Gross, Cary P.

6531 Background: Annual mammography is recommended to screen residual breast tissue for new cancers and recurrent disease after treatment for early stage breast cancer. This study aimed to assess mammography rates over time in breast cancer survivors. Methods: We used administrative claims data from a large U.S. commercial insurance database, OptumLabs, to retrospectively identify privately- and Medicare Advantage-insured women with operable breast cancer who had residual breast tissue after definitive breast surgery between 2006 and 2015. We required coverage for at least 13 months following surgery. For each subsequent 13-month time period, we only included women without a loss of coverage, bilateral mastectomy, metastatic breast cancer diagnosis, or non-breast cancer diagnosis. We calculated the proportion of patients who had a mammogram during each 13-month period following breast surgery. We used multivariable logistic regression to test for factors associated with mammography in the first 13 months. Results: The cohort included 26,011 women followed for a median of 2.9 years (IQR 1.9-4.6) after surgery; 63.1% were less than 65 years of age, and 74.4% were white. In their first year of follow-up, 86% underwent mammography, but by year 7, this decreased to 73%. Fewer than 1% underwent MRI instead of mammography. In multivariable analysis, mammograms were less likely during the first year after surgery among women aged < 50 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6 to 0.8), African Americans (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.7 to 0.8), patients who underwent mastectomy (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.7), and patients residing in the Western part of the country (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7 to 0.9). Those with 1-2 comorbidities were more likely (OR, 1.1; 95% CI 1.1-1.2) than those with none to have a mammogram during that period. Mammography use did not differ significantly by year of diagnosis (2006-2015). Conclusions: Even in an insured cohort, a substantial proportion of breast cancer survivors do not undergo annual surveillance mammography. Mammography use falls as the time from the early stage breast cancer diagnosis increases. Understanding factors associated with lack of mammographic screening may help improve survivorship care.

167 Background: Physicians have a variety of resources available about the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Yet, it is largely unknown what resources and evidence radiation oncologists and urologists commonly use to inform patients and possibly alter clinical practice. In this national survey study, we assessed the types of resources prostate cancer specialists’ use and the level of evidence needed to change treatment recommendations in localized prostate cancer. Methods: From a random sample, 1,422 physicians were sent a mail survey assessing what type of information was used to guide prostate cancer treatment. The survey also queried what level of evidence could alter recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify for differences in physician characteristics for each outcome. Results: Survey response rates were similar for radiation oncologists and urologists (44% vs. 46%; p=0.46). Specialty-specific journals represented the most commonly used resource to inform the clinical practice for radiation oncologists (65%) and urologists (70%). Relative to radiation oncologists, urologists were less likely to utilize medical journals (25% vs. 38.7%, OR: 0.50; p=0.01), cancer journals (21.7% vs. 50.8%, OR: 0.50; p<0.001), but more likely to rely on clinical guidelines (46.3% vs. 37.7%,OR: 1.6; p=0.006). Radiation oncologists and urologists both viewed RCT’s as the most likely source of evidence needed to change treatment recommendations (85% vs. 77%). Conclusions: Both specialties most commonly rely on their specialty-specific journals to inform their clinical practice and view RCT’s as the level of evidence needed to change treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer. Radiation oncologists embraced greater diversity in literature, while urologists were more likely to use clinical guidelines. Utilizing this information may overcome barriers to the dissemination and adoption of new treatment paradigms for localized prostate cancer.

89 Background: Lymph node counts have been proposed as a quality metric for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND). It is unclear whether surgical approach and hospital characteristics independently determine the number of lymph nodes removed at PLND. Therefore, we assessed the variation in lymph node counts from a population-based cohort of patients undergoing surgery for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. Methods: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified all surgically treated patients diagnosed with pre-treatment intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer from 2010 to 2011. The primary outcome was the number of lymph nodes retrieved at the time of RP. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess for differences in the adjusted number of lymph nodes retrieved after accounting for patient and hospital characteristics and surgical approach. Results: Overall, 35,876 patients were diagnosed with intermediate (61.2%) and high-risk (38.8%) prostate cancer and underwent RP and PLND. On multivariable analysis, open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and high volume and academic hospitals were independently associated with greater lymph node counts compared to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and medium/low and community hospitals, respectively (all p<0.001). After adjusting for patient and hospital variables, higher adjusted lymph nodes counts were observed for ORP compared to RARP (7.1 vs. 6.1; p<0.001). Adjusted counts were also higher for high volume compared to medium/low volume hospitals (7.8 vs. 5.9; p<0.001), and academic compared to community hospitals (7.3 vs. 5.6; p<0.001). Conclusions: Among patients with aggressive prostate cancer treated with RP and PLND, lymph node counts varied by surgical approach and hospital characteristics.

