CancerNetwork Members: Login | Register
Become a fan on  Facebook  Add us on  Google Plus Follow us on  Twitter Join us on LinkedIn Sign up for our Newsletters Subscribe to our RSS Feed

 

CancerNetwork SearchMedica Medline Drugs

Powered by SearchMedica

 
PUBLICATIONS
NEWS
PODCASTS
TOPICS
BLOGS
NURSES
PATIENTS
JOBS
CONFERENCES
CME
SUPPLEMENTS
 

Home » NURSES

RESEARCH REPORT 

Patient Navigation Speeds Breast Cancer Diagnosis

By Anne Landry | November 1, 2012
Executive Editor, Oncology Nurse Edition

A large study of the impact of patient navigation (PN) on breast cancer management has found that women who receive PN are diagnosed faster than non-navigated women, and the difference is most striking among biopsied women. The findings are important given that shortened time to diagnosis can potentially translate into earlier treatment and improved patient outcomes.

Heather J. Hoffman, PhD, from the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, Washington, DC, is lead author of the study, which was published in the October issue of the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

Patient navigators are trained nurses, social workers, or laypeople who assist patients in moving through the sometimes confusing maze of the healthcare system, addressing barriers that can cause them to miss medical appointments and delay treatment. PN services include helping patients to complete insurance paperwork, find transportation to medical appointments, identify local resources (for care of very young or elderly family members, etc), optimize their communication with healthcare professionals, and feel supported emotionally.   

The first PN program was launched in 1990 at Harlem Hospital Center in New York City, by Harold J. Freeman, MD, to address a disparity in access to timely diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer among poor women. That pilot program showed improved 5-year survival rates for breast cancer among the navigated women, and subsequent studies of PN by investigators in a variety of settings indicate that it can benefit cancer patients. But Dr. Hoffman and coauthors emphasize in their article that, while PN has been implemented in cancer centers across the US, “empirical evidence [of] its effectiveness is lacking.”

The current investigation by Hoffman et al is part of a multicenter program initiated by the National Cancer Institute in 2005, to assess the impact of PN on a variety of cancers. The George Washington Cancer Institute is a participant in the project, and established a District of Columbia research initiative to determine the ability of PN to reduce breast cancer diagnostic time (ie, number of days from abnormal screening to definitive diagnosis). Washington, DC, has one of the highest death rates from breast cancer in the United States.

The study included 2,601 women 18 to 98 years old who were examined for breast cancer due to what the authors described as “a suspicious breast abnormality,” from 2006 to 2010 at nine hospitals or clinics in Washington, DC. All of the women had a breast lump. Of this group, 1,047 received PN and 1,554 did not participate in PN but received advice from a healthcare professional to follow up on the lump. (Non-navigated women were selected randomly and retrospectively.) Dr. Hoffman and coauthors wrote that “analyses included only women who reached complete diagnostic resolution.” ANOVA models were used to assess relationships between diagnostic time and a number of independent variables (including navigation group, race/ethnicity, type of health insurance, age, and biopsy as the definitive test).

The diagnostic time was significantly shorter for navigated vs non-navigated women, at an average of 25.1 days vs 42.1 days, respectively. Patient subgroup analyses showed that among biopsied women, average diagnostic time was cut in half with PN, at an average of 26.6 days, compared with an average diagnostic time of 57.5 days in non-navigated women (P < .0001). Among women who were not biopsied, the authors wrote, average diagnostic time was shorter for navigated vs non-navigated women, but the difference was not statistically significant, at 27.2 days vs 34.9 days (P = .15), respectively.

The authors commented on several study limitations, including a patient sample selected from a single metropolitan area and the fact that all patients had reached diagnostic resolution, so it was not possible to assess differences in diagnostic resolution rates between navigated vs non-navigated women. However, they concluded that their study “clearly shows navigation is effective in decreasing time to diagnostic resolution, particularly among women who have a biopsy and have a diagnostic resolution of cancer,” and emphasized that “patient navigation should be implemented as a means to reduce diagnostic times.”

Importantly, Dr. Hoffman and coauthors also noted that, “analyses of the national PRNP data are currently being conducted, including further analysis of navigation’s cost-effectiveness. These results will determine whether patient navigation will be viewed positively by national health policy makers and will become a usual part of the cancer care process with insurance reimbursement for patient navigation.”

 

Join the Conversation

Want to join the conversation? If you're a healthcare professional, we'd like to hear your comments. Just sign in or register today to become part of our growing, online community.






