Catalyzing Navigation for Breast Cancer Survivorship (CaNBCS) in Safety-Net Settings: A Mixed Methods Study

Preferences for breast cancer survivorship programs among multiracial and ethnic women

Purpose

With advancements in breast cancer treatment, survivorship has increased, leading to 3.8 million survivors in the US. These women have diverse supportive care needs, often addressed through Survivorship Programs (SPs), which provide clinical and non-clinical support services. SPs aim to deliver a holistic approach to comprehensive breast cancer treatment and recurrence prevention. Historically, disparities in SP utilization exist among minority and elderly women. This study aims to explore trends varying in SP participation by age and race within a single institution.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of breast cancer patients' survivorship needs at the James Comprehensive Cancer Center was conducted. Data were collected from JamesCare for Life programs (2019-2022), including demographics and referrals to clinical resources such as Adolescent/Young Adult care, Fertility preservation, Palliative care, Psychosocial support, and Survivorship. Participation in non-clinical areas, including Art, Education, Exercise, Mind-Body-Spirit, and Nutrition, was also evaluated. Descriptive statistics summarized patterns based on age, race, and ethnicity.

Results

From 2019-2022, 2,198 patients attended SPs, with Nutrition and Exercise being the most popular. Most attendees were 60-69 years old and White. Black attendees declined from 9.9% (2019) to 5.7% (2022). Clinical resources showed the highest referral rate to survivorship clinics. Black patients saw an increase in palliative care referrals, rising from 11% to 21%.

Conclusion

Data reveal differences in clinical referrals by age and race, with fewer referrals for older women and more for Black patients. Participation in non-clinical SPs was similar across groups. Future program development will focus on inclusivity and equitable access.

Group medical visits in cancer survivorship care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

More than 60% of cancer survivors report unmet physical, psychosocial, and informational needs. The care of cancer survivors includes surveillance, health maintenance monitoring, referral for long-term adverse effects of cancer treatment, and coordination of care. Group medical visits (GMV) include medical care, education, and peer support and can be used to facilitate the delivery of multidisciplinary survivorship care. We aimed to characterize the current state of related research describing the role of GMV in cancer survivorship care.

METHODS

For this scoping review, we searched for published literature using PubMed, Embase, and other resources. We included intervention studies of multidisciplinary care involving GMVs of adult patients with a history of cancer requiring the presence of medical personnel, physicians, advanced practitioners, or oncology nurses. We included studies that focused on broad cancer survivorship care, rather than those using specific modalities, such as yoga, or limited to specific aspects of cancer survivorship care, such as weight loss. We characterized the studies by cancer type, structure of GMVs, and reported outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 2311 studies (2122 from PubMed and 189 from Embase). We excluded 1524 duplicates and screened 787 studies for title and abstract review. Finally, 63 studies were retrieved for full-text review, and six were included in this scoping review. Of the included studies, four were non-randomized, and two were randomized. Breast cancer was the most common site (4); other studies included breast and other cancers (1) and hematopoietic transplant cancer survivors (1). There was heterogeneity in the structure and frequency of sessions and the survivorship domains addressed. The outcomes studied included quality of life, healthcare utilization, and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited high-quality research exists on the role of GMV in cancer survivorship. Though shown to be effective in chronic disease, the evidence for the effectiveness of this important and widely used approach in multidisciplinary survivorship care remains inconsistent and preliminary; the literature to date provides a starting point for larger-scale studies of GMV in cancer survivorship care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

While Group medical visits are a promising intervention to provide multidisciplinary care, larger studies are needed to support their benefit in the care of cancer survivors.

Acceptability and Feasibility of Survivorship Group Medical Visits for Breast Cancer Survivors in a Safety Net Hospital

Providing cost-effective, comprehensive survivorship care remains a significant challenge. Breast cancer survivors (BCS) who have limited income and are from marginalized racial and ethnic groups experience a worse quality of life and report higher distress. Thus, innovative care models are required to address the needs of BCS in low resource settings. Group medical visits (GMV), utilized in chronic disease management, are an excellent model for education and building skills. This single-arm intervention study was conducted at a public hospital in California. GMVs consisted of five 2-h weekly sessions focused on survivorship care planning, side effects of treatment and prevention, emotional health, sexual health, physical activity, and diet. The patient navigators recruited three consecutive GMV groups of six English-speaking BCS (N = 17). A multidisciplinary team delivered GMVs, and a patient navigator facilitated all the sessions. We used attendance rates, pre- and post-surveys, and debriefing interviews to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. We enrolled 18 BCS. One participant dropped out before the intervention started, 17 BCS consistently attended and actively participated in the GMV, and 76% (13) attended all planned sessions. Participants rated GMVs in the post-survey and shared their support for GMVs in debriefing interviews. The BCS who completed the post-survey reported that GMVs increased their awareness, confidence, and knowledge of survivorship care. GMVs were explicitly designed to address unmet needs for services necessary for survivorship care but not readily available in safety net settings. Our pilot data suggest that patient-navigator-facilitated GMVs are a feasible and acceptable model for integrating survivorship care in public hospitals.

