Although guidelines recommend in-person counseling before BRCA1/BRCA2 gene testing, genetic counseling is increasingly offered by telephone. As genomic testing becomes more common, evaluating ...alternative delivery approaches becomes increasingly salient. We tested whether telephone delivery of BRCA1/2 genetic counseling was noninferior to in-person delivery.
Participants (women age 21 to 85 years who did not have newly diagnosed or metastatic cancer and lived within a study site catchment area) were randomly assigned to usual care (UC; n = 334) or telephone counseling (TC; n = 335). UC participants received in-person pre- and post-test counseling; TC participants completed all counseling by telephone. Primary outcomes were knowledge, satisfaction, decision conflict, distress, and quality of life; secondary outcomes were equivalence of BRCA1/2 test uptake and costs of delivering TC versus UC.
TC was noninferior to UC on all primary outcomes. At 2 weeks after pretest counseling, knowledge (d = 0.03; lower bound of 97.5% CI, -0.61), perceived stress (d = -0.12; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.21), and satisfaction (d = -0.16; lower bound of 97.5% CI, -0.70) had group differences and confidence intervals that did not cross their 1-point noninferiority limits. Decision conflict (d = 1.1; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 3.3) and cancer distress (d = -1.6; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.27) did not cross their 4-point noninferiority limit. Results were comparable at 3 months. TC was not equivalent to UC on BRCA1/2 test uptake (UC, 90.1%; TC, 84.2%). TC yielded cost savings of $114 per patient.
Genetic counseling can be effectively and efficiently delivered via telephone to increase access and decrease costs.
Molecular characterization of breast cancer allows subtype-directed interventions. Estrogen receptor (ER) is the longest-established molecular marker.
We used six established population models with ...ER-specific input parameters on age-specific incidence, disease natural history, mammography characteristics, and treatment effects to quantify the impact of screening and adjuvant therapy on age-adjusted US breast cancer mortality by ER status from 1975 to 2000. Outcomes included stage-shifts and absolute and relative reductions in mortality; sensitivity analyses evaluated the impact of varying screening frequency or accuracy.
In the year 2000, actual screening and adjuvant treatment reduced breast cancer mortality by a median of 17 per 100000 women (model range = 13-21) and 5 per 100000 women (model range = 3-6) for ER-positive and ER-negative cases, respectively, relative to no screening and no adjuvant treatment. For ER-positive cases, adjuvant treatment made a higher relative contribution to breast cancer mortality reduction than screening, whereas for ER-negative cases the relative contributions were similar for screening and adjuvant treatment. ER-negative cases were less likely to be screen-detected than ER-positive cases (35.1% vs 51.2%), but when screen-detected yielded a greater survival gain (five-year breast cancer survival = 35.6% vs 30.7%). Screening biennially would have captured a lower proportion of mortality reduction than annual screening for ER-negative vs ER-positive cases (model range = 80.2%-87.8% vs 85.7%-96.5%).
As advances in risk assessment facilitate identification of women with increased risk of ER-negative breast cancer, additional mortality reductions could be realized through more frequent targeted screening, provided these benefits are balanced against screening harms.
Background & Aims Organ scarcity has resulted in increased utilization of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors. Prior analysis of patient survival following DCD liver transplantation has been ...restricted to single institution cohorts and a limited national experience. We compared the current national experience with DCD and DBD livers to better understand survival after transplantation. Methods We compared 1113 DCD and 42,254 DBD recipients from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database between 1996 and 2007. Patient survival was analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier methodology and Cox regression. Results DCD recipients experienced worse patient survival compared to DBD recipients ( p < 0.001). One and 3 year survival was 82% and 71% for DCD compared to 86% and 77% for DBD recipients. Moreover, DCD recipients required re-transplantation more frequently (DCD 14.7% vs. DBD 6.8%, p < 0.001), and re-transplantation survival was markedly inferior to survival after primary transplant irrespective of graft type. Amplification of mortality risk was observed when DCD was combined with cold ischemia time >12 h (HR = 1.81), shared organs (HR = 1.69), recipient hepatocellular carcinoma (HR = 1.80), recipient age >60 years (HR = 1.92), and recipient renal insufficiency (HR = 1.82). Conclusions DCD recipients experience significantly worse patient survival after transplantation. This increased risk of mortality is comparable in magnitude to, but often exacerbated by other well-established risk predictors. Utilization decisions should carefully consider DCD graft risks in combination with these other factors.