 
RELATED CONTENT

ASCO: Yoga Reduces Insomnia in Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Hormone Therapy
June 18, 2013
ASCO: DNR Completion at End of Life Influenced by Perception of Caregiver Support
June 3, 2013
ONS: Implementing a Comprehensive Infection-Prevention Plan
May 6, 2013
ONS: Infection Risk, Prevention, and Management
April 29, 2013
ONS: Nurse-Physician PACT Yields Sharp Decrease in Codes
April 29, 2013
 
TOPIC INDEX

Cancer Types

 
  • Breast
  • Breast (HER2+)
  • Breast (Triple-Negative)
  • CML
  • Colorectal
  • Gastrointestinal
  • GIST
  • Genitourinary
  • Gynecologic
  • Head & Neck
  • Hematology
  • Kidney (Renal Cell)
  • Leukemia
  • Lung
  • Lymphoma
  • Melanoma
  • Multiple Myeloma
  • Ovarian
  • Prostate
  • Sarcoma

Supportive Care

More Topics

  • Bone Metastases
  • End-of-Life Care
  • Palliative Care
  • Ethics in Oncology
  • Practice Management
  • Practice & Policy


All Topics 


 
   SEARCH MEDICA RX
   Browse drugs by name:
A B C D E F G H I J
K L M N O P Q R S T
U V W X Y Z All      
   Search for drugs:
Search

 

 
FROM PHYSICIANS PRACTICE
Key Differences between FQHCs and RHCs
Chastity Werner, RHIT, June 13, 2013
FQHCs and RHCs take up a unique niche among physician practices. And that affects compensation and billing.
Improving Care Coordination in Your Practice
Susanne Madden,  June 12, 2013
Practices are feverishly working to control the rising costs of healthcare - effective care coordination can help.
Refunding Overpayments: Two Options for Medical Practices
Ericka L. Adler,  June 12, 2013
Medicare and Medicaid providers must return overpayments once identified. Here are two different refund approaches for practices to consider when necessary.
Four Easy Ways to Boost Patient Time of Service Collections
Aubrey Westgate,  June 12, 2013
Simple ways your medical practice staff can increase the likelihood patients will pay when presenting for appointments.
iPad Alternatives for Mobile Physicians
Marisa Torrieri, June 11, 2013
As more physicians are seeing the merits of media tablets, the market is expanding, too.
 

 

 
MOST POPULAR
  • Most Popular
  • Most Emailed
  • Most Recent
  • Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma
  • Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Who Is Benefiting?
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • ASCO: Long-Term Tamoxifen Benefit for Breast Cancer Confirmed
  • A 48-Year-Old Woman With Irregular Vaginal Bleeding
  • Cannabis Linked to Decreased Bladder Cancer Risk
  • Breast Cancer Screening, Risk, and Options for High-Risk Women
  • Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: An Update on Treatment
  • Rising PSA Level in a 46-Year-Old Man
  • ASCO: Long-Term Tamoxifen Benefit for Breast Cancer Confirmed
  • ASCO: Dabrafenib Shows Activity in BRAF-Mutated NSCLC Patients
  • Preventing Burnout in Oncology
  • ASCO: Yoga Reduces Insomnia in Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Hormone Therapy
  • Physical Activity Across the Cancer Continuum
  • Exercise After Cancer Diagnosis: Time to Get Moving
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
 
COMMENTS
  • Most Commented
  • Most Recent
  • 50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
  • Preventing Exposure to Hazardous Drugs
  • ASCO: Vinegar Screening Significantly Reduces Cervical Cancer Mortality
  • ASCO: Sulforaphane in Prostate Cancer Found Worthy of Further Investigation
  • Study: Recurrent Heartburn Ups Risk for Throat Cancer
  • Radiation-Induced Enteritis: Incidence, Mechanisms, and Management
  • HER2-Directed Therapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer
  • Accelerated Partial-Breast Irradiation: The Current State of Our Knowledge
  • It’s Time for Clinicians to Reconsider Their Proscription Against the Use of Soyfoods by Breast Cancer Patients
  • 50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter



CancerNetwork on Facebook
 
SearchMedica Search Result

Find peer-reviewed literature and websites for practicing medical professionals

CME on Oncology Nursing
Evidence on Oncology Nursing
Guidelines on Oncology Nursing
Patient Education on Oncology Nursing
Clinical Trials on Oncology Nursing
Practical Articles on Oncology Nursing
Research and Reviews on Oncology Nursing
All "Oncology Nursing" results

CancerNetwork | ConsultantLive | Diagnostic Imaging | Musculoskeletal Network | OBGYN.net | PediatricsConsultantLive |
Physicians Practice | Psychiatric Times | SearchMedica | Medical Resources

© 1996 - 2013 UBM Medica LLC, a UBM company
Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Advertising Information - Editorial Policy Statement - UBM Medica Network Privacy Policy