In node-positive patients, pCR limited to either the breast or axilla predicts survival for select receptor subtypes. In patients achieving pCR in both the breast and axilla, survival is driven by response to NACT rather than presenting cN stage.

ContextEngaging patients in shared decision making involves patient knowledge of treatment options and physician elicitation of patient preferences.ObjectiveOur aim was to explore patient and physician perceptions of shared decision making in clinical encounters for cancer care.DesignPatients and physicians were asked open‐ended questions regarding their perceptions of shared decision making throughout their cancer care. Transcripts of interviews were coded and analysed for shared decision‐making themes.Setting and participantsAt an academic medical centre, 20 cancer patients with a range of cancer diagnoses, stages of cancer and time from diagnosis, and eight physicians involved in cancer care were individually interviewed.Discussion and conclusionsMost physicians reported providing patients with written information. However, most patients reported that written information was too detailed and felt that the physicians did not assess the level of information they wished to receive. Most patients wanted to play an active role in the treatment decision, but also wanted the physician's recommendation, such as what their physician would choose for him/herself or a family member in a similar situation. While physicians stated that they incorporated patient autonomy in decision making, most provided data without making treatment recommendations in the format preferred by most patients. We identified several communication gaps in cancer care. While patients want to be involved in the decision‐making process, they also want physicians to provide evidence‐based recommendations in the context of their individual preferences. However, physicians often are reluctant to provide a recommendation that will bias the patient.

Introduction The optimal methodology for assessing comorbidity to predict various surgical outcomes such as mortality, readmissions, complications and failure to rescue (FTR) using claims data has not been established. Objective Compare diagnosis- and prescription-based comorbidity scores for predicting surgical outcomes. Methods We used 100% Texas Medicare data (2006–2011) and included patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), pulmonary lobectomy, endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, colectomy, and hip replacement (N=39,616). The ability of diagnosis-based (Charlson comorbidity score, Elixhauser comorbidity score, Combined Comorbidity Score, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-Hierarchical Condition Categories [CMS-HCC]) vs. prescription-based chronic disease (CDS) score in predicting 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, 30-day readmission, complications, and FTR were compared using c-statistics (c) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). Results The overall 30-day mortality was 5.8%, 1-year mortality was 17.7%, 30-day readmission was 14.1%, complication rate was 39.7%, and FTR was 14.5%. CMS-HCC performed the best in predicting surgical outcomes (30-day mortality, c=0.791, IDI=4.59%; 1-year mortality, c=0.798, IDI=9.60%; 30-day readmission, c=0.630, IDI=1.27%; complications, c=0.766, IDI=9.37%; FTR, c=0.811, IDI=5.24%) followed by Elixhauser comorbidity index/disease categories (30-day mortality, c=0.750, IDI=2.37%; 1-year mortality, c=0.755, IDI=5.82%; 30-day readmission, c=0.629, IDI=1.43%; complications, c=0.730, IDI=3.99%; FTR, c=0.749, IDI=2.17%). Addition of prescription-based scores to diagnosis-based scores did not improve performance. Conclusions The CMS-HCC had superior performance in predicting surgical outcomes. Prescription-based scores, alone or in addition to diagnosis-based scores, were not better than any diagnosis-based scoring system.