Expanding the use of patient navigation: health coaching-based navigation as a novel approach to addressing deficits in breast cancer survivorship support

Patient navigation (PN) was created to address barriers to screening and workup for cancers. Since its inception it has resulted in improved mammography utilization, diagnostic resolution, and time to breast cancer treatment initiation in medically underserved populations. Because an abundance of evidence has established PN's positive impact, its use has expanded within the breast cancer care continuum, from screening, treatment, and ultimately survivorship. Increasing applications for navigation now also include support in the treatment and survivorship phase. After treatment, populations who struggle with the complex medical systems where oncology care is often delivered, also lack the support resources needed to successfully transition to survivorship. Support in the psychosocial realm is important for these patients as they continue surveillance and adherence to maintenance medications, such as hormonal therapy.

Patient navigation across the cancer care continuum: An overview of systematic reviews and emerging literature

Patient navigation is a strategy for overcoming barriers to reduce disparities and to improve access and outcomes. The aim of this umbrella review was to identify, critically appraise, synthesize, and present the best available evidence to inform policy and planning regarding patient navigation across the cancer continuum. Systematic reviews examining navigation in cancer care were identified in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Epistemonikos, and Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databases and in the gray literature from January 1, 2012, to April 19, 2022. Data were screened, extracted, and appraised independently by two authors. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Review and Research Syntheses was used for quality appraisal. Emerging literature up to May 25, 2022, was also explored to capture primary research published beyond the coverage of included systematic reviews. Of the 2062 unique records identified, 61 systematic reviews were included. Fifty-four reviews were quantitative or mixed-methods reviews, reporting on the effectiveness of cancer patient navigation, including 12 reviews reporting costs or cost-effectiveness outcomes. Seven qualitative reviews explored navigation needs, barriers, and experiences. In addition, 53 primary studies published since 2021 were included. Patient navigation is effective in improving participation in cancer screening and reducing the time from screening to diagnosis and from diagnosis to treatment initiation. Emerging evidence suggests that patient navigation improves quality of life and patient satisfaction with care in the survivorship phase and reduces hospital readmission in the active treatment and survivorship care phases. Palliative care data were extremely limited. Economic evaluations from the United States suggest the potential cost-effectiveness of navigation in screening programs.

Association of Race, Ethnicity, Insurance, and Language and Rate of Breast-Conserving Therapy Among Women With Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer at an Urban, Safety-Net Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Breast-conserving therapy (BCT), specifically breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and adjuvant radiation, provides an equivalent alternative to mastectomy for eligible patients. However, previous studies have shown that BCT is underused in the United States, particularly among marginalized demographic groups. In this study, we examine the association between race, ethnicity, insurance, and language and rate of BCS among patients treated at an academic, safety-net hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 520 women with nonmetastatic breast cancer diagnosed and treated at an academic, safety-net hospital (2009-2014). We assessed eligibility for BCT and then differences in the rate of BCT among eligible patients by race, ethnicity, insurance, and language. Reasons for not undergoing BCT were documented.

RESULTS

Median age was 60 y; 55.9% were non-White, 31.9% were non-English-speaking, 15.6% were Hispanic, and 47.4% were Medicaid/uninsured. Three hundred seventy one (86.3%) underwent BCS; within this group, 324 (87.3%) completed adjuvant radiation. Among patients undergoing mastectomy, 30 patients (36.7%) were eligible for BCT; within this group, reasons for mastectomy included patient preference (n = 28) and to avoid possible re-excision or adjuvant radiation in patients with significant comorbidities (n = 2). Eligibility for BCT varied by ethnicity (Hispanic [100%], Non-Hispanic [92%], P = 0.02), but not race, language, or insurance. Among eligible patients, rate of BCS varied by age (<50 y [84.9%], ≥50 y [92.9%], P = 0.01) and ethnicity (Hispanic [98.5%], Non-Hispanic [91.3%], P = 0.04), but not race, language, or insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

At our safety-net hospital, the rate of BCS among eligible patients did not vary by race, language, or insurance. Excluding two highly comorbid patients, all patients who underwent mastectomy despite being eligible for BCT were counseled regarding BCS and expressed a preference for mastectomy. Further research is needed to understand the value of BCT in the treatment of breast cancer, to ensure informed decision-making, address potential misconceptions regarding BCT, and advance equitable care for all patients.