Obesity affects multiple points along the breast cancer control continuum from prevention to screening and treatment, often in opposing directions. Obesity is also more prevalent in Blacks than ...Whites at most ages so it might contribute to observed racial disparities in mortality. We use two established simulation models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to evaluate the impact of obesity on race-specific breast cancer outcomes. The models use common national data to inform parameters for the multiple US birth cohorts of Black and White women, including age- and race-specific incidence, competing mortality, mammography characteristics, and treatment effectiveness. Parameters are modified by obesity (BMI of ≥30 kg/m
2
) in conjunction with its age-, race-, cohort- and time-period-specific prevalence. We measure age-standardized breast cancer incidence and mortality and cases and deaths attributable to obesity. Obesity is more prevalent among Blacks than Whites until age 74; after age 74 it is more prevalent in Whites. The models estimate that the fraction of the US breast cancer cases attributable to obesity is 3.9–4.5 % (range across models) for Whites and 2.5–3.6 % for Blacks. Given the protective effects of obesity on risk among women <50 years, elimination of obesity in this age group could increase cases for both the races, but decrease cases for women ≥50 years. Overall, obesity accounts for 4.4–9.2 % and 3.1–8.4 % of the total number of breast cancer deaths in Whites and Blacks, respectively, across models. However, variations in obesity prevalence have no net effect on race disparities in breast cancer mortality because of the opposing effects of age on risk and patterns of age- and race-specific prevalence. Despite its modest impact on breast cancer control and race disparities, obesity remains one of the few known modifiable risks for cancer and other diseases, underlining its relevance as a public health target.
Summary Objective Optimal US screening strategies remain controversial. We use six simulation models to evaluate screening outcomes under varying strategies. Methods The models incorporate common ...data on incidence, mammography characteristics, and treatment effects. We evaluate varying initiation and cessation ages applied annually or biennially and calculate mammograms, mortality reduction (vs. no screening), false-positives, unnecessary biopsies and over-diagnosis. Results The lifetime risk of breast cancer death starting at age 40 is 3% and is reduced by screening. Screening biennially maintains 81% (range 67% to 99%) of annual screening benefits with fewer false-positives. Biennial screening from 50-74 reduces the probability of breast cancer death from 3% to 2.3%. Screening annually from 40 to 84 only lowers mortality an additional one-half of one percent to 1.8% but requires substantially more mammograms and yields more false-positives and over-diagnosed cases. Conclusion Decisions about screening strategy depend on preferences for benefits vs. potential harms and resource considerations.
Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies.
To evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer.
Collaboration of 6 ...simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality.
United States.
Average-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity.
Eight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years.
Benefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens.
Biennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar benefits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years.
Other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered.
Biennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening.
National Institutes of Health.
BACKGROUNDIncreasing use of kidney grafts for simultaneous liver and kidney (SLK) transplants is causing concern about the most effective utilization of scarce kidney graft resources. This study ...evaluated the impact of implementing the proposed United Network for Organ Sharing SLK transplant policy on outcomes for end-stage liver disease (ESLD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients awaiting transplant.
METHODSA Markov model was constructed to simulate a hypothetical cohort of ESLD patients over a 30-year time horizon starting from age 50. The model applies the different criteria being considered in the United Network for Organ Sharing policy and tallies outcomes, including numbers of procedures and life years after liver transplant alone (LTA) or SLK transplant.
RESULTSWhen 1-week pretransplant dialysis duration is required, the numbers of SLK transplants and LTAs would be 648 and 9,065, respectively. If the pretransplant dialysis duration is extended to 12 weeks, there would be 240 SLK transplants and 9,426 LTAs. This change results in a decrease of 6,483 life years among SLK transplant recipients and an increase of 4,971 life years among LTA recipients. However, by increasing the dialysis duration to 12 weeks from 1 week, 408 kidney grafts would be released to the kidney waitlist because of the decline in SLK transplants; this yields 796 additional life years gained among ESRD patients.
CONCLUSIONImplementation of the proposed SLK transplant policy could restore access to kidney transplants for patients with ESRD albeit at the detriment of patients with ESLD and renal impairment.
US breast cancer mortality is declining, but thousands of women still die each year.
Two established simulation models examine 6 strategies that include increased screening and/or treatment or ...elimination of obesity versus continuation of current patterns. The models use common national data on incidence and obesity prevalence, competing causes of death, mammography characteristics, treatment effects, and survival/cure. Parameters are modified based on obesity (defined as BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2) ). Outcomes are presented for the year 2025 among women aged 25+ and include numbers of cases, deaths, mammograms and false-positives; age-adjusted incidence and mortality; breast cancer mortality reduction and deaths averted; and probability of dying of breast cancer.
If current patterns continue, the models project that there would be about 50,100-57,400 (range across models) annual breast cancer deaths in 2025. If 90% of women were screened annually from ages 40 to 54 and biennially from ages 55 to 99 (or death), then 5100-6100 fewer deaths would occur versus current patterns, but incidence, mammograms, and false-positives would increase. If all women received the indicated systemic treatment (with no screening change), then 11,400-14,500 more deaths would be averted versus current patterns, but increased toxicity could occur. If 100% received screening plus indicated therapy, there would be 18,100-20,400 fewer deaths. Eliminating obesity yields 3300-5700 fewer breast cancer deaths versus continuation of current obesity levels.
Maximal reductions in breast cancer deaths could be achieved through optimizing treatment use, followed by increasing screening use and obesity prevention.
PDF
