Abstract P4-10-15: Impact of delay in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment according to health insurance status in southwest Brazil and Houston, Texas

Background: Access to medical care vary across the world and is related to different health systems with an impact in recurrence.Objective: To evaluate disparities in breast cancer(BC) diagnosis and treatment between public and private services in southwest Brazil and at two public safety net hospitals in Houston, Texas.Methods: Women diagnosed with BC stages I-III between 2009 to 2011, and treated at the four hospitals in Brazil and two health centers in US were included. All statistical analyses were performed in R studio software, and p<0.05 was considered significant.Results: 1245 women were included: 967 from public health system (PHS) (20.3% from Houston, Texas) and 274 from private system(PS). Recurrence rate was higher in PHS (14.6% vs. 2.6%, p<0.001)

Table 1. Clinical and demographic characteristics of the patientsCharacteristicsPublic (%), n=967Private (%), n=274pDiscovery of BC   By patient530 (54.8)92 (33.5) Routine exam87 (9)109 (39.8) Screening mammography270 (27.9)23 (8.4) Other80 (8.3)50 (18.3)<0.001Initial treatment   Surgery687 (71)241 (88) Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy224 (23.2)27 (9.8) Neo-adjuvant hormone therapy23 (2.3)27 (9.8) Not available33 (3.4)3 (1.1)<0.001Clinical Stage   I293 (30.3)113 (41.2) II342 (35.4)52 (19) III271 (28)15 (5.5) Unknown61 (6.3)94 (34.3)<0.001Subtype   HR+/HER2 -561 (58)192 (70.1) HR-/HER2+108 (11.1)29 (10.6) HR-/HER2+76 (7.9)14 (5.1) Triple negative149 (15.4)28 (10.2) Unknown73 (7.6)11 (4)0.012Symptomatic at Diagnosis   Yes591 (61.1)100 (36.5) No306 (31.6)97 (35.4) Unknown70 (7.2)77 (28.1)<0.001Recurencen=772n=146 No719 (74.4)193 (70.4) Yes142 (14.6)7 (2.6) Unknown106 (11)74 (27)<0.001

. Considering the interval in weeks: symptoms to diagnosis, diagnosis to first treatment (either surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy), diagnosis to first systemic treatment, diagnosis to surgical treatment and diagnosis to radiotherapy were longer in public patients (24.1 vs. 8.7; 11.1 vs. 3.5; 18.6 vs. 9.8; 16.9 vs. 5.6; 51.4 vs. 26.1; p<0.001).

Table 2. Delay disparities between public and private health system PublicPrivatepSymptoms to diagnosis   Number of patients575146 Time (weeks)24.1 (0.4-104.9)8.7 (0.0-43.7)<0.001Diagnosis to first treatment   Number of patients663180 Time (weeks)11.1 (2.0-31.5)3.5 (0.0-11.0)<0.001Diagnosis to first systemic treatment   Number of patients526106 Time (weeks)18.6 (2.6-44.7)9.8 (1.9-29.3)<0.001Diagnosis to surgical treatment   Number of patients657178 Time (weeks)16.9 (3.4-45.6)5.6 (0.0-32.9)<0.001Diagnosis to radiotherapy   Number of patients465127 Time (weeks)51.4 (18.7-88.4)26.1 (5.6-66.4)<0.001

In multivariate analysis, PHS (HR 1.72; 95% CI 1.34-1.88; p adj=0.003), presence of symptoms (HR 2.29; 95% CI 1.39-3.78; p adj=0.001), clinical stage III (HR 1.62; 95% CI 1.35-1.93; p adj<0.001), and triple negativity and HER2neu positivity (1.18; 95% CI 1.03-1.35; p adj=0.021) were all associated with a higher recurrence rate.Conclusions: There were significant disparities between PHS and PS. Women in the PHS presented higher rates of recurrence, advanced clinical stages at diagnosis, symptoms and more aggressive subtypes by IHC. additionally, the interval between symptoms to diagnosis and diagnosis to treatments was longer in PHS.

Citation Format: NematiShafaee M, Natal RA, Ramalho S, Dória MT, Conz L, Cabello V, Pavanello M, Mano MS, Linck RDM, Batista LS, Pedro EP, Bines J, de Paula BH, Zucca-Matthes G, Bondy ML, Ellis MJ, Podany E, Debord L, Makawita S, Stewart K, Cabello C. Impact of delay in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment according to health insurance status in southwest Brazil and Houston, Texas [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-10-15.

The clinical utility of the Safe Times Questionnaire

PURPOSE

To evaluate a valid, reliable self-report health behavior screening instrument, the Safe Times Questionnaire (STQ), in a clinical setting.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-two patients at a primary care health center completed the STQ and were randomized into two groups; physicians in the "STQ group" (79 patients) used the STQ while physicians in the "interview group" (73 patients) were blinded to the STQ. Physicians rated each patient on their need for intervention in nine topic areas. Patients then had a psychological interview and were rated on the same topic areas.

RESULTS

The total time of the patient visit was significantly longer in the interview group than in the STQ group. Physicians in the STQ group had significantly higher accuracy in identification of subjects at risk for depression and family conflict.

CONCLUSIONS

The Safe Times Questionnaire is a potentially useful instrument to efficiently screen adolescents.