about surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors.

METHODS: The "Are Mammograms Still Right for Me?" guide estimates future ipsilateral and contralateral breast (in-breast) cancer risks, general health, and the potential benefits/harms of mammography, with prompts for discussion. We conducted in-clinic acceptability testing of the guide by survivors and their clinicians at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center, including two community practices. Patients and clinicians received the guide ahead of a clinic visit and surveyed patients (pre-/post-visit) and clinicians (post-visit). Acceptability was defined as ≥ 75% of patients and clinicians reporting that the guide (a) should be recommended to others, (b) is clear, (c) is helpful, and (d) contains a suitable amount of information. We also elicited feedback on usability and mammography intentions.

RESULTS: We enrolled 45 patients and their 21 clinicians. Among those responding in post-visit surveys, 33/37 (89%) patients and 15/16 (94%) clinicians would recommend the guide to others; 33/37 (89%) patients and 15/16 (94%) clinicians felt everything/most things were clear. All other pre-specified acceptability criteria were met. Most patients reported strong intentions for mammography (100% pre-visit, 98% post-visit).

CONCLUSION: Oncology clinicians and older breast cancer survivors found a guide to inform mammography decision-making acceptable and clear. A multisite clinical trial is needed to assess the guide's impact mammography utilization.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT03865654, posted March 7, 2019.