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

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
ONS: Safe Handling of Chemotherapy
April 29, 2013
ONS: Health IT as a Tool for Improved, Patient-Centric Care
April 26, 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
Primary Care Can't Thrive Without Nurse Practitioners
Courtney H. Lyder, ND,  May 17, 2013
With a projected shortfall of primary-care physicians, it's time for alternate solutions to patient care. Nurse practitioners are one logical remedy.
VWhat Physicians Can Learn from the Allscripts EHR Lawsuit
Marisa Torrieri,  May 16, 2013
Lawsuit prompts question: What should physicians do to ensure they end up with a great EHR instead of buyer’s remorse?
Eight Ways ICD-9 Will Still Matter to Medical Practices
Brenda Edwards, CPC,  May 15, 2013
What should your medical practice do with your ICD-9-CM book after October 1, 2014? Keep it.
Seven Ways Technology Can Speed Up Patient Collections
Cheyenne Brinson,  May 15, 2013
Failing to adopt widely available billing and collections technology can cost medical practices big. Here's how to do it right.
Four Reasons Private Medical Practice is Becoming Extinct
Carol Stryker,  May 15, 2013
It’s becoming increasingly difficult for private medical practices to thrive. Here’s what’s driving the trend toward consolidation.
 

 

 
MOST POPULAR
  • Most Popular
  • Most Emailed
  • Most Recent
  • Colorectal Lesions
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • Skin Lesions
  • Slide Show: Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: An Update on Treatment
  • Colorectal Lesions
  • ONS: Understanding Spirituality and How It Can Be Used to Help Patients
  • New AUA Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Screening
  • 50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
  • Genomics Studies Identify Testicular Cancer Risk Variants
  • Lower Back Pain in an Elderly Man With a History of Localized Prostate Cancer
  • FDA Approves Erlotinib (Tarceva) as First-Line Lung Cancer Therapy for Certain Patients
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
 
COMMENTS
  • Most Commented
  • Most Recent
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Financial Toxicity, Part II: How Can We Help With the Burden of Treatment-Related Costs?
  • Patient Quality of Life Endpoints in Oncology Trials, Part II
  • Who's Coding Whom?
  • “How Do I Say This Nicely? Your Oncologist Wasn't Following Guidelines”
  • Cancer Metabolism as a Therapeutic Target
  • Study: Cholesterol Drugs Reduced Risk of Prostate Cancer Death
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • ONS: Safe Handling of Chemotherapy
  • Financial Toxicity, Part II: How Can We Help With the Burden of Treatment-Related Costs?
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