Purpose:To quantify the burden and complexity associated with treatment of Medicare beneficiaries with stage I non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods:Using the SEER-Medicare database, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries who were diagnosed with stage I NSCLC from 2007 to 2011 and who were treated with surgery, stereotactic body radiation therapy, or external beam radiation therapy. Main outcome measures were the number of days a patient was in contact with the health care system (encounter days), the number of physicians involved in a patient’s care, and the number of medications prescribed. Logistic regression modeled the association between patient characteristics, treatment type, and high treatment burden (defined as ≥ 66 encounter days).Results:On average, 7,955 patients spent 1 in 3 days interacting with the health care system during the initial 60 days of treatment. Patients experienced a median of 44 encounter days with high variability (interquartile range [IQR], 29 to 66) in the 12 months after treatment initiation. The median number of physicians involved was 20 (IQR, 14 to 28), and the median number of medications prescribed was 12 (IQR, 8 to 17). Patients who were treated with surgery had high treatment burden (predicted probability, 21.6%; 95% CI, 20.2 to 23.1) compared with patients who were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (predicted probability, 16.1%; 95% CI, 12.9 to 19.3), whereas patients who were treated with external beam radiation therapy had the highest burden (predicted probability, 46.8%; 95% CI, 43.3 to 50.2).Conclusion:The treatment burden imposed on patients with early-stage NSCLC was substantial in terms of the number of encounters, physicians involved, and medications prescribed. Because treatment burden varied markedly across patients and treatment types, future work should identify opportunities to understand and ameliorate this burden.

Objective To evaluate the relationship between partial nephrectomy ( PN ) and hospital availability of robot‐assisted surgery from a population‐based cohort in the USA . Methods After merging the Nationwide Inpatient Sample ( NIS ) and the A merican Hospital Association survey from 2006 to 2008, we identified 21 179 patients who underwent either PN or radical nephrectomy ( RN ) for renal cell carcinoma ( RCC ). The primary outcome assessed was the type of nephrectomy performed. Multivariable logistic regression identified the patient and hospital characteristics associated with receipt of PN . Results We identified 4832 (22.8%) and 16 347 (77.2%) patients who were treated for RCC with PN and RN , respectively. On multivariable analysis, patients were more likely to receive PN at academic centres (odds ratio [ OR ] 2.77; P < 0.001), urban centres ( OR 3.66; P < 0.001) and A merican College of Surgeons ( ACOS )‐designated cancer centres ( OR : 1.10; P < 0.05) compared with non‐academic, rural and non‐ ACOS ‐designated cancer centre hospitals, respectively. Robot‐assisted surgery availability at a hospital was also associated with a higher adjusted odds of PN compared with centres without that availability ( OR 1.28; P < 0.001). Conclusions Although academic and urban locations are establi s hed factors that affect the receipt of PN for RCC , the availability of robot‐assisted surgery at a hospital was also independently associated with higher use of PN . Our results are informative in identifying other key hospital characteristics which may facilitate greater adoption of PN .

Objective To assess recommendations for prostate‐specific antigen ( PSA ) screening in a national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists following the recent USA P reventive S ervices T ask F orce ( USPSTF ) grade D recommendation. Methods A random sample of 1366 radiation oncologists and urologists were identified from the A merican M edical A ssociation P hysician M asterfile. From N ovember 2011 to A pril 2012, a mail survey was sent to query PSA screening recommendations for men at average risk of prostate cancer for the following age groups: 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70–74, 75–79 and ≥80 years. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test for differences in PSA ‐based screening recommendations by physician characteristics. Results Response rates were similar at 52% for radiation oncologists and urologists ( P = 0.92). Overall, 51.5% of respondents recommended PSA ‐based screening for men aged 40–49 years, while nearly all endorsed it for those aged 50–74 years (96.1% for 50–59, 97.3% for 60–69, and 87.7% for 70–74 years). However, screening recommendations decreased to 43.9% and 12.8% for men aged 75–79 and ≥80 years, respectively. On multivariable analysis, urologists were more likely to recommend screening for men aged 40–49 (odds ratio [ OR ] 3.09; P < 0.001) and 50–59 years ( OR 3.81; P = 0.01), but less likely for men aged 75–79 ( OR 0.66; P = 0.01) and ≥80 years ( OR 0.45; P = 0.002) compared with radiation oncologists. Conclusion While radiation oncologists and urologists recommended PSA screening for men aged 50–69 years, there was less agreement about screening for younger (40–49 years old) and older (≥70 years) men at average risk for prostate cancer.